thewashingtonstandard--2020-01-21--No Experience Frank Biden Linked To Projects That Received $54 Billion From Obama Administration

No Experience Frank Biden Linked To Projects That Received $ 54 Billion From Obama Administration Straight from The Biden Family Playbook… No experience ?
No worries .
That doesn ’ t stop a Biden .
Frank Biden , the youngest brother of former Vice President Joe Biden , saw his business interests benefit from millions of dollars in taxpayer loans to Caribbean nations during the Obama years .
The extensive overlap in Frank Biden ’ s dealings and Obama-Biden foreign policy in Central America is exposed in Peter Schweizer ’ s new book—Profiles in Corruption : Abuse of Power by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden first set his sights on the region in 2009 , as the Obama administration began to repair the U.S. relationship with Costa Rica .
Tensions between the two countries flared under President George W. Bush , most notably on how to deal with drug trafficking .
When President Barack Obama entered the White House , he set out to mend fences in the region in hopes of inaugurating a new era of global cooperation .
Leading the charge on that front was Joe Biden , who had long standing ties to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Foreign Relations Committee .
Shortly after the new administration took office , Frank Biden began scouting real estate opportunities in Costa Rica .
A lawyer by training , Frank was undeterred by his lack of background in international development and decades old legal troubles at home .
As Schweizer notes , despite the professional and personal handicaps , business opportunities were plentiful for Frank , especially after his brother paid a visit to the country .
“ Just months after Vice President [ Joe ] Biden ’ s visit , in August , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ partnership “ to reform Real Estate in Latin America ” between Frank Biden , a developer named Craig Williamson , and the Guanacaste Country Club , a newly planned resort , ” Schweizer writes in his book , a copy of which was exclusively obtained by Breitbart News .
The venture—officially sold to investors and the public as an opportunity to protect Costa Rica ’ s “ breathtaking beauty ” —amounted to little more than decimating the country ’ s natural wilderness to build a luxurious resort for wealthy foreigners .
“ In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was to build in the jungles of Costa Rica thousands of homes , a world-class golf course , casinos , and an anti-aging center , ” Schweizer notes .
“ The Costa Rican government was eager to cooperate with the vice president ’ s brother.
” The project , which is still in the development phase , has made Frank Biden a well connected figure in Costa Rica ’ s political landscape .
A letter the country ’ s president , Luis Guillermo Solis Rivera , penned praising the project even made its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have been a botched attempt to solicit further investors .
In total , between 2009 and the end of the Obama administration , Frank Biden ’ s Caribbean projects benefited from more than $ 54 million in U.S. taxpayer loans .
Read it all at Breitbart… That was a joke , of course .
The Biden ’ s seem to have a nose for crooked business dealings and abusing taxpayers .
• Attorneys : Hunter Biden Helped Con Native Americans Out of $ 60 Million , Also Involved in $ 150 Million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bidens Took From Ukraine Pale in Comparison to The $ 130 Million Rip Off They Pulled on AMERICANS • Bombshell : Hunter Biden NEVER Worked in Ukraine Despite Five Years on Burisma ’ s Board , While Being Paid $ 50,000 a Month • China Gave Biden ’ s Son $ 1.5 Billion For Startup in Industry He Had No Previous Experience In and That Included the Nephew of a Mobster… Get the cash however you can .

No Experience Frank Biden Linked To Projects That Received $54 Billion From Obama Administration
Straight from The Biden Family Playbook… No experience? No worries. That doesn’t stop a Biden.
Breitbart has the latest…
Frank Biden, the youngest brother of former Vice President Joe Biden, saw his business interests benefit from millions of dollars in taxpayer loans to Caribbean nations during the Obama years.
The extensive overlap in Frank Biden’s dealings and Obama-Biden foreign policy in Central America is exposed in Peter Schweizer’s new book—Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America’s Progressive Elite .
Frank Biden first set his sights on the region in 2009, as the Obama administration began to repair the U.S. relationship with Costa Rica. Tensions between the two countries flared under President George W. Bush, most notably on how to deal with drug trafficking.
When President Barack Obama entered the White House, he set out to mend fences in the region in hopes of inaugurating a new era of global cooperation. Leading the charge on that front was Joe Biden, who had long standing ties to the region from his tenure leading the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Shortly after the new administration took office, Frank Biden began scouting real estate opportunities in Costa Rica. A lawyer by training, Frank was undeterred by his lack of background in international development and decades old legal troubles at home.
As Schweizer notes, despite the professional and personal handicaps, business opportunities were plentiful for Frank, especially after his brother paid a visit to the country.
“Just months after Vice President [Joe] Biden’s visit, in August, Costa Rica News announced a new multilateral partnership “to reform Real Estate in Latin America” between Frank Biden, a developer named Craig Williamson, and the Guanacaste Country Club, a newly planned resort,” Schweizer writes in his book, a copy of which was exclusively obtained by Breitbart News.
The venture—officially sold to investors and the public as an opportunity to protect Costa Rica’s “breathtaking beauty”—amounted to little more than decimating the country’s natural wilderness to build a luxurious resort for wealthy foreigners.
“In real terms, Frank’s dream was to build in the jungles of Costa Rica thousands of homes, a world-class golf course, casinos, and an anti-aging center,” Schweizer notes. “The Costa Rican government was eager to cooperate with the vice president’s brother.”
The project, which is still in the development phase, has made Frank Biden a well connected figure in Costa Rica’s political landscape. A letter the country’s president, Luis Guillermo Solis Rivera, penned praising the project even made its way on the internet in what appears to have been a botched attempt to solicit further investors.
…
In total, between 2009 and the end of the Obama administration, Frank Biden’s Caribbean projects benefited from more than $54 million in U.S. taxpayer loans.
Read it all at Breitbart…
#####
Simply shocking!!!
That was a joke, of course.
The Biden’s seem to have a nose for crooked business dealings and abusing taxpayers.
Get the cash however you can.
It’s the Biden way!
Article posted with permission from Dean Garrison


thewashingtonstandard--2020-01-21--Deplatformed: How Big Tech Companies & Corporate America Subvert the Second Amendment

