thewashingtonstandard--2020-12-26--Unlawfully Corralling You Into Taking Vaccinations: Politicians & Mainstream Media Want To Remind Yo

Unlawfully Corralling You Into Taking Vaccinations : Politicians & Mainstream Media Want To Remind You That There Is Nothing You Can Do To Vaccine Companies If There Are Serious Side Effects It ’ s pretty crazy , to say the least , as to what is going on in America today ( Psalm 9:17 ) .
The corruption stinks to high heaven , no doubt ( Jeremiah 9:24 ) !
Here we have corrupt politicians working hand in glove with the mainstream media , who are pushing fear 24-7 , over a narrative that they can not prove , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their vaccinations ( Leviticus 17:11 , 19:19 ) .
On the other hand , they also want you to know that they , the politicians who are to serve the people but are instead working on the behalf of Big Pharma companies against the will of the people ( Judases – Luke 22:48 ) , have created unconstitutional policies to indemnify vaccine companies from consequence if you were to have serious side effects ( Proverbs 17:15 ) .
Look at their brazen and haughty arrogance , as if to suggest that we are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not a thing that we can do about it ( Psalm 94:20 ) .
You can ’ t sue Pfizer or Moderna if you have severe Covid vaccine side effects .
The government likely won ’ t compensate you for damages either .
• Under the PREP Act , companies like Pfizer and Moderna have total immunity from liability if something unintentionally goes wrong with their vaccines .
• A little-known government program provides benefits to people who can prove they suffered serious injury from a vaccine .
• That program rarely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the last decade .
The federal government has granted companies like Pfizer and Moderna immunity from liability if something unintentionally goes wrong with their vaccines .
“ It is very rare for a blanket immunity law to be passed , ” said Rogge Dunn , a Dallas labor and employment attorney .
“ Pharmaceutical companies typically aren ’ t offered much liability protection under the law.
“ You also can ’ t sue the Food and Drug Administration for authorizing a vaccine for emergency use , nor can you hold your employer accountable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of employment .
Congress created a fund specifically to help cover lost wages and out-of-pocket medical expenses for people who have been irreparably harmed by a “ covered countermeasure , ” such as a vaccine .
But it is difficult to use and rarely pays .
Attorneys say it has compensated less than 6 % of the claims filed in the last decade .
In February , Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar invoked the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act .
The 2005 law empowers the HHS secretary to provide legal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ medical supplies , such as vaccines and treatments , unless there ’ s “ willful misconduct ” by the company .
The protection lasts until 2024 .
That means that for the next four years , these companies “ can not be sued for money damages in court ” over injuries related to the administration or use of products to treat or protect against Covid .
HHS did not respond to CNBC ’ s request for an interview .
Dunn thinks a big reason for the unprecedented protection has to do with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said , ‘ We want you to develop this four or five times faster than you normally do , ’ most likely the manufacturers said to the government , ‘ We want you , the government , to protect us from multimillion-dollar lawsuits , ’ ” said Dunn .
They continue , but pay close attention to the word play here with the phrase “ Sovereign Immunity.
” Remember , vaccine manufacturers aren ’ t the ones approving their product for mass distribution .
That is the job of the FDA .
Which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S. government if you have an extraordinarily bad reaction to a vaccine ?
Again , the answer is no .
“ You can ’ t sue the FDA for approving or disapproving a drug , ” said Dorit Reiss , a professor at the University of California Hastings College of Law .
“ That ’ s part of its sovereign immunity.
” Sovereign immunity came from the king , explains Dunn , referring to British law before the American Revolution .
“ You couldn ’ t sue the king .
So , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ each state has sovereign immunity.
” There are limited exceptions , but Dunn said he doesn ’ t think they provide a viable legal path to hold the federal government responsible for a Covid vaccine injury .
Bringing workers back to the office in a post-Covid world also carries with it a heightened fear of liability for employers .
Lawyers across the country say their corporate clients are reaching out to them to ask whether they can require employees to get immunized .
In conclusion : As much as they would have you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with their “ sovereign immunities , ” I am here to remind you that is not true .
I am humored by their arrogance and stupidities ( Romans 1:22 ) .
Again , as much as they want you to believe that they are above the law ( Isaiah 14:12-13 ) , they are not .
They receive delegated authority from “ We the People , ” and you can rest assured that “ We the People ” did not delegate to the politicians an authority to give immunities to vaccine companies from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to uphold .
Article posted with permission from Sons of Liberty Media .
Article by Bradlee Dean .

Unlawfully Corralling You Into Taking Vaccinations: Politicians & Mainstream Media Want To Remind You That There Is Nothing You Can Do To Vaccine Companies If There Are Serious Side Effects
“That’s part of its sovereign immunity.” -Dorit Reiss, professor at the University of California Hastings College of Law
It’s pretty crazy, to say the least, as to what is going on in America today (Psalm 9:17). The corruption stinks to high heaven, no doubt (Jeremiah 9:24)!
Here we have corrupt politicians working hand in glove with the mainstream media, who are pushing fear 24-7, over a narrative that they cannot prove, in an attempt to corral everyone into taking their vaccinations (Leviticus 17:11, 19:19).
On the other hand, they also want you to know that they, the politicians who are to serve the people but are instead working on the behalf of Big Pharma companies against the will of the people (Judases – Luke 22:48), have created unconstitutional policies to indemnify vaccine companies from consequence if you were to have serious side effects (Proverbs 17:15).
Look at their brazen and haughty arrogance, as if to suggest that we are to submit to their lawlessness and there is not a thing that we can do about it (Psalm 94:20).
CNBC reported:
You can’t sue Pfizer or Moderna if you have severe Covid vaccine side effects. The government likely won’t compensate you for damages either.
Under the PREP Act, companies like Pfizer and Moderna have total immunity from liability if something unintentionally goes wrong with their vaccines.
A little-known government program provides benefits to people who can prove they suffered serious injury from a vaccine.
That program rarely pays, covering just 29 claims over the last decade.
The federal government has granted companies like Pfizer and Moderna immunity from liability if something unintentionally goes wrong with their vaccines.
“It is very rare for a blanket immunity law to be passed,” said Rogge Dunn, a Dallas labor and employment attorney. “Pharmaceutical companies typically aren’t offered much liability protection under the law.“
You also can’t sue the Food and Drug Administration for authorizing a vaccine for emergency use, nor can you hold your employer accountable if they mandate inoculation as a condition of employment.
Congress created a fund specifically to help cover lost wages and out-of-pocket medical expenses for people who have been irreparably harmed by a “covered countermeasure,” such as a vaccine. But it is difficult to use and rarely pays. Attorneys say it has compensated less than 6% of the claims filed in the last decade.
Immune to lawsuits
In February, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar invoked the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act. The 2005 law empowers the HHS secretary to provide legal protection to companies making or distributing critical medical supplies, such as vaccines and treatments, unless there’s “willful misconduct” by the company. The protection lasts until 2024.
That means that for the next four years, these companies “cannot be sued for money damages in court” over injuries related to the administration or use of products to treat or protect against Covid.
HHS did not respond to CNBC’s request for an interview.
Dunn thinks a big reason for the unprecedented protection has to do with the expedited timeline.
“When the government said, ‘We want you to develop this four or five times faster than you normally do,’ most likely the manufacturers said to the government, ‘We want you, the government, to protect us from multimillion-dollar lawsuits,’” said Dunn.
They continue, but pay close attention to the word play here with the phrase “Sovereign Immunity.”
Is anyone liable?
Remember, vaccine manufacturers aren’t the ones approving their product for mass distribution. That is the job of the FDA.
Which begs the question, can you sue the U.S. government if you have an extraordinarily bad reaction to a vaccine?
Again, the answer is no.
“You can’t sue the FDA for approving or disapproving a drug,” said Dorit Reiss, a professor at the University of California Hastings College of Law. “That’s part of its sovereign immunity.”
Sovereign immunity came from the king, explains Dunn, referring to British law before the American Revolution. “You couldn’t sue the king. So, America has sovereign immunity, and even each state has sovereign immunity.”
There are limited exceptions, but Dunn said he doesn’t think they provide a viable legal path to hold the federal government responsible for a Covid vaccine injury.
Bringing workers back to the office in a post-Covid world also carries with it a heightened fear of liability for employers. Lawyers across the country say their corporate clients are reaching out to them to ask whether they can require employees to get immunized.
In conclusion: As much as they would have you believe that they are above the law with their “sovereign immunities,” I am here to remind you that is not true. I am humored by their arrogance and stupidities (Romans 1:22).
Article 6, Clause 2 reminds us otherwise:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
Again, as much as they want you to believe that they are above the law (Isaiah 14:12-13), they are not.
They receive delegated authority from “We the People,” and you can rest assured that “We the People” did not delegate to the politicians an authority to give immunities to vaccine companies from the very laws that they have sworn to uphold.
Article posted with permission from Sons of Liberty Media. Article by Bradlee Dean.