Anyone familiar with the Bible is familiar with the Mark of the Beast : Without this mark , no man may buy or sell .
Regardless of one ’ s religious faith or lack thereof , there is an illustrative case in this biblical story : When one can not buy or sell , one is metaphorically up the creek .
Short of producing everything one needs oneself , buying and selling are necessary parts of virtually every modern person ’ s life .
In our modern world , we can begin to see a sort of Mark of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aren ’ t banned , they are increasingly difficult to come by , not due to government fiat , but due to the machinations of corporations hostile to the American values of freedom .
One can be in favor of the free market while recognizing a simple truth : There is no way that America ’ s Founding Fathers would have sat on their hands while five corporations dominated American discourse and commerce .
It is hard to imagine , for example , the Founders suffering a single private bank processing most of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ refusing to do business with gun merchants .
Alternately , one can scarcely imagine that the Founders would have sat still for three companies – all of them hostile toward American values and the Constitution – dominating political discourse and deplatforming anyone who opposed them .
This is the situation in which we find ourselves as a nation today : Guns are not illegal , but private companies will make it increasingly difficult to buy , sell or own them – up to and including pulling your bank account .
You have all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but prepare to be deplatformed or have your voice buried by large tech corporations with their thumb on the scale of American discourse .
As the American economy has become more corporatist – such that the market is controlled by the interrelation between monolithic mega-corporations , Wall Street and the state – and less capitalistic and dynamic , the American press and economy are now being dominated by forces hostile toward the American public and American values .
No less an authority than James Madison warned Americans that the First Amendment alone was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In Federalist No .
47 and Federalist No .
51 , he argued that the separation of powers was necessary to protect free speech by preventing one branch of government from accumulating too much power at the expense of the others and , indeed , the rest of society at large .
This is an important point to remember when considering the First Amendment implications of Big Tech and its war on free speech and gun freedom .
The Founding Fathers did not live in a world where a few large corporations had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and power impoverished ) government had , either at the federal or the state level .
It ’ s doubtful that they could have conceived of such a thing .
But they did carefully consider the problem of centralized power as it pertained to the rights enshrined in the Constitution .
At the end of the day , the Constitution is just a piece of paper with no ability to enforce itself .
What ’ s more , if the Founders did not address the notion that the private sector could meaningfully and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was simply because they could not conceive of such a thing , not because they were writing the private sector a blank check .
Who needs to pass gun control laws anymore ?
The left can simply appeal to payment systems , banks and processors as a method of non-state gun control .
Case in point : Andrew Ross Sorkin ’ s December 2018 article decrying credit card companies for “ financing ” mass shootings .
As with many arguments from the left , the premise is flawed , but very simple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that killed more than 10 people in the 2010s involved a credit card purchase ( though , as always , it is worth asking what counts as a mass shooting and what is being left out of the tally – more on this here ) , credit card companies have a responsibility to step up and stop allowing their customers to make purchases for firearms using credit cards .
This effectively amounts to a request for banks to begin surveilling the legal economic activity of their customers .
It ’ s not far-fetched @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been facilitated by credit card purchases .
The Orlando nightclub shooter Omar Mateen , as well as Aurora theater shooter James Holmes , used credit cards to purchase the weapons and ammunition they ultimately used to commit mass murder .
But mass shootings , particularly those not part of urban gang warfare , are incredibly rare , despite the overwhelming amount of media attention paid to them .
What ’ s more , while statistics for such would be difficult to formulate , the vast , overwhelming majority of firearms and ammunition purchases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law-abiding citizens for entirely legal purposes .
For most Americans , firearms purchases can be a spike in their normal spending for the month .
And what of it ?
The call for credit card companies and other payment processors to monitor the economic activity of law-abiding citizens would cause an outrage if the government were to do it , so why is the American public supposed to sit still for an invasion of their privacy simply because a private company is performing the surveillance ?
Anyone who has ever made a firearms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up quickly .
The oft-demonized AR-15 can easily top $ 4,000 when the price of a scope , rifle case and a decent cache of ammunition are added to the bill .
Even a humble handgun purchase can quickly hit over $ 1,000 when a good holster and ammo are tacked on .
This means that millions of Americans purchasing firearms for no reason other than recreation or self defense are going to have their personal finances investigated by a corporate Big Brother , with all the lack of transparency one can expect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is “ guilty until proven innocent.
” The attempt by the left to get banks to snoop on legal purchases amounts to nothing more than the stigmatization of the exercise of one of the rights enshrined in our Constitution .
And while some would argue that the Constitution only limits the government ’ s actions , it must constantly be asked why we should allow for such an intrusion into our private lives simply because a private company is doing it .
“ If you don ’ t like it , just make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gun Control and the Mark of the Beast After the Parkland Shooting , the American media entered into another round of its “ something must be done ” ( read as : your guns must be taken away ) propaganda .
One result of this was some of the biggest banks in the United States dropping or scaling back their relations with gun manufacturers .
JPMorgan Chase ’ s Chief Financial Officer Marianne Lake crowed to reporters that the company ’ s relationship with firearms manufacturers “ have come down significantly and are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its intention to stop extending credit to business clients manufacturing “ military-style weapons.
” One must , of course , ask if this applies to companies engaged in supplying the United States military itself or the increasingly militarized police found in our nation ’ s cities .
Bank of America stopped short at stigmatizing the retailers who sell such weapons .
Citigroup , however , took the step of requiring any of its business partners to restrict firearms sales to those over the age of 21 , as well as those who have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also barred their partners from selling so-called “ high capacity magazines ” and bump stocks , which were later banned .
Amalgamated Bank went perhaps the furthest of all , refusing to invest any of its assets in companies involved in the manufacture of “ firearms , weaponry and ammunition.
” This leads into another aspect of corporate gun control : Not only is the left demanding that big banks snoop around in your legal purchases , the banks are also starting to make it more difficult for gun manufacturers to obtain the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deny to any other law-abiding company simply on the basis of what they sell .
There is , of course , consumer push-back .
For example , the somewhat successful boycott of Dick ’ s Sporting Goods after it ceased selling so-called “ assault weapons.
” But Dick ’ s is still in business and still not selling scary black rifles .
And while you can do your business with a competitor , it still doesn ’ t change the fact that the message has been sent : Companies can remove legal items @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with virtually no meaningful consequences .
There is also the growing specter of private companies banning customers from carrying in their stores .
Huffington Post compiled a list of seven companies who do not want legal firearms being carried in their businesses .
Outback Steakhouse was at the center of a story where a law enforcement officer was asked to leave because he was carrying , something that he is required to do when he is in uniform .
Salesforce , a popular software platform for online retailers , will no longer do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forms of semi-automatic weapons .
Microsoft has put language in its Code of Conduct that prevents users from using them “ in any way that promotes or facilitates the sale of ammunition and firearms.
” This is another sweeping example of corporate attempts to infringe upon America ’ s Second Amendment rights .
There is nothing illegal or immoral about owning , selling or promoting firearms .
Indeed , the right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in the Second Amendment .
This is a form of corporate coercion that shows the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the free market to ensure one ’ s rights are respected .
It ’ s hard to imagine that the Founders would simply have thrown up their hands and accepted that corporations were making it impossible for them to exercise their rights simply because there was nothing “ unconstitutional ” about it .
Beyond this , however , there are two rather frightening developments .
The first is several liberal state governments skinning the cat from the other end .
Rather than making it difficult or impossible to purchase firearms , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
While many well-meaning people in the Second Amendment movement consider the NRA to be weak tea ( and not without good reason ) , the fact remains that the NRA is the most public and prominent opponent of gun grabbers .
The fall of the NRA at the hands of gun grabbers ( as opposed to more principled pro-Second Amendment groups ) would spell disaster for gun rights in America , setting a precedent that would be used against other organizations protecting gun freedom .
The State of New York , led @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insurance programs offered by the NRA to its members .
He has also attempted to threaten every insurer and bank in the state to not do business with the NRA .
It is important to remember that the banking industry is largely centered in New York , meaning that the governor of that state has an outsized influence on how banking is done across the nation .
Another chilling example of corporate coercion goes beyond the Second Amendment and into the First : Popular veteran rights and gun blog “ No Lawyers , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Blogger , a blogging platform owned by Google , on the grounds that it “ promoted or sold regulated items.
” The website was later restored with the explanation that it was removed by an automated system .
PayPal , the biggest payment processing system on the Internet , can not be used for any exercise of your Second Amendment rights , nor to pay for dissident thinkers ’ services such as Stefan Molyneux and Alex Jones or even Wikileaks .
One is not obligated to support or defend the beliefs of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see that a dangerous precedent is being set .
However , these are neither the first nor the only times that Big Tech has attempted to censor conservatives , libertarians , pro-gun freedom forces and others with opinions to the right of John McCain .
Some have argued , not without solid evidence , that Big Tech is involved in a full-throttle war against conservatives and free speech on the Internet .
We ’ re inclined to agree .
There is a war against free speech and Big Tech is the one waging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas leading the charge , not allowing Facebook and other Big Tech companies to weasel out of answering hard questions that the public has about censorship on the Internet .
It ’ s less true to say that Facebook , Google and other Big Tech platforms “ lean left ” than it is to say that they push a globalist , neoliberal , corporatist line that eschews any sort of values or ethics other than growth .
Edward Abbey has said that the philosophy of growth for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ philosophy of the cancer cell .
The Big Tech war against free speech is nothing new and there have been canaries in the coal mine for years .
Everyone remembers MILO being shown the door on Twitter for a dubious accusation that he led a mob against actress Leslie Jones .
But the real test case was not him , it was hacker and troll Andrew Auernheimer , commonly known by his handle “ weev.
” weev ( always lowercase ) is difficult to defend because he has unpopular viewpoints .
To wit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on his chest .
However , proponents of the First Amendment and free speech shouldn ’ t be concerned with what weev thinks or says , because what he thinks or says is irrelevant to whether or not he has the right to think it and say it .
But Twitter and other Big Tech platforms were smart in choosing such an ideological pariah to test the waters .
There is a direct line to be drawn from the deplatforming of weev on Twitter to the unpersoning of Alex Jones to the shadow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all across the web .
Mainstream , establishment conservatives have done themselves a disservice by attempting to defend themselves against deplatforming on the basis that “ I ’ m not a Nazi ” for two reasons .
First , it doesn ’ t matter if you ’ re a Nazi or not .
All legal speech should be allowed on social media , or else Big Tech is an editorial content curator , which makes it liable for anything that is posted on there .
This means that your ex-spouse lying about how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ game on Facebook can be construed as defamation , for which Facebook is liable because they didn ’ t remove the status update .
Facebook ’ s pretense that it is a content-neutral platform , a claim that is patently false , is what protects it from being sued every time someone lies about someone else on the platform or from being hauled into court every time that ISIS uses WhatsApp to coordinate an attack .
But the other reason is that for many on the left , there is not a tangible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jones , Michelle Malkin , Ann Coulter , Wayne LaPierre , Ted Cruz , Ben Sharpiro or the President of the United States .
Anyone to the right of John McCain is seen as either a literal fascist , a fascist apologist , or a gatekeeper who opens the door to fascist ideology .
Big Tech will not stop at deplatforming actual , self-avowed fascists , nor will it stop at conspiracy theorists , edgy conservatives , or even “ respectable ” centrist types like Dave Rubin .
To throw the far right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ satisfying Big Tech ’ s blood lust is a strategic mistake – it legitimizes the entire process of deplatforming , which will eventually swallow up anyone who believes in the Constitution and the rule of law .
Big Tech and the left either see no difference between you and a Nazi , or pretend not to because it ’ s politically expedient .
This is doubly important because of how many Big Tech companies are actively spying on their users .
The EFF maintains an annual detailed list of who is telling the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who informs users that the government is sniffing around about them , and who even bothers to disclose their data retention policies .
What this means is that if and when the federal government begins compiling a list of “ potential right-wing terrorists ” or “ right-wing extremists ” ( to the extent that they do not already maintain such lists ) , they will have a ready-made mine of data from Big Tech , who have shown themselves to be more than willing to cooperate with the federal government , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the feds .
Take , for example , the Philadelphia synagogue shooter .
Self-proclaimed “ free speech ” platform Gab was more than willing to hand over all the data they had about his account to the feds without even being asked .
Sure , no one wants to be in the position of defending a synagogue shooter .
But the point is that these platforms , even the ones who allegedly have your back , have shown themselves willing to roll on their users provided enough of a fever is whipped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s worth showing just how many mainstream , run-of-the-mill conservatives have been censored by Big Tech – it ’ s not just the MILOs and the weevs of the world who are being shown the door .
Indeed , we believe that these types are censored not out of any actual desire to suppress so-called “ hate speech , ” but instead to act as a test case for setting the precedent for suppressing legal speech .
Here are some examples that are worth considering : • Pastor Rich Penkoski : This pastor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Warriors for Christ.
” He was suspended mid-sermon for criticizing the rainbow flag .
He was previously banned for calling an atheist a liar and sharing verses from the Quran that called for the killing of non-Muslims .
• Over Two Dozen Catholic Pages : In July 2017 , Facebook banned several Catholic pages with millions of followers .
Most were based in Brazil .
Facebook removed the pages without explanation .
• Rep. Marsha Blackburn : Not even elected officials are immune from social media deplatforming .
Facebook removed an ad for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that attacked pro-abortion group Planned Parenthood .
• Alveda King : Facebook removed paid ads from Martin Luther King ’ s niece Alveda King for her documentary on Roe v. Wade .
• Ryan T. Anderson : Twitter refused to run several ads from Christian radio stations for an upcoming interview with Ryan T. Anderson .
Anderson is a critic of transgenderism and radical gender ideology .
• Robert Spencer : The head of JihadWatch.org , a website covering radical Islam , was removed from social media and even had his credit cards @ @ @ @ @ @ @ buries him in results for searches about “ jihad.
” • Brian Fisher : The President of the Human Coalition notes that this anti-abortion group has had prayer apps removed from the Apple store and has had its content repeatedly removed from Twitter despite taking pains to ensure that all of it is within Twitter ’ s narrow , anti-First Amendment guidelines .
• PragerU : PragerU is very much the picture of mainstream , run-of-the-mill , completely non-edgy conservatism on the Internet .
Despite this , they repeatedly have their content removed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of PragerU , is suing YouTube .
He notes that Delta Air Lines couldn ’ t say “ conservatives can ’ t fly with us , ” but YouTube , ostensibly a neutral platform , is effectively allowed to say that conservatives can ’ t use their services .
• David Kyle Foster : David Kyle Foster is a leader in the “ ex-gay ” movement , a group of Christians who claim that their religion has “ cured ” their homosexuality .
His Vimeo channel , featuring over 700 personal testimonials , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hateful.
” Even the Declaration of Independence has been removed from Facebook as “ hate speech ” due to their “ filtering program.
” Yes , really .
Nor is it only conservative groups who have been targeted .
Moderates and leftists who don ’ t toe the party line – like Andy Ngo , Tim Pool and Michael Tracey – have likewise been targeted by deplatforming and shadowbanning .
Deplatforming is not limited to social media .
Chase Bank has been accused of depriving conservative voices of banking services .
This returns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notion : What good is free speech if banks – banks – can keep you from receiving payments .
And how far off are we from seeing conservative voices deprived of their ability to pay ?
Imagine showing up at the grocery store and finding out that your money ’ s no good because you have a concealed carry permit .
Sound far-fetched ?
So would have having your bank account closed for being a conservative activist .
Of course , it ’ s important to ask for a list of left-wing groups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But somehow , left-wing groups – even those who violate the terms of service , such as several accounts dedicated to doxing right-wing accounts and inciting violence against conservatives , libertarians and others on the right – are allowed to operate with impunity .
Indeed , it is worth asking who decides what is against the rules at Facebook , Twitter , etc .
There is an answer to this question : For Twitter , it ’ s a “ Trust and Safety Council ” comprised of 12 left-wing groups and one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heard of : The Network of Enlightened Women .
The 12 left-wing groups include the Anti-Defamation League and GLAAD , both of whom have labeled mainstream conservative groups as “ hate groups.
” For Facebook , they rely upon a “ fact-checking ” process that leverages Snopes and PolitiFact as impartial “ fact checkers.
” YouTube uses the ADL and the Southern Poverty Law Center , both left-wing groups known for their attacks on mainstream conservative organizations .
Facebook , for its part , deleted 57 of over 200 “ hate groups ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What Is To Be Done ?
The question after reading this becomes : What should be done , if anything ?
It ’ s difficult to imagine a situation where government interference in Big Tech is going to have the desired outcome .
The result might be more and greater censorship than existed before .
However , it is worth noting that Sen. Ted Cruz , not exactly known as a proponent of Big Government , has been at the forefront of attempts to hold Big Tech accountable for its censorship of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s quite possible that new laws and regulations are not required .
What is instead required is a more rigorous enforcement of the laws and regulations that are already on the books .
To wit : Are Facebook , Twitter and YouTube content-neutral platforms or are they editorial platforms ?
If the former , then it would seem that their case for being able to censor legal speech on their platforms is legally flimsy .
If the latter , then they are responsible for everything posted on their platforms by every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intentionally manipulating its results to yield a politicized result , that is likely in violation of existing telecommunications statutes .
The American shift from capitalism to corporatism has had dire unintended consequences : Power has coalesced in both Washington , D.C. and many tech and media companies , such that the latter can undermine American rights and manipulate American political opinion with impunity , while the former abdicates its oath to defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies , both foreign and domestic .

Anyone familiar with the Bible is familiar with the Mark of the Beast: Without this mark, no man may buy or sell.
Regardless of one’s religious faith or lack thereof, there is an illustrative case in this biblical story: When one cannot buy or sell, one is metaphorically up the creek. Short of producing everything one needs oneself, buying and selling are necessary parts of virtually every modern person’s life.
In our modern world, we can begin to see a sort of Mark of the Beast: While ideas and even objects aren’t banned, they are increasingly difficult to come by, not due to government fiat, but due to the machinations of corporations hostile to the American values of freedom.
One can be in favor of the free market while recognizing a simple truth: There is no way that America’s Founding Fathers would have sat on their hands while five corporations dominated American discourse and commerce. It is hard to imagine, for example, the Founders suffering a single private bank processing most of the payments in the United States and refusing to do business with gun merchants. Alternately, one can scarcely imagine that the Founders would have sat still for three companies – all of them hostile toward American values and the Constitution – dominating political discourse and deplatforming anyone who opposed them.
This is the situation in which we find ourselves as a nation today: Guns are not illegal, but private companies will make it increasingly difficult to buy, sell or own them – up to and including pulling your bank account. You have all the freedom of speech you like, but prepare to be deplatformed or have your voice buried by large tech corporations with their thumb on the scale of American discourse.
As the American economy has become more corporatist – such that the market is controlled by the interrelation between monolithic mega-corporations, Wall Street and the state – and less capitalistic and dynamic, the American press and economy are now being dominated by forces hostile toward the American public and American values.
No less an authority than James Madison warned Americans that the First Amendment alone was not enough to protect free speech. In Federalist No. 47 and Federalist No. 51, he argued that the separation of powers was necessary to protect free speech by preventing one branch of government from accumulating too much power at the expense of the others and, indeed, the rest of society at large.
This is an important point to remember when considering the First Amendment implications of Big Tech and its war on free speech and gun freedom. The Founding Fathers did not live in a world where a few large corporations had more power than the (incredibly limited and power impoverished) government had, either at the federal or the state level. It’s doubtful that they could have conceived of such a thing.
But they did carefully consider the problem of centralized power as it pertained to the rights enshrined in the Constitution. At the end of the day, the Constitution is just a piece of paper with no ability to enforce itself. What’s more, if the Founders did not address the notion that the private sector could meaningfully and substantially circumvent rights for all Americans, it was simply because they could not conceive of such a thing, not because they were writing the private sector a blank check.
Corporate Big Brother: Banks as Gun Control
Who needs to pass gun control laws anymore? The left can simply appeal to payment systems, banks and processors as a method of non-state gun control.
Case in point: Andrew Ross Sorkin’s December 2018 article decrying credit card companies for “financing” mass shootings. As with many arguments from the left, the premise is flawed, but very simple: Because eight out of 13 shootings that killed more than 10 people in the 2010s involved a credit card purchase (though, as always, it is worth asking what counts as a mass shooting and what is being left out of the tally – more on this here), credit card companies have a responsibility to step up and stop allowing their customers to make purchases for firearms using credit cards.
This effectively amounts to a request for banks to begin surveilling the legal economic activity of their customers.
It’s not far-fetched to consider that some mass shootings have been facilitated by credit card purchases. The Orlando nightclub shooter Omar Mateen, as well as Aurora theater shooter James Holmes, used credit cards to purchase the weapons and ammunition they ultimately used to commit mass murder.
But mass shootings, particularly those not part of urban gang warfare, are incredibly rare, despite the overwhelming amount of media attention paid to them. What’s more, while statistics for such would be difficult to formulate, the vast, overwhelming majority of firearms and ammunition purchases made with credit cards are made by law-abiding citizens for entirely legal purposes. For most Americans, firearms purchases can be a spike in their normal spending for the month. And what of it? The call for credit card companies and other payment processors to monitor the economic activity of law-abiding citizens would cause an outrage if the government were to do it, so why is the American public supposed to sit still for an invasion of their privacy simply because a private company is performing the surveillance?
Anyone who has ever made a firearms purchase knows that the bill can add up quickly. The oft-demonized AR-15 can easily top $4,000 when the price of a scope, rifle case and a decent cache of ammunition are added to the bill. Even a humble handgun purchase can quickly hit over $1,000 when a good holster and ammo are tacked on. This means that millions of Americans purchasing firearms for no reason other than recreation or self defense are going to have their personal finances investigated by a corporate Big Brother, with all the lack of transparency one can expect from a massive bank whose starting premise is “guilty until proven innocent.”
The attempt by the left to get banks to snoop on legal purchases amounts to nothing more than the stigmatization of the exercise of one of the rights enshrined in our Constitution. And while some would argue that the Constitution only limits the government’s actions, it must constantly be asked why we should allow for such an intrusion into our private lives simply because a private company is doing it.
“If you don’t like it, just make your own credit card company.”
Hardly.
Corporate Gun Control and the Mark of the Beast
After the Parkland Shooting, the American media entered into another round of its “something must be done” (read as: your guns must be taken away) propaganda. One result of this was some of the biggest banks in the United States dropping or scaling back their relations with gun manufacturers.
JPMorgan Chase’s Chief Financial Officer Marianne Lake crowed to reporters that the company’s relationship with firearms manufacturers “have come down significantly and are pretty limited.” Bank of America announced its intention to stop extending credit to business clients manufacturing “military-style weapons.” One must, of course, ask if this applies to companies engaged in supplying the United States military itself or the increasingly militarized police found in our nation’s cities.
Bank of America stopped short at stigmatizing the retailers who sell such weapons. Citigroup, however, took the step of requiring any of its business partners to restrict firearms sales to those over the age of 21, as well as those who have not passed a background check. They also barred their partners from selling so-called “high capacity magazines” and bump stocks, which were later banned.
Amalgamated Bank went perhaps the furthest of all, refusing to invest any of its assets in companies involved in the manufacture of “firearms, weaponry and ammunition.”
This leads into another aspect of corporate gun control: Not only is the left demanding that big banks snoop around in your legal purchases, the banks are also starting to make it more difficult for gun manufacturers to obtain the financial services banks would never dare to deny to any other law-abiding company simply on the basis of what they sell.
There is, of course, consumer push-back. For example, the somewhat successful boycott of Dick’s Sporting Goods after it ceased selling so-called “assault weapons.” But Dick’s is still in business and still not selling scary black rifles. And while you can do your business with a competitor, it still doesn’t change the fact that the message has been sent: Companies can remove legal items from their shelves in a politicized fashion with virtually no meaningful consequences.
There is also the growing specter of private companies banning customers from carrying in their stores. Huffington Post compiled a list of seven companies who do not want legal firearms being carried in their businesses. Outback Steakhouse was at the center of a story where a law enforcement officer was asked to leave because he was carrying, something that he is required to do when he is in uniform. Salesforce, a popular software platform for online retailers, will no longer do business with companies who sell virtually all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
Microsoft has put language in its Code of Conduct that prevents users from using them “in any way that promotes or facilitates the sale of ammunition and firearms.” This is another sweeping example of corporate attempts to infringe upon America’s Second Amendment rights. There is nothing illegal or immoral about owning, selling or promoting firearms. Indeed, the right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in the Second Amendment.
This is a form of corporate coercion that shows the limitations of simply relying upon the Constitution and the free market to ensure one’s rights are respected. It’s hard to imagine that the Founders would simply have thrown up their hands and accepted that corporations were making it impossible for them to exercise their rights simply because there was nothing “unconstitutional” about it.
Beyond this, however, there are two rather frightening developments.
The first is several liberal state governments skinning the cat from the other end. Rather than making it difficult or impossible to purchase firearms, they are going after the National Rifle Association. While many well-meaning people in the Second Amendment movement consider the NRA to be weak tea (and not without good reason), the fact remains that the NRA is the most public and prominent opponent of gun grabbers. The fall of the NRA at the hands of gun grabbers (as opposed to more principled pro-Second Amendment groups) would spell disaster for gun rights in America, setting a precedent that would be used against other organizations protecting gun freedom.
The State of New York, led by Andrew Cuomo, has started attacking insurance programs offered by the NRA to its members. He has also attempted to threaten every insurer and bank in the state to not do business with the NRA. It is important to remember that the banking industry is largely centered in New York, meaning that the governor of that state has an outsized influence on how banking is done across the nation.
Another chilling example of corporate coercion goes beyond the Second Amendment and into the First: Popular veteran rights and gun blog “No Lawyers, Only Guns and Money” was removed from Blogger, a blogging platform owned by Google, on the grounds that it “promoted or sold regulated items.” The website was later restored with the explanation that it was removed by an automated system.
PayPal, the biggest payment processing system on the Internet, cannot be used for any exercise of your Second Amendment rights, nor to pay for dissident thinkers’ services such as Stefan Molyneux and Alex Jones or even Wikileaks. One is not obligated to support or defend the beliefs of any of these people or groups to see that a dangerous precedent is being set.
However, these are neither the first nor the only times that Big Tech has attempted to censor conservatives, libertarians, pro-gun freedom forces and others with opinions to the right of John McCain. Some have argued, not without solid evidence, that Big Tech is involved in a full-throttle war against conservatives and free speech on the Internet. We’re inclined to agree.
Big Tech’s War on Free Speech
There is a war against free speech and Big Tech is the one waging it. Congress has looked into this, with Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas leading the charge, not allowing Facebook and other Big Tech companies to weasel out of answering hard questions that the public has about censorship on the Internet.