thewashingtonstandard--2020-12-26--Hamas-Linked CAIR Releases 33 Demands For Biden, Including Dismantling Of Counterterror Operations

Consider all these demands in light of the fact that CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case — so named by the Justice Department .
CAIR officials have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups .
Several former CAIR officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror .
CAIR ’ s cofounder and longtime Board chairman , Omar Ahmad , as well as its chief spokesman , Ibrahim “ Honest Ibe ” Hooper , have made Islamic supremacist statements about how Islamic law should be imposed in the U.S. ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reporter stands by her story . )
Even worse , CAIR chapters frequently distribute pamphlets telling Muslims not to cooperate with law enforcement .
CAIR has opposed virtually every anti-terror measure that has been proposed or implemented and has been declared a terror organization by the United Arab Emirates .
CAIR ’ s Hussam Ayloush in 2017 called for the overthrow of the U.S. government .
CAIR ’ s national outreach manager is an open supporter of Hamas .
Note that CAIR ’ s support of the freedom of speech here is stated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When it comes to criticism of Islam , CAIR ’ s commitment to the freedom of speech suddenly weakens .
Its demand for the removal of “ alt-right and Islamophobic online resources ” is essentially a call for the removal of material that speaks honestly about the motivating ideology behind jihad terrorism .
All such material was removed years ago , so it ’ s unclear what Ibrahim “ Honest Ibe ” Hooper is in a lather about here .
This list of demands also features some of CAIR ’ s usual victimhood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other minorities , like all other Americans , have equal access to the COVID-19 vaccine and federal and state aid available to those impacted by the COVID-19 crisis.
” Of course , there is no need for such a demand , as no one anywhere is contemplating denying Muslims or anyone else equal access to the vaccine .
The next demand makes the remedy for this alleged discrimination clear : “ provide more funding to American Muslim clinics.
” Ah yes , no problem is so big that a little jizya won ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 100-Day Agenda for Biden Administration : ‘ Restoring the Rights of American Muslims , Advancing Justice for All , ’ ” by Ibrahim Hooper , Hamas-linked CAIR , December 22 , 2020 : ( WASHINGTON , D.C. , 12/22/2020 ) – The Council on American-Islamic Relations ( CAIR ) , the nation ’ s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization , today publicly released a detailed agenda detailing policy changes that the Biden-Harris administration should pursue within its first 100 days in office to restore the rights of Americans Muslims and advance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 33 new initiatives and policy reforms designed to protect and respect the rights of all U.S. citizens and residents , including Muslims , that the new administration can start to implement the first day in office .
CAIR ’ s agenda is being endorsed by the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations , the largest coalition of several leading national , regional , and local Muslim organizations and institutions harnessing the collective strength of American Muslims for the greater good of all… .
1 .
Fundamentally reform the federal government ’ s unconstitutional Terrorist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ referred to as the “ terrorism watchlist.
” 2 .
Dismantle the TSA ’ s secretive Quiet Skies passenger tracking program , its international counterpart Silent Partner and other rules-based lists , that operate without Congressional oversight to single out law-abiding Muslim travelers for official harassment and extrajudicial consequences without due process .
3 .
Oppose and defund the U.S. Department of Homeland Security ’ s ( “ DHS ” ) 2020 “ Targeted Violence and Terrorism Prevention ” ( “ TVTP ” ) grant program , the successor of DHS ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” ) grant program .
4 .
End the FBI ’ s use of informants to spy on American Muslim communities .
5 .
Reject any new domestic terrorism statutes .
6 .
Close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay , Cuba and ensure those detainees already cleared for release are repatriated , and those that remain in U.S. custody are provided due process and a day in court .
10 .
Work with Congress to repeal the Visa Waiver Program ( VWP ) Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the federal government under the VWP , and end all other discriminatory anti-Muslim “ extreme vetting programs.
” … 17 .
Support the free speech of all Americans and the right to boycott without government interference .
18 .
Support federal and state departments of education efforts to adopt policy reforms to address religious based bullying in schools .
19 .
End the U.S. Department of Education ’ s attempts to suppress free speech on college campuses , including attempts to target Middle Eastern studies courses and punishing Palestinian student activists… .
21 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , like all other Americans , have equal access to the COVID-19 vaccine and federal and state aid available to those impacted by the COVID-19 crisis .
22 .
Request the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services ( HHS ) provide more funding to American Muslim clinics… .
25 .
Overhaul existing vetting practices that rely on Alt-Right and Islamophobic online resources on American Muslims and remove additional roadblocks in security clearances for Muslim candidates for positions in government… .

Consider all these demands in light of the fact that CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case — so named by the Justice Department. CAIR officials have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups. Several former CAIR officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror. CAIR’s cofounder and longtime Board chairman, Omar Ahmad, as well as its chief spokesman, Ibrahim “Honest Ibe” Hooper, have made Islamic supremacist statements about how Islamic law should be imposed in the U.S. (Ahmad denies this, but the original reporter stands by her story.)
Even worse, CAIR chapters frequently distribute pamphlets telling Muslims not to cooperate with law enforcement. CAIR has opposed virtually every anti-terror measure that has been proposed or implemented and has been declared a terror organization by the United Arab Emirates. CAIR’s Hussam Ayloush in 2017 called for the overthrow of the U.S. government. CAIR’s national outreach manager is an open supporter of Hamas.
Note that CAIR’s support of the freedom of speech here is stated only in connection to protesting Israel. When it comes to criticism of Islam, CAIR’s commitment to the freedom of speech suddenly weakens. Its demand for the removal of “alt-right and Islamophobic online resources” is essentially a call for the removal of material that speaks honestly about the motivating ideology behind jihad terrorism. All such material was removed years ago, so it’s unclear what Ibrahim “Honest Ibe” Hooper is in a lather about here.
This list of demands also features some of CAIR’s usual victimhood mongering: “Ensure American Muslims and other minorities, like all other Americans, have equal access to the COVID-19 vaccine and federal and state aid available to those impacted by the COVID-19 crisis.” Of course, there is no need for such a demand, as no one anywhere is contemplating denying Muslims or anyone else equal access to the vaccine. The next demand makes the remedy for this alleged discrimination clear: “provide more funding to American Muslim clinics.” Ah yes, no problem is so big that a little jizya won’t solve it.
“CAIR Releases 100-Day Agenda for Biden Administration: ‘Restoring the Rights of American Muslims, Advancing Justice for All,’” by Ibrahim Hooper, Hamas-linked CAIR, December 22, 2020:
(WASHINGTON, D.C., 12/22/2020) – The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, today publicly released a detailed agenda detailing policy changes that the Biden-Harris administration should pursue within its first 100 days in office to restore the rights of Americans Muslims and advance justice for all.
The report identifies 33 new initiatives and policy reforms designed to protect and respect the rights of all U.S. citizens and residents, including Muslims, that the new administration can start to implement the first day in office.
CAIR’s agenda is being endorsed by the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations, the largest coalition of several leading national, regional, and local Muslim organizations and institutions harnessing the collective strength of American Muslims for the greater good of all….
1. Fundamentally reform the federal government’s unconstitutional Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB), commonly referred to as the “terrorism watchlist.”
2. Dismantle the TSA’s secretive Quiet Skies passenger tracking program, its international counterpart Silent Partner and other rules-based lists, that operate without Congressional oversight to single out law-abiding Muslim travelers for official harassment and extrajudicial consequences without due process.
3. Oppose and defund the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) 2020 “Targeted Violence and Terrorism Prevention” (“TVTP”) grant program, the successor of DHS’s previous Countering Violent Extremism (“CVE”) grant program.
4. End the FBI’s use of informants to spy on American Muslim communities.
5. Reject any new domestic terrorism statutes.
6. Close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and ensure those detainees already cleared for release are repatriated, and those that remain in U.S. custody are provided due process and a day in court.
10. Work with Congress to repeal the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015, re-evaluate all countries currently designated by the federal government under the VWP, and end all other discriminatory anti-Muslim “extreme vetting programs.”…
17. Support the free speech of all Americans and the right to boycott without government interference.
18. Support federal and state departments of education efforts to adopt policy reforms to address religious based bullying in schools.
19. End the U.S. Department of Education’s attempts to suppress free speech on college campuses, including attempts to target Middle Eastern studies courses and punishing Palestinian student activists….
21. Ensure American Muslims and other minorities, like all other Americans, have equal access to the COVID-19 vaccine and federal and state aid available to those impacted by the COVID-19 crisis.
22. Request the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) provide more funding to American Muslim clinics….
25. Overhaul existing vetting practices that rely on Alt-Right and Islamophobic online resources on American Muslims and remove additional roadblocks in security clearances for Muslim candidates for positions in government….
Article posted with permission from Robert Spencer


thewashingtonstandard--2020-12-27--NYC: Man Murders ‘Americanized’ Daughter Who Didn’t Want to Wear Hijab

Kabary Salem is a former Olympic boxer who was arraigned Tuesday on murder charges over the strangulation death of his daughter , Ola Salem .
Ola Salem , a Muslim women ’ s rights activist , was found dead in Staten Island on October 24 , 2019 .
According to an acquaintance , Ola Salem was “ becoming very Americanized , ” and that seems to have been what sent her father over the edge .
Kabary Salem was extradited from Kuwait , to which he fled not long after his daughter ’ s body was discovered .
Before he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ York Times about the murder , and told them , according to the New York Daily News , that “ his daughter had complained to him that she was being tailed by another car on the highway.
” He played his part to the hilt , telling the Times : “ I want to know what happened to her , what is the reason for that , but no one tells me .
I am just waiting .
She was a really good , beautiful girl.
” The reality was much uglier : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the violence , ” notes the Daily News .
“ The DA ’ s office wouldn ’ t comment on a report that the father wasn ’ t happy with the man his daughter was dating .
A source who knew the daughter told the Daily News she was becoming more Westernized and didn ’ t want to wear her hijab.
” This source , which for quite understandable reasons remained unnamed , said of Ola Salem : “ She was very outspoken .
She wasn ’ t timid .
She was becoming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this was an honor killing , a murder carried out in order to cleanse the family of the dishonor brought upon it by the immorality of a daughter .
If Kabary Salem murdered his daughter because she didn ’ t want to wear the hijab , Ola Salem is yet another casualty of a phenomenon that is tolerated in all too many areas .
The Palestinian Authority gives pardons or suspended sentences for honor murders .
Iraqi women have asked for tougher sentences for Islamic honor murderers , who get off lightly now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limiting the length of sentences for honor killings , but “ the new law says a man can still benefit from extenuating circumstances in crimes of passion or honour ‘ provided he serves a prison term of no less than two years in the case of killing.
’ ” And in 2003 the Jordanian Parliament voted down on Islamic grounds a provision designed to stiffen penalties for honor killings .
Al-Jazeera reported that “ Islamists and conservatives said the laws violated religious traditions and would destroy families and values.
” Meanwhile , Western @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hijab Day , in which they don hijabs in order to show solidarity with Muslim women in the West who supposedly experience abuse for wearing the hijab , although a great many of these incidents have been found to have been faked by the alleged victims .
The real victims of abuse over wearing the hijab are much more often girls and women who don ’ t wear it , such as Ola Salem .
Aqsa Parvez ’ s Muslim father choked her to death with her hijab after she refused to wear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Christian woman in Somalia whom Muslims murdered because she wasn ’ t wearing a hijab .
40 women were murdered in Iraq in 2007 for not wearing the hijab .
Alya Al-Safar ’ s Muslim cousin threatened to kill her and harm her family because she stopped wearing the hijab in Britain .
Amira Osman Hamid faced whipping in Sudan for refusing to wear the hijab .
An Egyptian girl , also named Amira , committed suicide after being brutalized by her family for refusing to wear the hijab .
Muslim and non-Muslim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Australia were told they had to wear the hijab or be fired .
Women in Chechnya were police shot with paintballs because they weren ’ t wearing hijab .
Other women in Chechnya were threatened by men with automatic rifles for not wearing hijab .
Elementary school teachers in Tunisia were threatened with death for not wearing hijab .
Syrian schoolgirls were forbidden to go to school unless they wore hijab .
Women in Gaza were forced by Hamas to wear hijab .
Women in Iran protested against the regime by daring to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ London were threatened with murder by Muslim thugs if they didn ’ t wear hijab .
An anonymous young Muslim woman doffed her hijab outside her home and started living a double life in fear of her parents .
Fifteen girls in Saudi Arabia were killed when the religious police wouldn ’ t let them leave their burning school building because they had taken off their hijabs in their all-female environment .
A girl in Italy had her head shaved by her mother for not wearing hijab .
Other women and girls have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in fear for daring not to wear the hijab .
But where are the feminists standing in solidarity with Ola Salem , and others like her ?

Kabary Salem is a former Olympic boxer who was arraigned Tuesday on murder charges over the strangulation death of his daughter, Ola Salem. Ola Salem, a Muslim women’s rights activist, was found dead in Staten Island on October 24, 2019. According to an acquaintance, Ola Salem was “becoming very Americanized,” and that seems to have been what sent her father over the edge.
Kabary Salem was extradited from Kuwait, to which he fled not long after his daughter’s body was discovered. Before he left, he spoke to the New York Times about the murder, and told them, according to the New York Daily News, that “his daughter had complained to him that she was being tailed by another car on the highway.”
He played his part to the hilt, telling the Times: “I want to know what happened to her, what is the reason for that, but no one tells me. I am just waiting. She was a really good, beautiful girl.”
The reality was much uglier: “It’s unclear what sparked the violence,” notes the Daily News. “The DA’s office wouldn’t comment on a report that the father wasn’t happy with the man his daughter was dating. A source who knew the daughter told the Daily News she was becoming more Westernized and didn’t want to wear her hijab.”
This source, which for quite understandable reasons remained unnamed, said of Ola Salem: “She was very outspoken. She wasn’t timid. She was becoming Americanized.”
That increases the likelihood that this was an honor killing, a murder carried out in order to cleanse the family of the dishonor brought upon it by the immorality of a daughter. If Kabary Salem murdered his daughter because she didn’t want to wear the hijab, Ola Salem is yet another casualty of a phenomenon that is tolerated in all too many areas. The Palestinian Authority gives pardons or suspended sentences for honor murders. Iraqi women have asked for tougher sentences for Islamic honor murderers, who get off lightly now. Syria in 2009 scrapped a law limiting the length of sentences for honor killings, but “the new law says a man can still benefit from extenuating circumstances in crimes of passion or honour ‘provided he serves a prison term of no less than two years in the case of killing.’” And in 2003 the Jordanian Parliament voted down on Islamic grounds a provision designed to stiffen penalties for honor killings. Al-Jazeera reported that “Islamists and conservatives said the laws violated religious traditions and would destroy families and values.”
Meanwhile, Western feminists have an annual event, World Hijab Day, in which they don hijabs in order to show solidarity with Muslim women in the West who supposedly experience abuse for wearing the hijab, although a great many of these incidents have been found to have been faked by the alleged victims. The real victims of abuse over wearing the hijab are much more often girls and women who don’t wear it, such as Ola Salem.
Aqsa Parvez’s Muslim father choked her to death with her hijab after she refused to wear it. Amina Muse Ali was a Christian woman in Somalia whom Muslims murdered because she wasn’t wearing a hijab. 40 women were murdered in Iraq in 2007 for not wearing the hijab. Alya Al-Safar’s Muslim cousin threatened to kill her and harm her family because she stopped wearing the hijab in Britain. Amira Osman Hamid faced whipping in Sudan for refusing to wear the hijab. An Egyptian girl, also named Amira, committed suicide after being brutalized by her family for refusing to wear the hijab. Muslim and non-Muslim teachers at the Islamic College of South Australia were told they had to wear the hijab or be fired. Women in Chechnya were police shot with paintballs because they weren’t wearing hijab. Other women in Chechnya were threatened by men with automatic rifles for not wearing hijab.
Elementary school teachers in Tunisia were threatened with death for not wearing hijab. Syrian schoolgirls were forbidden to go to school unless they wore hijab. Women in Gaza were forced by Hamas to wear hijab. Women in Iran protested against the regime by daring to take off their hijabs. Women in London were threatened with murder by Muslim thugs if they didn’t wear hijab. An anonymous young Muslim woman doffed her hijab outside her home and started living a double life in fear of her parents. Fifteen girls in Saudi Arabia were killed when the religious police wouldn’t let them leave their burning school building because they had taken off their hijabs in their all-female environment. A girl in Italy had her head shaved by her mother for not wearing hijab.
Other women and girls have been killed or threatened, or live in fear for daring not to wear the hijab. But where are the feminists standing in solidarity with Ola Salem, and others like her?
Article posted with permission from Robert Spencer


thewashingtonstandard--2020-12-27--Want People to Mistrust the Vaccine? Censor Vaccine Critics