It’s less true to say that Facebook, Google and other Big Tech platforms “lean left” than it is to say that they push a globalist, neoliberal, corporatist line that eschews any sort of values or ethics other than growth. Edward Abbey has said that the philosophy of growth for the sake of growth is also the philosophy of the cancer cell.
The Big Tech war against free speech is nothing new and there have been canaries in the coal mine for years. Everyone remembers MILO being shown the door on Twitter for a dubious accusation that he led a mob against actress Leslie Jones. But the real test case was not him, it was hacker and troll Andrew Auernheimer, commonly known by his handle “weev.”
weev (always lowercase) is difficult to defend because he has unpopular viewpoints. To wit, he has a large swastika tattooed on his chest. However, proponents of the First Amendment and free speech shouldn’t be concerned with what weev thinks or says, because what he thinks or says is irrelevant to whether or not he has the right to think it and say it. But Twitter and other Big Tech platforms were smart in choosing such an ideological pariah to test the waters.
There is a direct line to be drawn from the deplatforming of weev on Twitter to the unpersoning of Alex Jones to the shadow banning and outright deplatforming of conservative voices all across the web. Mainstream, establishment conservatives have done themselves a disservice by attempting to defend themselves against deplatforming on the basis that “I’m not a Nazi” for two reasons.
First, it doesn’t matter if you’re a Nazi or not. All legal speech should be allowed on social media, or else Big Tech is an editorial content curator, which makes it liable for anything that is posted on there. This means that your ex-spouse lying about how you missed Little Timmy’s baseball game on Facebook can be construed as defamation, for which Facebook is liable because they didn’t remove the status update. Facebook’s pretense that it is a content-neutral platform, a claim that is patently false, is what protects it from being sued every time someone lies about someone else on the platform or from being hauled into court every time that ISIS uses WhatsApp to coordinate an attack.
But the other reason is that for many on the left, there is not a tangible difference between weev, MILO, Alex Jones, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Wayne LaPierre, Ted Cruz, Ben Sharpiro or the President of the United States. Anyone to the right of John McCain is seen as either a literal fascist, a fascist apologist, or a gatekeeper who opens the door to fascist ideology.
Big Tech will not stop at deplatforming actual, self-avowed fascists, nor will it stop at conspiracy theorists, edgy conservatives, or even “respectable” centrist types like Dave Rubin. To throw the far right under the bus in the hopes of satisfying Big Tech’s blood lust is a strategic mistake – it legitimizes the entire process of deplatforming, which will eventually swallow up anyone who believes in the Constitution and the rule of law. Big Tech and the left either see no difference between you and a Nazi, or pretend not to because it’s politically expedient.
This is doubly important because of how many Big Tech companies are actively spying on their users. The EFF maintains an annual detailed list of who is telling the government about its users and their data, who informs users that the government is sniffing around about them, and who even bothers to disclose their data retention policies.
What this means is that if and when the federal government begins compiling a list of “potential right-wing terrorists” or “right-wing extremists” (to the extent that they do not already maintain such lists), they will have a ready-made mine of data from Big Tech, who have shown themselves to be more than willing to cooperate with the federal government, with minimal or no arm-twisting on the part of the feds. Take, for example, the Philadelphia synagogue shooter. Self-proclaimed “free speech” platform Gab was more than willing to hand over all the data they had about his account to the feds without even being asked.
Sure, no one wants to be in the position of defending a synagogue shooter. But the point is that these platforms, even the ones who allegedly have your back, have shown themselves willing to roll on their users provided enough of a fever is whipped up in the press.
Conservatives Censored on Social Media
It’s worth showing just how many mainstream, run-of-the-mill conservatives have been censored by Big Tech – it’s not just the MILOs and the weevs of the world who are being shown the door. Indeed, we believe that these types are censored not out of any actual desire to suppress so-called “hate speech,” but instead to act as a test case for setting the precedent for suppressing legal speech. Here are some examples that are worth considering:
Pastor Rich Penkoski : This pastor runs a popular Facebook page, “Warriors for Christ.” He was suspended mid-sermon for criticizing the rainbow flag. He was previously banned for calling an atheist a liar and sharing verses from the Quran that called for the killing of non-Muslims.
This pastor runs a popular Facebook page, “Warriors for Christ.” He was suspended mid-sermon for criticizing the rainbow flag. He was previously banned for calling an atheist a liar and sharing verses from the Quran that called for the killing of non-Muslims. Over Two Dozen Catholic Pages : In July 2017, Facebook banned several Catholic pages with millions of followers. Most were based in Brazil. Facebook removed the pages without explanation.
In July 2017, Facebook banned several Catholic pages with millions of followers. Most were based in Brazil. Facebook removed the pages without explanation. Rep. Marsha Blackburn : Not even elected officials are immune from social media deplatforming. Facebook removed an ad for Tennessee Rep. Marsha Blackburn’s campaign that attacked pro-abortion group Planned Parenthood.
Not even elected officials are immune from social media deplatforming. Facebook removed an ad for Tennessee Rep. Marsha Blackburn’s campaign that attacked pro-abortion group Planned Parenthood. Alveda King : Facebook removed paid ads from Martin Luther King’s niece Alveda King for her documentary on Roe v. Wade.
Facebook removed paid ads from Martin Luther King’s niece Alveda King for her documentary on Roe v. Wade. Ryan T. Anderson : Twitter refused to run several ads from Christian radio stations for an upcoming interview with Ryan T. Anderson. Anderson is a critic of transgenderism and radical gender ideology.
Twitter refused to run several ads from Christian radio stations for an upcoming interview with Ryan T. Anderson. Anderson is a critic of transgenderism and radical gender ideology. Robert Spencer : The head of JihadWatch.org, a website covering radical Islam, was removed from social media and even had his credit cards canceled. He also claims that Google buries him in results for searches about “jihad.”
The head of JihadWatch.org, a website covering radical Islam, was removed from social media and even had his credit cards canceled. He also claims that Google buries him in results for searches about “jihad.” Brian Fisher : The President of the Human Coalition notes that this anti-abortion group has had prayer apps removed from the Apple store and has had its content repeatedly removed from Twitter despite taking pains to ensure that all of it is within Twitter’s narrow, anti-First Amendment guidelines.
The President of the Human Coalition notes that this anti-abortion group has had prayer apps removed from the Apple store and has had its content repeatedly removed from Twitter despite taking pains to ensure that all of it is within Twitter’s narrow, anti-First Amendment guidelines. PragerU : PragerU is very much the picture of mainstream, run-of-the-mill, completely non-edgy conservatism on the Internet. Despite this, they repeatedly have their content removed from YouTube. Dennis Prager, head of PragerU, is suing YouTube. He notes that Delta Air Lines couldn’t say “conservatives can’t fly with us,” but YouTube, ostensibly a neutral platform, is effectively allowed to say that conservatives can’t use their services.
PragerU is very much the picture of mainstream, run-of-the-mill, completely non-edgy conservatism on the Internet. Despite this, they repeatedly have their content removed from YouTube. Dennis Prager, head of PragerU, is suing YouTube. He notes that Delta Air Lines couldn’t say “conservatives can’t fly with us,” but YouTube, ostensibly a neutral platform, is effectively allowed to say that conservatives can’t use their services. David Kyle Foster: David Kyle Foster is a leader in the “ex-gay” movement, a group of Christians who claim that their religion has “cured” their homosexuality. His Vimeo channel, featuring over 700 personal testimonials, was pulled from Vimeo for being “hateful.”
Even the Declaration of Independence has been removed from Facebook as “hate speech” due to their “filtering program.” Yes, really. Nor is it only conservative groups who have been targeted. Moderates and leftists who don’t toe the party line – like Andy Ngo, Tim Pool and Michael Tracey – have likewise been targeted by deplatforming and shadowbanning.
Deplatforming is not limited to social media. Chase Bank has been accused of depriving conservative voices of banking services. This returns us to the Mark of the Beast notion: What good is free speech if banks – banks – can keep you from receiving payments. And how far off are we from seeing conservative voices deprived of their ability to pay?
Imagine showing up at the grocery store and finding out that your money’s no good because you have a concealed carry permit. Sound far-fetched? So would have having your bank account closed for being a conservative activist.
Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? i.e., Who Watches the Watchers?
Of course, it’s important to ask for a list of left-wing groups who have been banned from social media. But somehow, left-wing groups – even those who violate the terms of service, such as several accounts dedicated to doxing right-wing accounts and inciting violence against conservatives, libertarians and others on the right – are allowed to operate with impunity.
Indeed, it is worth asking who decides what is against the rules at Facebook, Twitter, etc. There is an answer to this question: For Twitter, it’s a “Trust and Safety Council” comprised of 12 left-wing groups and one conservative group you’ve probably never heard of: The Network of Enlightened Women. The 12 left-wing groups include the Anti-Defamation League and GLAAD, both of whom have labeled mainstream conservative groups as “hate groups.”
For Facebook, they rely upon a “fact-checking” process that leverages Snopes and PolitiFact as impartial “fact checkers.” YouTube uses the ADL and the Southern Poverty Law Center, both left-wing groups known for their attacks on mainstream conservative organizations. Facebook, for its part, deleted 57 of over 200 “hate groups” demanded by the SPLC in August 2017.
What Is To Be Done?
The question after reading this becomes: What should be done, if anything?
It’s difficult to imagine a situation where government interference in Big Tech is going to have the desired outcome. The result might be more and greater censorship than existed before. However, it is worth noting that Sen. Ted Cruz, not exactly known as a proponent of Big Government, has been at the forefront of attempts to hold Big Tech accountable for its censorship of conservative voices on the Internet.
But it’s quite possible that new laws and regulations are not required. What is instead required is a more rigorous enforcement of the laws and regulations that are already on the books. To wit: Are Facebook, Twitter and YouTube content-neutral platforms or are they editorial platforms? If the former, then it would seem that their case for being able to censor legal speech on their platforms is legally flimsy. If the latter, then they are responsible for everything posted on their platforms by every user. Similarly, if Google is intentionally manipulating its results to yield a politicized result, that is likely in violation of existing telecommunications statutes.
The American shift from capitalism to corporatism has had dire unintended consequences: Power has coalesced in both Washington, D.C. and many tech and media companies, such that the latter can undermine American rights and manipulate American political opinion with impunity, while the former abdicates its oath to defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.
Written by Sam Jacobs Article posted with permission from Ammo.com