Pre-2016 it was generally held , even by American lefties , that bad speech should be met with good speech in the marketplace of ideas .
There were some exceptions for hate speech and that was considered radical .
And then 2016 happened and the new consensus was that if you called speech “ disinformation ” , it was now a great threat that had to be suppressed .
That spread from pro-Trump speech into a number of areas , including vaccines .
And so the Great War on Speech rolls on .
False claims about the dangers of coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even before Americans began receiving their first shots last week — and now the monthslong rollout to the entire population is giving bad information even more room to fester… If mistrust — or even just confusion — makes people more reluctant to get immunized , it could imperil efforts to end the pandemic that has claimed the lives of more than 315,000 Americans and 1.5 million people around the world .
And that herculean task of building public trust will soon fall to Biden , who will have to decide whether his administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ curb vaccine falsehoods online .
The First Amendment has pretty clear views on that subject .
Disinformation researcher Paul Barrett , deputy director of the NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights .
argued that the companies themselves have instituted strong policies around vaccine misinformation — they just need to put them into practice more stringently .
“ People who get their content taken down will be upset , ” he added , “ but we ’ ve got a top-grade , public health crisis that ’ s underway , and everyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Social media companies have to do the same.
” Censoring speech because it ’ s an emergency is a very original rationale .
It ’ s always an emergency .
Everyone ’ s got to pitch in .
Loose lips sink ships .
Of course , there ’ s no better way to create mistrust of the vaccine than through censorship .
Censorship doesn ’ t stem mistrust .
It validates it .
Just ask people living in any totalitarian country .
Eliminating opposing views doesn ’ t mean that the mandated view @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t trust the mandated view and assume that it ’ s all a lie .
It ’ s why free countries have greater civic trust .
It ’ s also why America no longer does .
If you want mistrust , just go ahead and censor .

Pre-2016 it was generally held, even by American lefties, that bad speech should be met with good speech in the marketplace of ideas. There were some exceptions for hate speech and that was considered radical. And then 2016 happened and the new consensus was that if you called speech “disinformation”, it was now a great threat that had to be suppressed. That spread from pro-Trump speech into a number of areas, including vaccines.
And so the Great War on Speech rolls on.
False claims about the dangers of coronavirus vaccines were running rampant on social media even before Americans began receiving their first shots last week — and now the monthslong rollout to the entire population is giving bad information even more room to fester… If mistrust — or even just confusion — makes people more reluctant to get immunized, it could imperil efforts to end the pandemic that has claimed the lives of more than 315,000 Americans and 1.5 million people around the world. And that herculean task of building public trust will soon fall to Biden, who will have to decide whether his administration should play a role in efforts to curb vaccine falsehoods online.
The First Amendment has pretty clear views on that subject.
Disinformation researcher Paul Barrett, deputy director of the NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights. argued that the companies themselves have instituted strong policies around vaccine misinformation — they just need to put them into practice more stringently. “People who get their content taken down will be upset,” he added, “but we’ve got a top-grade, public health crisis that’s underway, and everyone’s got to pitch in. Social media companies have to do the same.”
Censoring speech because it’s an emergency is a very original rationale. It’s always an emergency. Everyone’s got to pitch in. Loose lips sink ships.
Of course, there’s no better way to create mistrust of the vaccine than through censorship.
Censorship doesn’t stem mistrust. It validates it. Just ask people living in any totalitarian country. Eliminating opposing views doesn’t mean that the mandated view wins. It just means that people don’t trust the mandated view and assume that it’s all a lie.
It’s why free countries have greater civic trust. It’s also why America no longer does.
If you want mistrust, just go ahead and censor.
Article posted with permission from Daniel Greenfield


thewashingtonstandard--2020-12-27--California’s Highest-Paid Government Employee Worked for Organization Tied to Chinese Espionage

The Democrat party of treason has been subsumed by the Chicoms .
California taxpayers shelled out more than $ 1 million to a man linked to a Chinese espionage program , making him the state government ’ s highest-paid worker .
Meng Yu , former chief investment officer of the California Public Employees ’ Retirement System ( CalPERS ) , received more than $ 1.7 million in total pay and benefits in 2019 , according to the latest financial disclosures obtained by Transparent California , a taxpayer watchdog group .
Under Meng ’ s leadership the pension fund , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ system and 1.5 million members under its health program , has been subject to federal inquiries into its investments in Chinese government entities .
Meng took the lead at the pension fund after China ’ s Thousand Talents Program recruited him to serve as the deputy CIO of China ’ s State Administration of Foreign Exchange ( SAFE ) , a state-controlled entity .
The FBI considers the Thousand Talents Program an example of “ China ’ s non-traditional espionage against the United States ” that seeks to recruit people to transfer U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hands of the Chinese government .
Meng told the propaganda outlet People ’ s Daily that he worked for SAFE out of patriotic commitment to “ the motherland.
” Neither CalPERS nor Governor Gavin Newsom ’ s ( D. ) office responded to requests for comment .
Robert Fellner , the executive director of Transparent California , blasted CalPERS for failing to conduct appropriate oversight for such a high-profile position , pointing to Meng ’ s August resignation .
“ One would think that the state ’ s highest-paid employee earned his position @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the best candidate for the job , ” Fellner said .
“ If such recklessness is prevalent in a decision of this size and magnitude , how can Californians have any faith that their tax dollars are being spent responsibly in all those areas that evade public scrutiny ?
” Meng resigned after the financial news blog Naked Capitalism reported that he may have committed a felony by failing to disclose his sale of 21 securities in 2019 .
Some of the undisclosed sales involved shares in Chinese companies .
The site also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Blackstone Group and other private equity groups presented a conflict of interest , since experts at CalPERS had advocated offloading investments in the firms—a move that would hurt Meng ’ s personal portfolio .
Meng ’ s China ties attracted federal scrutiny .
In February , the Trump administration confirmed that it was “ looking at ” CalPERS ’ s investment in Chinese defense and state-owned companies to find out whether American taxpayer money was being used to subsidize China ’ s military expansion .
Rep. Jim Banks ( R. , Ind .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Capitol Hill , told the Washington Free Beacon that California owes taxpayers an explanation for how Meng was able to go directly from working for a Chinese entity to being the state ’ s top earner .
ADVERTISING “ Californians not only had to see their hard-earned tax dollars go towards the buildup of our most dangerous adversary ’ s military , they had to pay the guy responsible more than any other public official in their state , ” Banks said .
“ That ’ s a raw deal.
” Meng ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million in pay and roughly $ 200,000 in benefits—far exceeds that of his predecessor , Theodore Eliopoulos , whom Meng replaced in January 2019 .
Eliopoulos made just shy of $ 1 million in total compensation in all of 2018 .
Meng ’ s 2019 salary also far exceeded that of the second-most compensated California state employee , who made less than $ 1.3 million .

The Democrat party of treason has been subsumed by the Chicoms.
California’s Highest-Paid Govt Employee Worked for Org Tied to Chinese Espionage
Taxpayers paid $1.7 million to ex-pension fund manager Meng
Yuichiro Kakutani, WFB, December 1, 2020 1:30 PM
California taxpayers shelled out more than $1 million to a man linked to a Chinese espionage program, making him the state government’s highest-paid worker.
Meng Yu, former chief investment officer of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS), received more than $1.7 million in total pay and benefits in 2019, according to the latest financial disclosures obtained by Transparent California, a taxpayer watchdog group. Under Meng’s leadership the pension fund, which covers two million members in the retirement system and 1.5 million members under its health program, has been subject to federal inquiries into its investments in Chinese government entities.
Meng took the lead at the pension fund after China’s Thousand Talents Program recruited him to serve as the deputy CIO of China’s State Administration of Foreign Exchange (SAFE), a state-controlled entity. The FBI considers the Thousand Talents Program an example of “China’s non-traditional espionage against the United States” that seeks to recruit people to transfer U.S. trade secrets and taxpayer-funded research into the hands of the Chinese government. Meng told the propaganda outlet People’s Daily that he worked for SAFE out of patriotic commitment to “the motherland.”
Neither CalPERS nor Governor Gavin Newsom’s (D.) office responded to requests for comment.
Robert Fellner, the executive director of Transparent California, blasted CalPERS for failing to conduct appropriate oversight for such a high-profile position, pointing to Meng’s August resignation.
“One would think that the state’s highest-paid employee earned his position after rigorous scrutiny revealed him to be the best candidate for the job,” Fellner said. “If such recklessness is prevalent in a decision of this size and magnitude, how can Californians have any faith that their tax dollars are being spent responsibly in all those areas that evade public scrutiny?”
Meng resigned after the financial news blog Naked Capitalism reported that he may have committed a felony by failing to disclose his sale of 21 securities in 2019. Some of the undisclosed sales involved shares in Chinese companies. The site also argued that Meng’s investments in Blackstone Group and other private equity groups presented a conflict of interest, since experts at CalPERS had advocated offloading investments in the firms—a move that would hurt Meng’s personal portfolio.
Meng’s China ties attracted federal scrutiny. In February, the Trump administration confirmed that it was “looking at” CalPERS’s investment in Chinese defense and state-owned companies to find out whether American taxpayer money was being used to subsidize China’s military expansion. Rep. Jim Banks (R., Ind.), a leading China hawk on Capitol Hill, told the Washington Free Beacon that California owes taxpayers an explanation for how Meng was able to go directly from working for a Chinese entity to being the state’s top earner.
ADVERTISING
“Californians not only had to see their hard-earned tax dollars go towards the buildup of our most dangerous adversary’s military, they had to pay the guy responsible more than any other public official in their state,” Banks said. “That’s a raw deal.”
Meng’s $1.7 million compensation—comprising $1.5 million in pay and roughly $200,000 in benefits—far exceeds that of his predecessor, Theodore Eliopoulos, whom Meng replaced in January 2019. Eliopoulos made just shy of $1 million in total compensation in all of 2018. Meng’s 2019 salary also far exceeded that of the second-most compensated California state employee, who made less than $1.3 million.
Article posted with permission from Pamela Geller


thewashingtonstandard--2020-12-27--Sidney Powell Releases 270-Page Document Detailing Alleged Election Fraud

I honestly don ’ t think the American people need any more evidence of election fraud .
We know it went on .
It ’ s been going on for decades .
What we need is justice brought against the fraudsters , something that really hasn ’ t taken place .
Yet , we ’ ll throw this on the massive pile of evidence over the years that has led to virtually no justice , except in a few cases locally .
Attorney Sidney Powell has now released a lengthy 270-page document detailing alleged fraud in the 2020 elections .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and include affidavits , evidence and testimony from many witnesses and sources detailing alleged fraud in the 2020 election .
Here ’ s a few of those documents .
The document details “ errors ” found in the Election Management logs .
The document details “ errors ” found in the Election Management logs .
Part 13 : “ Swiss and Aussies find a critical flaw in Scytl software that the US ignores .
While some may claim President Trump has a conflict of interest here , it is his job , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perpetrators of this crime ( Article 2 , Section 3 ) .
I ’ m wondering if that will ever take place because when it comes to justice there have been lots of promises unkept b this administration .
Article posted with permission from Sons of Liberty Media

I honestly don’t think the American people need any more evidence of election fraud. We know it went on. It’s been going on for decades. What we need is justice brought against the fraudsters, something that really hasn’t taken place. Yet, we’ll throw this on the massive pile of evidence over the years that has led to virtually no justice, except in a few cases locally. Attorney Sidney Powell has now released a lengthy 270-page document detailing alleged fraud in the 2020 elections.
The documents were released to Zenger News, and include affidavits, evidence and testimony from many witnesses and sources detailing alleged fraud in the 2020 election.
Here’s a few of those documents.
The document details “errors” found in the Election Management logs.
The document details “errors” found in the Election Management logs.
“Offshore leaks database” involving Dominion Voting Systems.
Part 13: “Swiss and Aussies find a critical flaw in Scytl software that the US ignores.
While some may claim President Trump has a conflict of interest here, it is his job, despite that conflict to deal with the perpetrators of this crime (Article 2, Section 3). I’m wondering if that will ever take place because when it comes to justice there have been lots of promises unkept b this administration.
Article posted with permission from Sons of Liberty Media


thewashingtonstandard--2020-12-27--Conned Into Demanding Socialism: The Role Of Operation Mockingbird

Once again , American ’ s are witnessing media propaganda on a grand scale without realizing how their attitudes and opinions are being shaped and guided .
The latest stimulus bill , which is being hailed as a “ covid-relief ” bill , gives Americans affected by the so-called Covid-19 pandemic , economic relief in the amount of a whopping six-hundred dollars .
While people are suffering due to government-mandated shutdowns , which forced millions to close their businesses , the country is burdened by a whopping twenty-seven-trillion dollar debt .
The pork spending allocating billions in foreign aid has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rightfully so .
The government has taken everything from us under the guise of Covid-19 and acts as if we should be thankful for six-hundred dollars .
Donald Trump sent this bill back to congress but for all the wrong reasons .
He is demanding the amount given per American be raised to two-thousand dollars .
Unfortunately , this will do little more than raise each American ’ s share of the debt which currently stands at seventy-one thousand per person .
Unfortunately , too many people believe what they are seeing and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe that Donald Trump is heroically fighting for them while demanding that congress give us more money .
In the meantime , the Republican-controlled Senate is refusing to vote on it while the Democrats are all for it .
In fact , Nancy Pelosi , according to an article at Bizpac Review , tweeted that they finally got Trump to agree to two-thousand dollars .
This was after months of holding the bill back and not allowing a vote to take place .
Here is the interesting part .
After the last stimulus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
6496 , The Emergency Money for the People Act , or the Universal Basic Income act .
This bill calls for the direct payment of two-thousand dollars per month to American families during the duration of the Covid-19 pandemic .
In other words , President Trump is once again , giving the Democrats what they want , and it is being made to appear as if there is conflict .
Only this time , the conflict lies with republicans , threatening to further fracture and discredit the Republican party .
Democrats have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a long time .
What better way to get it than to make the people demand it through a carefully constructed narrative depicting Donald Trump as the one suggesting it ?
The whole issue is being framed through the Hegelian Dialectic ’ s problem-reaction-solution strategy .
The problem is that the American people are not being given enough .
The demand ?
Give the American people more money .
The pre-determined solution ?
Universal basic income .
This is something that under normal circumstances , the people would never accept .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if there is enough hopelessness in the future or the current system , people can be brought to accept anything .
“ There is another reason for working inside the system .
Dostoevsky said that taking a new step is what people fear most .
Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive , affirmative , non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people .
They must feel so frustrated , so defeated , so lost , so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution.
” ( Alinsky , Rules for Radicals ) The stimulus spending bill is a perfect example of how thoughts are controlled , and opinions are defined by the media .
The argument is being framed from one perspective .
That more money needs to be spent because of the economic devastation of Covid-19 .
Nowhere in the conversation is the solution of opening the economy and putting an end to the destructive government policies , which are the true bearer of responsibility .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to two-thousand dollars , or leave the bill as is .
Socialism , or more socialism .
This is really no choice at all because either way , the American people ultimately get screwed .
This is something called Hobson ’ s choice , which is a way of presenting an issue from the perspective that there are two choices , but there is really , only one .
The only choice in the stimulus bill is more debt-strapped on the backs of the American taxpayer .
This is the true role of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ follow politics and conspiracy theories have likely heard the term Operation Mockingbird .
This is the CIA operation where news reporters were put on the agency ’ s payroll to shape and influence American opinion to be favorable with government objectives .
Defining popular opinions and limiting choices were some of the key propaganda tactics employed by Mockingbird operatives .
The defining of the issues from either the conservative or the liberal position was also an important strategy .
Conservatives , because Trump is advocating for more money , are being guided into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the situation is hopeless .
This coincides with the illusion of conflict , where it is being shown as a Trump vs. them narrative with Trump seemingly standing for the disenfranchised American .
Read the rest at Defense Of Our Nation