thewashingtonstandard--2020-01-21--President Accuses Obama Of Funding Iran, DOJ “Finds Nothing” On Hillary Clinton – Overlooks Their Tr

President Accuses Obama Of Funding Iran, DOJ “Finds Nothing” On Hillary Clinton – Overlooks Their Treason!

As we all know , the President of the United States this week accused Barack Hussein Obama of funding the missiles that attacked Americans in Iran .
This is true and the American people knew of it when he did what he did .
What should be observed here is that the president acknowledges his treason and yet fails to charge him for treason ( Article 3 , Sections 3 , US Constitution ) , which would deter anyone else from daring the justice of God in our government ( Proverbs 16:6 ) .
Instead , the president puts sanctions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his confusion ( Daniel 9:7 ) by overlooking the law that he is to “ faithfully execute ” against “ all enemies ” here domestically ( Romans 3:20 ; Article 2 , Section 3 , US Constitution ) .
Barack Hussein Obama is responsible for more than just what took place in Iran , this on top of the fact that he never has been qualified to be America ’ s president , he is not a natural born citizen ( Article 1 , Section 2 , US Constitution ) .
He has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He has given them aid to the known sum of over $ 1.5 billion .
He has appointed to Homeland security advisors with known terrorist ties , as well as releasing high risk detainees from Gitmo .
This is just the tip of the iceberg with this foreign criminal .
Is this how one “ Makes America Great Again ” ( Proverbs 20:8 ) ?
On the contrary , withholding judgment from the wicked is how you destroy countries , it is not how you preserve them ( Article 4 , Section 4 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donald Trump was on the campaign trail accusing Hillary of deleting emails , Russian collusion , lies , deception and yet , today , his DOJ fails to prosecute her for treason ( Luke 22:48 ) .
While Hillary is accusing the president of whatever it is she is told to accuse him of , Donald Trump ’ s Department of Justice finds no wrong doing .
Chinagate – The Clinton-Gore campaign in 1996 allegedly took bribes from Chinese banks and their government to help their dwindling poll numbers .
Travelgate Scandal – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bill ’ s , was allegedly promised the position of director of the travel office .
Hillary Clinton then ( indirectly ) fired seven employees from the United States travel office and replaced them with associates from Arkansas .
Records were either nowhere to be found or incorrectly filed .
And , there ’ s a reported attempt to give a White House airline contract to friend .
Hillary had the FBI investigate Billy Dale , the head of the travel office , ruining his career who was found to do nothing wrong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ IRS for three years after .
Whitewater Scandal – Hillary and her husband were partners in a shady real estate development firm called Whitewater Development Corp in Arkansas .
Accusations of impropriety against the Clintons and others soon surfaced , regarding improper campaign contributions , political and financial favors , and tax benefits .
Clinton ’ s friends and majority owners , James and Susan McDougal were jailed for fraud , Clinton ’ s successor , Governor Jim Tucker , was jailed for fraud along with municipal judges David Hale and Eugene Fitzhugh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clintons walked away unscathed , having apparently done nothing wrong .
Vince Foster Jr. Mystery – Questions cloud the suicide of Vince Foster , former colleague , friend , and White House aid of Hillary ’ s who had connections to Travelgate , and the Whitewater scandals .
Filegate Scandal – Craig Livingstone , director of the White House ’ s Office of Personnel Security “ improperly ” accessed FBI files on several hundred individuals .
Mrs. Clinton called it a , “ completely honest bureaucratic snafu.
” Many of these files were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hillary Clinton hired Livingston and is alleged to have looked at the files and requested this move .
She was accused by Republicans of violating privacy rights of individuals she viewed as political adversaries .
Lootergate – Bill and especially Hillary started to ship White House furniture to their personal home in Chappaqua , N.Y .
The Clintons claimed they were donated , but at only some were proven to be donated and meant to stay in the White House after contacting the manufacturers .
The Clintons returned some of the furniture after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so .
Drug Dealer Donor Scandal – Convicted drug trafficker Jorge Cabrera apparently made such a big donation to the Clinton ’ s campaign that he was invited to the White House without Secret Service present .
The list goes on : Deleting emails , selling uranium ore to the Russians , etc… This is treason , America .
Is this how you make America great again ?
Yet , this president ’ s Department of Injustice finds nothing on her ?
It has been said , “ Fool me once , shame @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on me.
” Americans are inundated with the lies of these people on a daily basis .
When do Americans become ashamed of what they tolerate ( Jeremiah 3:3 ) ?
What is it going to take , America , for you to understand that these people are merely telling you what it is that you want to hear , only to find that when they win the people ’ s White House , they give cover to those whom they promised to prosecute ?
Instead of these being brought to justice , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are being rewarded .
Adding insult to injury , the mainstream media gives cover to these conspirators even going so far as to cast into the teeth of the American people that they are the most admired people .
I would like to see this administration uphold the law as he promised , protect the borders and the American cause the way that he and his DOJ have protected these two criminals , Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Clinton .
It is time to stop pretending that this president and this body politic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” ( Proverbs 28:4 ) , for they clearly are not .
It is time to stop pretending , and that for your own sakes ( Deuteronomy 4:1 ) .
“ Pretend ” is defined in Websters 1828 as “ To hold out , as a false appearance ; to offer something feigned instead of that which is real ; to simulate , in words or actions .
to pretend patriotism for the sake of gaining popular applause or obtaining an office ; To speak and act so as to make it appear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact it is not.
” Article posted with permission from Sons Of Liberty Media .
Article by Bradlee Dean .