Once again, American’s are witnessing media propaganda on a grand scale without realizing how their attitudes and opinions are being shaped and guided. The latest stimulus bill, which is being hailed as a “covid-relief” bill, gives Americans affected by the so-called Covid-19 pandemic, economic relief in the amount of a whopping six-hundred dollars. While people are suffering due to government-mandated shutdowns, which forced millions to close their businesses, the country is burdened by a whopping twenty-seven-trillion dollar debt. The pork spending allocating billions in foreign aid has sparked outrage among the American people and rightfully so. The government has taken everything from us under the guise of Covid-19 and acts as if we should be thankful for six-hundred dollars. Donald Trump sent this bill back to congress but for all the wrong reasons. He is demanding the amount given per American be raised to two-thousand dollars. Unfortunately, this will do little more than raise each American’s share of the debt which currently stands at seventy-one thousand per person.
Unfortunately, too many people believe what they are seeing and take it at face value. They believe that Donald Trump is heroically fighting for them while demanding that congress give us more money. In the meantime, the Republican-controlled Senate is refusing to vote on it while the Democrats are all for it. In fact, Nancy Pelosi, according to an article at Bizpac Review, tweeted that they finally got Trump to agree to two-thousand dollars. This was after months of holding the bill back and not allowing a vote to take place. Here is the interesting part. After the last stimulus bill passed, the Democrats introduced H.R. 6496, The Emergency Money for the People Act, or the Universal Basic Income act. This bill calls for the direct payment of two-thousand dollars per month to American families during the duration of the Covid-19 pandemic. In other words, President Trump is once again, giving the Democrats what they want, and it is being made to appear as if there is conflict. Only this time, the conflict lies with republicans, threatening to further fracture and discredit the Republican party.
Democrats have been advocating for the Universal Basic Income for a long time. What better way to get it than to make the people demand it through a carefully constructed narrative depicting Donald Trump as the one suggesting it? The whole issue is being framed through the Hegelian Dialectic’s problem-reaction-solution strategy. The problem is that the American people are not being given enough. The demand? Give the American people more money. The pre-determined solution? Universal basic income. This is something that under normal circumstances, the people would never accept. As Alinsky says in Rules for Radicals, if there is enough hopelessness in the future or the current system, people can be brought to accept anything.
“There is another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevsky said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution.” (Alinsky, Rules for Radicals )
The stimulus spending bill is a perfect example of how thoughts are controlled, and opinions are defined by the media. The argument is being framed from one perspective. That more money needs to be spent because of the economic devastation of Covid-19. Nowhere in the conversation is the solution of opening the economy and putting an end to the destructive government policies, which are the true bearer of responsibility. The argument is either increase the spending to two-thousand dollars, or leave the bill as is. Socialism, or more socialism. This is really no choice at all because either way, the American people ultimately get screwed. This is something called Hobson’s choice, which is a way of presenting an issue from the perspective that there are two choices, but there is really, only one. The only choice in the stimulus bill is more debt-strapped on the backs of the American taxpayer.
This is the true role of the television media. Most Americans who follow politics and conspiracy theories have likely heard the term Operation Mockingbird. This is the CIA operation where news reporters were put on the agency’s payroll to shape and influence American opinion to be favorable with government objectives. Defining popular opinions and limiting choices were some of the key propaganda tactics employed by Mockingbird operatives. The defining of the issues from either the conservative or the liberal position was also an important strategy. Conservatives, because Trump is advocating for more money, are being guided into supporting something they normally would not because the situation is hopeless. This coincides with the illusion of conflict, where it is being shown as a Trump vs. them narrative with Trump seemingly standing for the disenfranchised American.
Read the rest at Defense Of Our Nation


thewashingtonstandard--2020-12-27--American Gun Ownership: The Positive Impacts of Law-Abiding Citizens Owning Firearms

It ’ s no secret that mainstream press coverage of gun ownership in the United States tends to be in favor of gun control .
Journalists focus on how many people are killed by guns , how many children get their hands on improperly stored firearms , and how many deranged individuals go on shooting sprees .
This anti-gun news bias is widespread among urban elites who have very little personal experience with guns and yet have no problem opining about the subject for influential newspapers like The New York Times or The Washington Post .
Despite this bias , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American society that often go unreported .
There is actually a sort of semi-official policy regarding this : “ if it bleeds , it leads.
” This means , in short , that the more death and destruction , the higher up on the news the story goes .
Nothing moves units quite like tales of gun violence , so the media complies by wallpapering coverage of tragic events like mass shootings , despite the fact that such events are rare and comprise a small number of the total deaths in America .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ almost never reports on context when it comes to mass shootings , such as the well-documented connection between prescription antidepressants and shootings .
Even when SSRIs are involved , there is a serious problem with mental healthcare in the United States , which has one of the lowest rates of involuntary commitment in the world .
In other words , it is incredibly difficult to get someone who is clearly a danger to themselves and others locked away even for a short observation period .
Of course , other , more tangential causes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the destruction of the family are never even considered .
Before proceeding further , it is finally worth pointing out that despite any talk of “ weapons of war on our streets ” by politicians and the media , it is primarily the police who hold such “ weapons of war.
” The possession of heavy weapons by local , state and federal law enforcement is not an abstract or philosophical question : The Bureau of Alcohol , Tobacco and Firearms alone offers a number of examples of the deadly consequences of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s also worth discussing American gun ownership as a way of life .
No other country has anything even close to resembling the gun culture of the United States , in scope or in character .
To put it simply : Americans love their guns .
There ’ s nothing particularly revelatory about this , but it is worth mentioning and discussing , if only briefly .
The War on Drugs and the Prohibition Era both provide examples of the federal government trying to ban something in sharp demand from the rest of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have enforced drug laws with great success , Americans simply do not have the appetite or the tolerance for that kind of a crackdown on civil rights or the draconian punishments they have implemented to back up their drug laws .
Put more directly : America is not Malaysia .
There is a reason for this other than the Second Amendment , though that is an important factor .
In the 18th century , firearms were expensive and largely the province of the nobility and the gentry .
Even if you could get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do with it ?
Most of the land was owned by the nobility , and if you hunted on their land the penalty was death .
Compare this with the Colonies and the United States .
While guns weren ’ t necessarily cheaper , they weren ’ t a luxury – they were a necessity .
Settlers used them to put food on the table and also to fight off what were sometimes constant raids by a hostile native population .
This is how America became one of three countries ( Mexico @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to constitutionally enshrine the right to keep and bear arms , and perhaps the only one to really take that right seriously .
Because of this , the gun is inseparable from American notions of freedom .
Why Guns Are Good : Criminals and the Armed Citizen Perhaps the most important impact of gun ownership on American society is how it influences the behavior of criminals .
The fact is , criminals fear armed citizens more than they do the police .
There ’ s many reasons for this , but here are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bound by policy and procedures , and are trained to only use their firearms if it ’ s absolutely necessary .
• Civilians are also less trained .
In a research study sponsored by the United States Department of Justice , James Wright and Peter Rossi interviewed over 1,800 incarcerated felons , asking how they felt about civilians and gun ownership .
Thirty-three percent of these criminals admitted to being scared off , shot at , wounded , or captured by a gun-owning victim .
Sixty-nine percent of them knew at least one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nearly 80 percent of felons also claimed that they intentionally avoid victims and homes that they believe may be armed .
This shows that at least one in three criminals has been deterred because of an armed citizen , and that four out of five avoid victimizing people that have guns .
Why Guns Are Good : A Sense of Security Most people realize that law enforcement can not be everywhere , yet so many rely on nothing but a 911 call to protect both their home and those inside it .
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it can take an hour or more for first responders to arrive after an emergency call , but in most cases , even five minutes is too long .
But when a homeowner is armed and trained , the sense of security increases .
Thanks to modern psychology , we know that people need this sense of security in order to grow and develop into healthy adults .