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within.” -Marcus Tullius Cicero
As we all know, the President of the United States this week accused Barack Hussein Obama of funding the missiles that attacked Americans in Iran. This is true and the American people knew of it when he did what he did. What should be observed here is that the president acknowledges his treason and yet fails to charge him for treason (Article 3, Sections 3, US Constitution), which would deter anyone else from daring the justice of God in our government (Proverbs 16:6).
Instead, the president puts sanctions on Iran in hopes of you misreading his confusion (Daniel 9:7) by overlooking the law that he is to “faithfully execute” against “all enemies” here domestically (Romans 3:20; Article 2, Section 3, US Constitution).
Barack Hussein Obama is responsible for more than just what took place in Iran, this on top of the fact that he never has been qualified to be America’s president, he is not a natural born citizen (Article 1, Section 2, US Constitution).
He has sent F-16s to the Muslim Brotherhood. He has given them aid to the known sum of over $1.5 billion. He has appointed to Homeland security advisors with known terrorist ties, as well as releasing high risk detainees from Gitmo. This is just the tip of the iceberg with this foreign criminal.
Is this how one “Makes America Great Again” (Proverbs 20:8)? On the contrary, withholding judgment from the wicked is how you destroy countries, it is not how you preserve them (Article 4, Section 4, US Constitution).
“Ye who turn judgment to wormwood, and leave off righteousness in the earth.” -Amos 5:7
Hillary Clinton
Remember, Donald Trump was on the campaign trail accusing Hillary of deleting emails, Russian collusion, lies, deception and yet, today, his DOJ fails to prosecute her for treason (Luke 22:48).
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/10/debate-donald-trump-threatens-to-jail-hillary-clinton
While Hillary is accusing the president of whatever it is she is told to accuse him of, Donald Trump’s Department of Justice finds no wrong doing.
Let’s recall, shall we?
Chinagate – The Clinton-Gore campaign in 1996 allegedly took bribes from Chinese banks and their government to help their dwindling poll numbers.
Travelgate Scandal – Catherine Cornelius, a 25-year-old cousin of Bill’s, was allegedly promised the position of director of the travel office. Hillary Clinton then (indirectly) fired seven employees from the United States travel office and replaced them with associates from Arkansas. Records were either nowhere to be found or incorrectly filed. And, there’s a reported attempt to give a White House airline contract to friend. Hillary had the FBI investigate Billy Dale, the head of the travel office, ruining his career who was found to do nothing wrong, but was then audited by the IRS for three years after.
Whitewater Scandal – Hillary and her husband were partners in a shady real estate development firm called Whitewater Development Corp in Arkansas. Accusations of impropriety against the Clintons and others soon surfaced, regarding improper campaign contributions, political and financial favors, and tax benefits. Clinton’s friends and majority owners, James and Susan McDougal were jailed for fraud, Clinton’s successor, Governor Jim Tucker, was jailed for fraud along with municipal judges David Hale and Eugene Fitzhugh who worked with James McDougal. The Clintons walked away unscathed, having apparently done nothing wrong.
Vince Foster Jr. Mystery – Questions cloud the suicide of Vince Foster, former colleague, friend, and White House aid of Hillary’s who had connections to Travelgate, and the Whitewater scandals.
Filegate Scandal – Craig Livingstone, director of the White House’s Office of Personnel Security “improperly” accessed FBI files on several hundred individuals. Mrs. Clinton called it a, “completely honest bureaucratic snafu.” Many of these files were on people from previous Republican administrations. Hillary Clinton hired Livingston and is alleged to have looked at the files and requested this move. She was accused by Republicans of violating privacy rights of individuals she viewed as political adversaries.
Lootergate – Bill and especially Hillary started to ship White House furniture to their personal home in Chappaqua, N.Y. The Clintons claimed they were donated, but at only some were proven to be donated and meant to stay in the White House after contacting the manufacturers. The Clintons returned some of the furniture after pressure was put on them to do so.
Drug Dealer Donor Scandal – Convicted drug trafficker Jorge Cabrera apparently made such a big donation to the Clinton’s campaign that he was invited to the White House without Secret Service present.
The list goes on: Deleting emails, selling uranium ore to the Russians, etc… This is treason, America. Is this how you make America great again?
Yet, this president’s Department of Injustice finds nothing on her?
It has been said, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice shame on me.” Americans are inundated with the lies of these people on a daily basis. When do Americans become ashamed of what they tolerate (Jeremiah 3:3)?
What is it going to take, America, for you to understand that these people are merely telling you what it is that you want to hear, only to find that when they win the people’s White House, they give cover to those whom they promised to prosecute?
“The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.” -Psalm 12:8
Instead of these being brought to justice, as promised by this president, they are being rewarded.
Adding insult to injury, the mainstream media gives cover to these conspirators even going so far as to cast into the teeth of the American people that they are the most admired people.
I would like to see this administration uphold the law as he promised, protect the borders and the American cause the way that he and his DOJ have protected these two criminals, Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Clinton.
It is time to stop pretending that this president and this body politic are working for “We the People”(Proverbs 28:4), for they clearly are not. It is time to stop pretending, and that for your own sakes (Deuteronomy 4:1).
“Pretend” is defined in Websters 1828 as “To hold out, as a false appearance; to offer something feigned instead of that which is real; to simulate, in words or actions. to pretend patriotism for the sake of gaining popular applause or obtaining an office; To speak and act so as to make it appear that something is the case when in fact it is not.”
Article posted with permission from Sons Of Liberty Media. Article by Bradlee Dean.


thewashingtonstandard--2020-01-21--Virginia’s Second Amendment Rally & The Media’s Narrative Spin

Yesterday , I discussed the media ’ s repeated efforts to brand the 2A rally in Virginia as violent .
If you want to see the problem with the media in a nutshell , let ’ s start with this New York Times headline , “ Fiery Speeches , But No Sign of Violence.
” Why would there be signs of violence ?
Why make something that didn ’ t happen and that no one thought would happen into the topic ?
And here ’ s CNN , “ Peaceful Virginia gun-rights rally concludes despite earlier fears of extremist violence.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ violence .
But the existence or non-existence of violence became the focal topic .
• I Called It !
Virginia “ Blackface ” Governor Claims He and “ Teams ” Saved The Day !
• Less Than a Year Ago These Prominent Democrats Called for Virginia Governor Ralph Northam ’ s Resignation • Lobby Day 2020 : The Tension Mounts & What To Expect The whole point of a narrative is to make the issue about your agenda , rather than anything else .
Let ’ s take a look at the classic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that we ’ re talking about the violence .
Whether there was or wasn ’ t any violence .
And linking guns to violence .
We ’ re not talking about civil rights .
Or the larger message of how firearms are used to save lives that the rally was really about .
The media doesn ’ t need to get its way to win .
All it needs to do is control the topic .
And whether or not it wins , its narrative becomes the thing we discuss .

Yesterday, I discussed the media’s repeated efforts to brand the 2A rally in Virginia as violent.
If you want to see the problem with the media in a nutshell, let’s start with this New York Times headline, “Fiery Speeches, But No Sign of Violence.” Why would there be signs of violence? Why make something that didn’t happen and that no one thought would happen into the topic? And here’s CNN, “Peaceful Virginia gun-rights rally concludes despite earlier fears of extremist violence.”
Of course, there was no violence. But the existence or non-existence of violence became the focal topic.
The whole point of a narrative is to make the issue about your agenda, rather than anything else. Let’s take a look at the classic Manchurian Candidate video.
The issue is that we’re talking about the violence. Whether there was or wasn’t any violence. And linking guns to violence.
We’re not talking about civil rights. Or the larger message of how firearms are used to save lives that the rally was really about.
The media doesn’t need to get its way to win. All it needs to do is control the topic. And whether or not it wins, its narrative becomes the thing we discuss.
Article posted with permission from Daniel Greenfield


thewashingtonstandard--2020-01-21--New York:  Top DEA Investigator Arrested For Spending “Months” On The Job Trying To Have Sex With Ch

New York : Top DEA Investigator Arrested For Spending “ Months ” On The Job Trying To Have Sex With Children Queens , NY — A diversion investigator with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency was arrested recently after he spent months on the taxpayers ’ dime trying to arrange sex and soliciting naked pictures from a 14-year-old boy .
Frederick Scheinin ’ s job at the DEA was to track pharmaceutical drugs that had been diverted to illegal sources but he spent that time soliciting children for sex instead .
“ As a diversion investigator at the DEA , Frederick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protect the public from illegally diverted drugs .
Instead of fulfilling this worthy mission , Scheinin allegedly spent months attempting to prey on a 14-year-old boy .
This arrest exemplifies that no one is above the law .
Our law enforcement partners will continue to bring all necessary tools to bear to apprehend individuals who wish to do harm to young children , no matter who they are , ” U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said .
“ I want to commend the U.S. Attorney and our federal partners who , together with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to protect the innocent against such alleged reprehensible predators .
I am proud of the undercover work in this case , which has now led to criminal charges against a law enforcement officer who allegedly betrayed his sacred oath , ” NYPD Commissioner Dermot Shea said .
While on the job , this sicko was sending photo of his genitals to who he thought was a 14-year-old boy but who was actually an undercover cop .
According to the press release from the DOJ : Between October 2019 and January 2020 , Scheinin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cellphone to communicate with an undercover law enforcement officer ( “ UC‑1 ” ) who was posing as a 14-year-old boy .
Scheinin repeatedly sent sexually explicit images and videos to UC-1 in an attempt to persuade UC-1 to transmit sexually explicit images , photos , and live visual depictions of UC-1 to Scheinin .
In particular , Scheinin repeatedly asked UC-1 to transmit images and videos of UC-1 ’ s penis .
The Complaint further alleges that Scheinin attempted to arrange a meeting with UC-1 at which Scheinin planned to have sex @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yesterday in New York , New York , at a location where Scheinin said he would meet UC-1 .
Scheinin was in possession of condoms and lubricant at the time of his arrest .
At one point in the conversation , the boy allegedly asked Scheinin , “ so you like don ’ t care that I ’ m younger ?
” Scheinin said “ no , it ’ s cool .
As long as you ’ re cool with it , ” according to prosecutors .
Thankfully this monster inside the DEA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ real child .
However , his willingness to go so far indicates that he likely has other victims .
Luckily , he is now off the streets .
Scheinin has since been charged with one count of attempted production of child pornography , which carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years in prison and a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison , and one count of attempted enticement of a minor , which carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years in prison and maximum sentence of life in prison .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of their own is substantial in this situation .
Scheinin worked for an agency that kidnaps and cages people who possess and use substances deemed illegal or controlled by the state .
Scheinin and the rest of his fellow DEA officers claimed to protect society by kidnapping and caging people for drugs .
In reality , however , it was society who need protecting from the DEA .
Our readers know that these cases are anything but isolated .
As TFTP has reported , a study exposed the startling fact that law enforcement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year , or roughly three officers charged every day .
Many of these arrests are over unspeakable sex crimes .
“ Police crimes are not uncommon , ” the study ’ s lead researcher Philip M. Stinson concluded .
“ Our data directly contradicts some of the prevailing assumptions and the proposition that only a small group of rotten apples perpetrate the vast majority of police crime.
” Although nearly 60 percent of the crimes “ occurred when the officer was technically off-duty , ” Stinson wrote , “ a significant portion of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the context of police work and the perpetrator ’ s role as a police officer , including instances where off-duty officers flash a badge , an official weapon , or otherwise use their power , authority , and the respect afforded to them as a means to commit crime.
” According to a report from WaPo , in cases involving allegations of sexual abuse , 72 percent of the officers were fired , and more than 80 percent resulted in convictions , the study found .
There were 422 reported cases of forcible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forcible fondling and 94 sodomy cases over the seven years of the study , which Stinson called “ larger than expected based on the existing research.
” The data search turned up 174 examples of male officers arrested in cases of “ Driving While Female , ” in which women drivers were harassed or assaulted .
About 82 percent of those cases ended in convictions .
A separate study as reported by the AP in 2015 found similarly shocking numbers .
The probe revealed that 550 officers were decertified for various sexual assaults @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for sodomy or sexual shakedowns , where victims were forced to perform sexual acts to avoid arrest .
A further 440 officers lost their jobs for other sex-related offenses , such as possessing child pornography , being a peeping Tom , sending sexually charged messages to underage teens or having sex while on duty .
About one-third of the officers lost their jobs for committing sexual offenses against children .
Even more shocking is the fact that every one of these studies indicates that most of the cases go unreported because the victims @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their own departments .

New York: Top DEA Investigator Arrested For Spending “Months” On The Job Trying To Have Sex With Children
Queens, NY — A diversion investigator with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency was arrested recently after he spent months on the taxpayers’ dime trying to arrange sex and soliciting naked pictures from a 14-year-old boy. Frederick Scheinin’s job at the DEA was to track pharmaceutical drugs that had been diverted to illegal sources but he spent that time soliciting children for sex instead.
“As a diversion investigator at the DEA, Frederick Scheinin’s foremost responsibility was to protect the public from illegally diverted drugs. Instead of fulfilling this worthy mission, Scheinin allegedly spent months attempting to prey on a 14-year-old boy. This arrest exemplifies that no one is above the law. Our law enforcement partners will continue to bring all necessary tools to bear to apprehend individuals who wish to do harm to young children, no matter who they are,” U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said.
“I want to commend the U.S. Attorney and our federal partners who, together with our NYPD investigators, work every day to protect the innocent against such alleged reprehensible predators. I am proud of the undercover work in this case, which has now led to criminal charges against a law enforcement officer who allegedly betrayed his sacred oath,” NYPD Commissioner Dermot Shea said.
While on the job, this sicko was sending photo of his genitals to who he thought was a 14-year-old boy but who was actually an undercover cop.
According to the press release from the DOJ:
Between October 2019 and January 2020, Scheinin used a multimedia messaging application on his cellphone to communicate with an undercover law enforcement officer (“UC‑1”) who was posing as a 14-year-old boy. Scheinin repeatedly sent sexually explicit images and videos to UC-1 in an attempt to persuade UC-1 to transmit sexually explicit images, photos, and live visual depictions of UC-1 to Scheinin. In particular, Scheinin repeatedly asked UC-1 to transmit images and videos of UC-1’s penis. The Complaint further alleges that Scheinin attempted to arrange a meeting with UC-1 at which Scheinin planned to have sex with UC-1. Law enforcement arrested SCHEININ yesterday in New York, New York, at a location where Scheinin said he would meet UC-1. Scheinin was in possession of condoms and lubricant at the time of his arrest.
At one point in the conversation, the boy allegedly asked Scheinin, “so you like don’t care that I’m younger?” Scheinin said “no, it’s cool. As long as you’re cool with it,” according to prosecutors. Thankfully this monster inside the DEA wasn’t actually meeting with a real child. However, his willingness to go so far indicates that he likely has other victims. Luckily, he is now off the streets.
Scheinin has since been charged with one count of attempted production of child pornography, which carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years in prison and a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison, and one count of attempted enticement of a minor, which carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years in prison and maximum sentence of life in prison.
The irony of law enforcement arresting one of their own is substantial in this situation. Scheinin worked for an agency that kidnaps and cages people who possess and use substances deemed illegal or controlled by the state. Scheinin and the rest of his fellow DEA officers claimed to protect society by kidnapping and caging people for drugs. In reality, however, it was society who need protecting from the DEA.
Our readers know that these cases are anything but isolated. As TFTP has reported, a study exposed the startling fact that law enforcement personnel are arrested about 1,100 times a year, or roughly three officers charged every day. Many of these arrests are over unspeakable sex crimes.
“Police crimes are not uncommon,” the study’s lead researcher Philip M. Stinson concluded. “Our data directly contradicts some of the prevailing assumptions and the proposition that only a small group of rotten apples perpetrate the vast majority of police crime.” Although nearly 60 percent of the crimes “occurred when the officer was technically off-duty,” Stinson wrote, “a significant portion of these so-called off-duty crimes also lies within the context of police work and the perpetrator’s role as a police officer, including instances where off-duty officers flash a badge, an official weapon, or otherwise use their power, authority, and the respect afforded to them as a means to commit crime.”
According to a report from WaPo, in cases involving allegations of sexual abuse, 72 percent of the officers were fired, and more than 80 percent resulted in convictions, the study found. There were 422 reported cases of forcible and statutory rape, 352 cases of forcible fondling and 94 sodomy cases over the seven years of the study, which Stinson called “larger than expected based on the existing research.” The data search turned up 174 examples of male officers arrested in cases of “Driving While Female,” in which women drivers were harassed or assaulted. About 82 percent of those cases ended in convictions.
A separate study as reported by the AP in 2015 found similarly shocking numbers.
Check out this AP interactive series re: sex crimes committed by law enforcement officers: https://t.co/A1WQlFb0B7 pic.twitter.com/QVwk1jc4gm — AP Graphics (@APGraphics) November 1, 2015
The probe revealed that 550 officers were decertified for various sexual assaults, including rape. Some were dismissed for sodomy or sexual shakedowns, where victims were forced to perform sexual acts to avoid arrest.
A further 440 officers lost their jobs for other sex-related offenses, such as possessing child pornography, being a peeping Tom, sending sexually charged messages to underage teens or having sex while on duty.
About one-third of the officers lost their jobs for committing sexual offenses against children. Even more shocking is the fact that every one of these studies indicates that most of the cases go unreported because the victims are scared to report the officers to their own departments.
Article posted with permission from Matt Agorist


thewashingtonstandard--2020-01-21--Top Jewish Scholar: ‘Hitler Launched WWII to Keep Jews from Taking Over Germany’