Not surprisingly , privately owned guns provide that .
Sixty-three percent of Americans now believe that having a gun in the house increases safety .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ feeling secure and safe , or claim that another person ’ s desire for safety makes them feel unsafe , it is by far the most basic of human needs .
And without it , people are left feeling frightened , angry , and defensive – often unable to reach , or even focus on , higher goals .
Concerning public safety , the media often portrays guns as the primary problem – stating things like , “ Guns kill people ” or “ Guns are not the answer.
” But gun control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Whenever a community , city , state , or country has imposed a ban on guns , regardless if it was all guns or simply handguns , it has experienced an increase in murder rates .
In 1997 , Wales and England saw a nearly 50 percent increase in homicides immediately after implementing a ban on handguns .
Gun control advocates promote the idea that more gun policies and regulations make Americans safer , but it ’ s naive to believe that any type of law will stop someone set on murder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that engage in these types of criminal behaviors do not obey laws , and are therefore rarely impacted by policies and procedures .
But these implemented gun control laws do impact the law-abiding citizens who are only trying to protect themselves and those they care about .
The fact is , widespread gun ownership does reduce crime .
Here are some of the ways : Every year , one million American home and business owners utilize a privately owned firearm to protect their property and lives .
And when it comes to protection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the safest route for victims .
It ’ s associated with lower rates of both victim injury and crime completion than any other victim action .
American criminals are also less likely to burglarize an occupied home due to fear of the homeowner being armed .
In England , where only around four percent of the general population legally own a handgun due to heavy restrictions , 59 percent of homes are occupied when the burglar breaks in , compared to approximately 28 percent in the U.S .
Even if the homeowner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she would have to unlock it from its safe , then unlock another safe where the ammunition is kept , then load the weapon before self defense would be possible .
In 2009 , 13 years after the country ’ s handgun ban began , its handgun crime levels had nearly doubled .
After personal and home protection , the biggest impact of gun ownership on American society is mass shootings .
Since 1950 , all but just over one percent of mass public shootings occurred in gun-free zones .
That means perpetrators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safe and could intentionally be choosing these places to act out their massacres .
Also , immediately after right to carry concealed laws are put in place , the amount of mass public shootings fall dramatically .
Not only does their frequency fall , but because people have the ability to carry firearms , they therefore can stop the perpetrator – limiting the impact of violence and destruction .
Within the last two decades , this has happened numerous times across the country , including at a middle school dance in Edinboro , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Salt Lake City , Utah .
What ’ s more , when police were interviewed regarding their position on gun control legislation , around 90 percent stated they believed that during an active shooter incident , having well-trained , armed citizens present would decrease the casualties .
More than 28 percent agreed that more permissive carry concealed policies would be beneficial to the public , especially when it comes to large-scale public shootings .
For the counter-argument that states an armed civilian is likely to increase the causalities of a mass shooter incident @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – just as there is an increased risk any time police are involved in a shoot-out .
But remember , if there ’ s an armed shooter , things are already bad .
And without interference , things are going to get worse .
While the philosophy for protection during one of these situations is always run , hide , fight , if you ’ re fighting for your life , having a gun on your side is more beneficial than anything else .
Because criminals fear citizens with firearms , gun ownership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Not only is it a deterrent , but every time an intruder is shot , injured , or captured by a civilian , he or she is less likely to commit another crime .
Consider this : In 1966 , 2,500 women in Orlando , Florida , went through a specific , highly publicized handgun training .
Without anything else happening , the prevalence of rapes fell substantially from almost 36 rapes per 100,000 women to four .
Other crimes , such as home burglaries , also fell – demonstrating that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In 2014 , America saw a switch in how people thought about gun control .
For the first time since gun control became an issue , more Americans believed that protecting gun rights was more important than controlling gun ownership , 52 to 46 percent .
That ’ s important because according to the U.S. Constitution , the right to bear arms is an inalienable right and an inherent part of the right to life .
Once this right is violated by either another individual or the state , the ability to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is impeded on .
And when that happens , the ability of private citizens to protect the Constitution and the rights it enshrines for all Americans is threatened .
Having the ability to forcefully fight back against a tyrannical leader with guns – not just words – is what gave the colonists the ability to overthrow British control of the American colonies .
Without guns , we would not have become the United States of America .
The Founding Fathers understood this , and wanted to ensure that future generations of Americans could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and domestic .
Why Guns Are Legal : Restraining the Power of Government It may seem ridiculous to think that in today ’ s world , citizens could rise up against the government simply because of privately owned guns .
Yet the argument stands that citizens having guns does restrain the power of government .
History has shown that when gun restrictions and bans are implemented , it leads to tyranny .
Here are a few examples : • 1929 : Soviet Union implemented gun control , and after 20 years , killed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : After 17 years of gun control laws , 20 million dissidents were killed in China .
• 1938 : Nazi Germany enacted gun control laws for Jews and by 1945 , had murdered 13 million Jewish people .
• 1956 : In just two years after gun control laws were enacted , one million people were killed in Cambodia .
• 1964 : In a nine-year span after gun control , Guatemala killed over 100,000 Mayan Indians .
• 1970 : In Uganda , 300,000 Christians were killed after gun control was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Rwanda disarmed the Tutsi people , and executed almost one million of them .
What has the 20th Century shown us about gun control ?
That an unarmed country is not a safe country .
That when citizens don ’ t have the right to bear arms , governments can and do grow too large and become a threat to their people .
That in the 20th century , governments murdered four times as many people as those that were killed in all the world ’ s wars during that same time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ killed by their own governments than by criminals .
Arguments in support of the anti-gun campaign can seem strong .
After all , they talk about gun control saving the lives of children , stopping school shootings , and putting an end to terrorist attacks .
But the fact is , this is just rhetoric and much of it is exaggerated and skewed .
Here ’ s the truth behind the most common anti-gun arguments , especially when it comes to individual and public safety .
Yes , civilian-owned guns often play a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun control policies do seem to lower the prevalence of gun suicides .
But gun control does not impact the number of people who commit suicide nor the total number that occur .
Research shows that when guns are not available , those intent on hurting themselves find other , just as fatal ways to do it .
More gun regulation does not lessen these numbers .
A favorite statistic used by those in favor of gun control is that when a person has a gun in the home , he or she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and kill a family member than an intruder .
This statistic is based off of one study done in Seattle in 1986 .
Shooting of a family member included firearm murders , suicides , and fatal accidents and was compared to court-ruled justifiable homicides .
Of these 43 deaths , most were suicides .
As already discussed , gun restrictions do not impact the number of suicides .
Eliminate these deaths from the numbers , and it drops to 2.39 deaths to one .
* Now , of those 2.39 family deaths , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Just like the absence of guns doesn ’ t reduce the risk of suicide , when someone is bent on murder , chances are he or she is going to follow through regardless if it ’ s with a firearm , a knife , poison , or other means .
Lastly , these are deaths compared to deaths , and when discussing self defense and protecting both yourself and home , it often doesn ’ t lead to death .
Wielding a firearm alone is enough to turn many criminals away .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ self defense shoot to injure , not kill .
The study also didn ’ t account for those cases when a homeowner was acquitted on grounds of self-defense .
Therefore , this number represents the number of dead criminals , not those that were captured or deterred .
So what does this mean for America ?
It means that guns and the law-abiding citizens who carry them make and keep it a safer country .
It means when a criminal knows you ’ re carrying a firearm , you ’ re less likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that there are positive benefits of gun ownership for Americans and that gun legislation is not the best way to safer streets .
*If you know that someone in your home is severely depressed or having suicidal idealizations , access to firearms should be completely restricted .
This is also true for knives , ropes , and all medications – including those that can be purchased over the counter .
Seek medical assistance as soon as possible .