Top Jewish Scholar : ‘ Hitler Launched WWII to Keep Jews from Taking Over Germany ’ Did Hitler fear that Jews were taking over Germany ?
It sounds quite plausible .
Adolph Hitler seemed to be a very paranoid man as history teaches .
A prominent Jewish scholar says that Adolph Hitler started our second world war due his paranoia that Germany would become a Jewish state .
According to nonagenerian Yehuda Bauer , one of the foremost jewish ‘ Holocaust ’ scholars , Adolf Hitler ’ s launching of World War II to prevent ‘ world Jewry ’ from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was an act of ‘ anti-Semitism ’ : World War II and the enormous catastrophe it brought upon mankind occurred “ probably mainly ” because of anti-Semitism , according to Israel ’ s preeminent Holocaust scholar .
Indeed , Adolf Hitler launched the war to a large extent to prevent “ world Jewry ” from physically annihilating the German nation , Yehuda Bauer said .
“ Anti-Semitism is a cancer that eats the world , and World War II is proof of that , ” he told The Times of Israel during an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bauer , 93 , will deliver the keynote address at a festive dinner for about 45 leaders from across the world Wednesday evening at President Reuven Rivlin ’ s residence that will kick off this year ’ s World Holocaust Forum .
The event marks the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz .
( The only two other speakers at the dinner will be Rivlin himself and the king of Spain . )
At the event , Bauer will speak about a secret memorandum Hitler wrote to Hermann Goering in August 1936 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need for Germany to be ready for war within four years .
Otherwise , Hitler argued , Jewish Bolshevism will “ replace ” the German nation .
“ For a victory of Bolshevism over Germany would not lead to a Versailles Treaty but to the final destruction , indeed to the annihilation , of the German people , ” Hitler wrote .
This belief was compounded by a speech Hitler gave in the Reichstag on January 30 , 1939 , Bauer said during the interview .
“ If the international Jewish financiers in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the nations once more into a world war , ” Hitler predicted , “ then the result will not be the Bolshevization of the earth , and thus the victory of Jewry , but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe !
” One of the reasons I find this contention so ironic is that currently Germany is in the grips of an ISLAMIC takeover .
• The Kalergi Plan & The Cultural Suicide of Germany : Almost 50 % of Newborns are NOT GERMAN • Germany : Muslims complain about pig @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of offending them • Merkel ’ s Germany : Migrant Repays Host Family by Repeatedly Stabbing Their 11 yo Son and Shouting “ Die , Die , Die !
” Will Merkel & Co. start World War III to drive Muslims out of Germany ?
That seems to be a done deal .
So if Hitler was really trying to protect Germany from being overtaken by Jews he was successful , but at what future cost ?
Fear and hatred are very close cousins .
Was it more Hitler ’ s hate or @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Did Hitler fear that Jews were taking over Germany? It sounds quite plausible. Adolph Hitler seemed to be a very paranoid man as history teaches. A prominent Jewish scholar says that Adolph Hitler started our second world war due his paranoia that Germany would become a Jewish state.
Front14 reports:
According to nonagenerian Yehuda Bauer, one of the foremost jewish ‘Holocaust’ scholars, Adolf Hitler’s launching of World War II to prevent ‘world Jewry’ from ‘physically annihilating the German nation’ was an act of ‘anti-Semitism’:
World War II and the enormous catastrophe it brought upon mankind occurred “probably mainly” because of anti-Semitism, according to Israel’s preeminent Holocaust scholar. Indeed, Adolf Hitler launched the war to a large extent to prevent “world Jewry” from physically annihilating the German nation, Yehuda Bauer said.
“Anti-Semitism is a cancer that eats the world, and World War II is proof of that,” he told The Times of Israel during an hour-long interview in Jerusalem last week.
Bauer, 93, will deliver the keynote address at a festive dinner for about 45 leaders from across the world Wednesday evening at President Reuven Rivlin’s residence that will kick off this year’s World Holocaust Forum. The event marks the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. (The only two other speakers at the dinner will be Rivlin himself and the king of Spain.)
At the event, Bauer will speak about a secret memorandum Hitler wrote to Hermann Goering in August 1936, in which he spoke about the need for Germany to be ready for war within four years. Otherwise, Hitler argued, Jewish Bolshevism will “replace” the German nation.
“For a victory of Bolshevism over Germany would not lead to a Versailles Treaty but to the final destruction, indeed to the annihilation, of the German people,” Hitler wrote.
This belief was compounded by a speech Hitler gave in the Reichstag on January 30, 1939, Bauer said during the interview.
“If the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war,” Hitler predicted, “then the result will not be the Bolshevization of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!”
More…
#####
One of the reasons I find this contention so ironic is that currently Germany is in the grips of an ISLAMIC takeover.
Will Merkel & Co. start World War III to drive Muslims out of Germany?
Doubtful.
That seems to be a done deal.
So if Hitler was really trying to protect Germany from being overtaken by Jews he was successful, but at what future cost?
Fear and hatred are very close cousins.
Was it more Hitler’s hate or more his fear that drove him?
Article posted with permission from Dean Garrison


thewashingtonstandard--2020-01-21--Virginia Effect: Habersham Becomes Georgia’s First 2nd Amendment Sanctuary County

West Virginia is asking counties to defect while other states start to organize their own 2A sanctuaries .
Now Habersham Co. , Georgia has earned the distinction of being the state ’ s first 2nd Amendment Sanctuary County .
Is this the “ Virginia Effect ” ?
Many are saying so .
After Virginia Governor Ralph Northam ’ s public attempts to clamp down on 2nd Amendment rights in Virginia , other states and counties are responding pre-emptively and going in the opposite direction .
Here ’ s more on the story , from local WDUN : After months of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voted to make the county Georgia ’ s first Second Amendment Sanctuary County .
“ Whereas , it is the desire of the Habersham County Board of Commissioners to declare its support of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and to the provisions of the Constitution of the State of Georgia that protect Habersham County citizens ’ induvial , inalienable rights to keep and bear arms , ” the resolution reads in part .
The resolution prohibits any agent , employee or official of the county , or any corporation providing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ material support or participate in any way with the implementation of federal acts , orders , rules , laws or regulations in violation of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution .
Prior to the vote on the matter , Commission Chairman Stacy Hall read a letter of full support from 10th District State Rep. Terry Rogers and delivered a prepared statement .
“ It is of paramount importance that we the people remind these legislators that their simple dislike of a constitutional amendment makes it no less constitutional and that we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Hall said .
“ The Constitution is not an aging , irrelevant document with increasing insignificance over time .
Quite the contrary ; it is the very fabric that this great country has woven together .
It is a living , breathing document that protects us all from an overreaching and overbearing government.
” Commissioner Tim Stamey made the motion to adopt the Second Amendment Sanctuary County resolution , which was seconded by Vice Chairman Natalie Crawford .
One of the things that Dem gun grabbers fail to fathom is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they make people panic and buy more .
They are their own worst enemies .
• Gun , ammo sales skyrocketing in Virginia as citizens arm up in anticipation of tyrannical gun confiscation efforts by insane , deranged Democrats They may not intend to be , but they are useful idiots of the right .
• Virginia National Guardsman on Gun Grab Threats : ‘ Everyone I personally know would stand by their oath .
Our oath is to the Constitution of The United States… ’ Northam achieved nothing for his side @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far .
• He has other states inviting his counties to join them .
• He and all of the other Democrat gun-grabbers in Virginia have jeopardized their careers , by enraging voters .
• The NRA is now involved .
• National Guardsman and county sheriffs are turning against Norham ’ s leadership .
• Other states are getting anxious and creating their own 2A sanctuaries .
• People are buying more guns and ammo in Virginia .
Northam is the definition of GOING FULL LIBTARD .

Virginia surely has stirred up a hornet’s nest.
West Virginia is asking counties to defect while other states start to organize their own 2A sanctuaries.
Now Habersham Co., Georgia has earned the distinction of being the state’s first 2nd Amendment Sanctuary County.
Here’s more from WeLoveTrump.com:
Is this the “Virginia Effect”?
Many are saying so.
After Virginia Governor Ralph Northam’s public attempts to clamp down on 2nd Amendment rights in Virginia, other states and counties are responding pre-emptively and going in the opposite direction.
Like Habersham County in Georgia.
Take a look:
Here’s more on the story, from local WDUN:
After months of discussion, the Habersham County Commission has voted to make the county Georgia’s first Second Amendment Sanctuary County.
“Whereas, it is the desire of the Habersham County Board of Commissioners to declare its support of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and to the provisions of the Constitution of the State of Georgia that protect Habersham County citizens’ induvial, inalienable rights to keep and bear arms,” the resolution reads in part.
The resolution prohibits any agent, employee or official of the county, or any corporation providing services to the county, shall provide material support or participate in any way with the implementation of federal acts, orders, rules, laws or regulations in violation of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Prior to the vote on the matter, Commission Chairman Stacy Hall read a letter of full support from 10th District State Rep. Terry Rogers and delivered a prepared statement.
“It is of paramount importance that we the people remind these legislators that their simple dislike of a constitutional amendment makes it no less constitutional and that we will not give those rights up easily,” Hall said. “The Constitution is not an aging, irrelevant document with increasing insignificance over time. Quite the contrary; it is the very fabric that this great country has woven together. It is a living, breathing document that protects us all from an overreaching and overbearing government.”
Commissioner Tim Stamey made the motion to adopt the Second Amendment Sanctuary County resolution, which was seconded by Vice Chairman Natalie Crawford.
Read the rest…
#####
One of the things that Dem gun grabbers fail to fathom is that every time they reach for our guns, they make people panic and buy more.
They are their own worst enemies.
They may not intend to be, but they are useful idiots of the right.
Here’s more of “The Virginia Effect”…
Northam achieved nothing for his side.
Here are the results, so far.
He has other states inviting his counties to join them. He and all of the other Democrat gun-grabbers in Virginia have jeopardized their careers, by enraging voters. The NRA is now involved. National Guardsman and county sheriffs are turning against Norham’s leadership. Other states are getting anxious and creating their own 2A sanctuaries. People are buying more guns and ammo in Virginia.
Nice move Governor Blackface!
Northam is the definition of GOING FULL LIBTARD.
Article posted with permission from Dean Garrison