It’s no secret that mainstream press coverage of gun ownership in the United States tends to be in favor of gun control. Journalists focus on how many people are killed by guns, how many children get their hands on improperly stored firearms, and how many deranged individuals go on shooting sprees.
This anti-gun news bias is widespread among urban elites who have very little personal experience with guns and yet have no problem opining about the subject for influential newspapers like The New York Times or The Washington Post. Despite this bias, gun ownership has significant positive impacts on American society that often go unreported.
There is actually a sort of semi-official policy regarding this: “if it bleeds, it leads.” This means, in short, that the more death and destruction, the higher up on the news the story goes. Nothing moves units quite like tales of gun violence, so the media complies by wallpapering coverage of tragic events like mass shootings, despite the fact that such events are rare and comprise a small number of the total deaths in America.
What’s more, the media almost never reports on context when it comes to mass shootings, such as the well-documented connection between prescription antidepressants and shootings. Even when SSRIs are involved, there is a serious problem with mental healthcare in the United States, which has one of the lowest rates of involuntary commitment in the world. In other words, it is incredibly difficult to get someone who is clearly a danger to themselves and others locked away even for a short observation period.
Of course, other, more tangential causes like the breakdown of civil society and the destruction of the family are never even considered.
Before proceeding further, it is finally worth pointing out that despite any talk of “weapons of war on our streets” by politicians and the media, it is primarily the police who hold such “weapons of war.” The possession of heavy weapons by local, state and federal law enforcement is not an abstract or philosophical question: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms alone offers a number of examples of the deadly consequences of a heavily armed police force.
American Gun Ownership: A Way of Life
It’s also worth discussing American gun ownership as a way of life. No other country has anything even close to resembling the gun culture of the United States, in scope or in character. To put it simply: Americans love their guns. There’s nothing particularly revelatory about this, but it is worth mentioning and discussing, if only briefly.
The War on Drugs and the Prohibition Era both provide examples of the federal government trying to ban something in sharp demand from the rest of the population. And while other countries have enforced drug laws with great success, Americans simply do not have the appetite or the tolerance for that kind of a crackdown on civil rights or the draconian punishments they have implemented to back up their drug laws.
Put more directly: America is not Malaysia.
There is a reason for this other than the Second Amendment, though that is an important factor. In the 18th century, firearms were expensive and largely the province of the nobility and the gentry. Even if you could get a weapon – what were you going to do with it? Most of the land was owned by the nobility, and if you hunted on their land the penalty was death.
Compare this with the Colonies and the United States. While guns weren’t necessarily cheaper, they weren’t a luxury – they were a necessity. Settlers used them to put food on the table and also to fight off what were sometimes constant raids by a hostile native population.
This is how America became one of three countries (Mexico and Guatemala are the other two) to constitutionally enshrine the right to keep and bear arms, and perhaps the only one to really take that right seriously. Because of this, the gun is inseparable from American notions of freedom.
Why Guns Are Good: Criminals and the Armed Citizen
Perhaps the most important impact of gun ownership on American society is how it influences the behavior of criminals.
The fact is, criminals fear armed citizens more than they do the police. There’s many reasons for this, but here are the most prominent:
Police are rarely onsite during a crime.
Police are bound by policy and procedures, and are trained to only use their firearms if it’s absolutely necessary.
Civilians are also less trained.
In a research study sponsored by the United States Department of Justice, James Wright and Peter Rossi interviewed over 1,800 incarcerated felons, asking how they felt about civilians and gun ownership. Thirty-three percent of these criminals admitted to being scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by a gun-owning victim. Sixty-nine percent of them knew at least one other criminal who had similar experiences. Nearly 80 percent of felons also claimed that they intentionally avoid victims and homes that they believe may be armed.
This shows that at least one in three criminals has been deterred because of an armed citizen, and that four out of five avoid victimizing people that have guns.
Why Guns Are Good: A Sense of Security
Most people realize that law enforcement cannot be everywhere, yet so many rely on nothing but a 911 call to protect both their home and those inside it. For those who live in remote areas, it can take an hour or more for first responders to arrive after an emergency call, but in most cases, even five minutes is too long. But when a homeowner is armed and trained, the sense of security increases.
Thanks to modern psychology, we know that people need this sense of security in order to grow and develop into healthy adults. Not surprisingly, privately owned guns provide that. Sixty-three percent of Americans now believe that having a gun in the house increases safety. While some may dismiss the importance of feeling secure and safe, or claim that another person’s desire for safety makes them feel unsafe, it is by far the most basic of human needs. And without it, people are left feeling frightened, angry, and defensive – often unable to reach, or even focus on, higher goals.
Gun Ownership and Public Safety
Concerning public safety, the media often portrays guns as the primary problem – stating things like, “Guns kill people” or “Guns are not the answer.” But gun control and restrictions are also not the answer. Whenever a community, city, state, or country has imposed a ban on guns, regardless if it was all guns or simply handguns, it has experienced an increase in murder rates. In 1997, Wales and England saw a nearly 50 percent increase in homicides immediately after implementing a ban on handguns.
Gun control advocates promote the idea that more gun policies and regulations make Americans safer, but it’s naive to believe that any type of law will stop someone set on murder or other criminal activity. The individuals that engage in these types of criminal behaviors do not obey laws, and are therefore rarely impacted by policies and procedures. But these implemented gun control laws do impact the law-abiding citizens who are only trying to protect themselves and those they care about.
The fact is, widespread gun ownership does reduce crime. Here are some of the ways:
Home and Business Protection
Every year, one million American home and business owners utilize a privately owned firearm to protect their property and lives. And when it comes to protection, resisting a crime with a gun is the safest route for victims. It’s associated with lower rates of both victim injury and crime completion than any other victim action.
American criminals are also less likely to burglarize an occupied home due to fear of the homeowner being armed. In England, where only around four percent of the general population legally own a handgun due to heavy restrictions, 59 percent of homes are occupied when the burglar breaks in, compared to approximately 28 percent in the U.S. Even if the homeowner did own a gun, he or she would have to unlock it from its safe, then unlock another safe where the ammunition is kept, then load the weapon before self defense would be possible. In 2009, 13 years after the country’s handgun ban began, its handgun crime levels had nearly doubled.
Public Shootings
After personal and home protection, the biggest impact of gun ownership on American society is mass shootings. Since 1950, all but just over one percent of mass public shootings occurred in gun-free zones. That means perpetrators are likely to know they’re safe and could intentionally be choosing these places to act out their massacres.
Also, immediately after right to carry concealed laws are put in place, the amount of mass public shootings fall dramatically. Not only does their frequency fall, but because people have the ability to carry firearms, they therefore can stop the perpetrator – limiting the impact of violence and destruction. Within the last two decades, this has happened numerous times across the country, including at a middle school dance in Edinboro, Pennsylvania and the Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City, Utah.
What’s more, when police were interviewed regarding their position on gun control legislation, around 90 percent stated they believed that during an active shooter incident, having well-trained, armed citizens present would decrease the casualties. More than 28 percent agreed that more permissive carry concealed policies would be beneficial to the public, especially when it comes to large-scale public shootings.
For the counter-argument that states an armed civilian is likely to increase the causalities of a mass shooter incident, there is a risk of this – just as there is an increased risk any time police are involved in a shoot-out. But remember, if there’s an armed shooter, things are already bad. And without interference, things are going to get worse. While the philosophy for protection during one of these situations is always run, hide, fight, if you’re fighting for your life, having a gun on your side is more beneficial than anything else.
The Exponential Impact
Because criminals fear citizens with firearms, gun ownership does have a dampening effect on crime. Not only is it a deterrent, but every time an intruder is shot, injured, or captured by a civilian, he or she is less likely to commit another crime.
Consider this: In 1966, 2,500 women in Orlando, Florida, went through a specific, highly publicized handgun training. Without anything else happening, the prevalence of rapes fell substantially from almost 36 rapes per 100,000 women to four. Other crimes, such as home burglaries, also fell – demonstrating that the private ownership of guns does deter crimes.
Why Guns Are Legal: Protecting Constitutional Rights
In 2014, America saw a switch in how people thought about gun control. For the first time since gun control became an issue, more Americans believed that protecting gun rights was more important than controlling gun ownership, 52 to 46 percent.
That’s important because according to the U.S. Constitution, the right to bear arms is an inalienable right and an inherent part of the right to life. Once this right is violated by either another individual or the state, the ability to protect oneself from danger and even tyranny is impeded on. And when that happens, the ability of private citizens to protect the Constitution and the rights it enshrines for all Americans is threatened.
Having the ability to forcefully fight back against a tyrannical leader with guns – not just words – is what gave the colonists the ability to overthrow British control of the American colonies. Without guns, we would not have become the United States of America. The Founding Fathers understood this, and wanted to ensure that future generations of Americans could defend themselves against all threats both foreign and domestic.
Why Guns Are Legal: Restraining the Power of Government
It may seem ridiculous to think that in today’s world, citizens could rise up against the government simply because of privately owned guns. Yet the argument stands that citizens having guns does restrain the power of government. History has shown that when gun restrictions and bans are implemented, it leads to tyranny.
Here are a few examples:
1911: In Turkey, the Ottoman Empire killed 1.5 million Armenians.
1929: Soviet Union implemented gun control, and after 20 years, killed over 20 million dissidents.
1935: After 17 years of gun control laws, 20 million dissidents were killed in China.
1938: Nazi Germany enacted gun control laws for Jews and by 1945, had murdered 13 million Jewish people.
1956: In just two years after gun control laws were enacted, one million people were killed in Cambodia.
1964: In a nine-year span after gun control, Guatemala killed over 100,000 Mayan Indians.
1970: In Uganda, 300,000 Christians were killed after gun control was implemented.
1994: The government of Rwanda disarmed the Tutsi people, and executed almost one million of them.
What has the 20th Century shown us about gun control? That an unarmed country is not a safe country. That when citizens don’t have the right to bear arms, governments can and do grow too large and become a threat to their people. That in the 20th century, governments murdered four times as many people as those that were killed in all the world’s wars during that same time period. That millions more people were killed by their own governments than by criminals.
Truth Behind the Anti-Gun Rhetoric
Arguments in support of the anti-gun campaign can seem strong. After all, they talk about gun control saving the lives of children, stopping school shootings, and putting an end to terrorist attacks. But the fact is, this is just rhetoric and much of it is exaggerated and skewed.
Here’s the truth behind the most common anti-gun arguments, especially when it comes to individual and public safety.
Suicide
Yes, civilian-owned guns often play a role in suicides. And yes, gun control policies do seem to lower the prevalence of gun suicides. But gun control does not impact the number of people who commit suicide nor the total number that occur. Research shows that when guns are not available, those intent on hurting themselves find other, just as fatal ways to do it. More gun regulation does not lessen these numbers.
43 to One
A favorite statistic used by those in favor of gun control is that when a person has a gun in the home, he or she is 43 times more likely to shoot and kill a family member than an intruder. This statistic is based off of one study done in Seattle in 1986. Shooting of a family member included firearm murders, suicides, and fatal accidents and was compared to court-ruled justifiable homicides.
Of these 43 deaths, most were suicides. As already discussed, gun restrictions do not impact the number of suicides. Eliminate these deaths from the numbers, and it drops to 2.39 deaths to one.*
Now, of those 2.39 family deaths, some are accidents and some are murders. Just like the absence of guns doesn’t reduce the risk of suicide, when someone is bent on murder, chances are he or she is going to follow through regardless if it’s with a firearm, a knife, poison, or other means.
Lastly, these are deaths compared to deaths, and when discussing self defense and protecting both yourself and home, it often doesn’t lead to death. Wielding a firearm alone is enough to turn many criminals away. And many who use a firearm in self defense shoot to injure, not kill. The study also didn’t account for those cases when a homeowner was acquitted on grounds of self-defense. Therefore, this number represents the number of dead criminals, not those that were captured or deterred.
So what does this mean for America? It means that guns and the law-abiding citizens who carry them make and keep it a safer country. It means when a criminal knows you’re carrying a firearm, you’re less likely to become a victim. It means that there are positive benefits of gun ownership for Americans and that gun legislation is not the best way to safer streets.
*If you know that someone in your home is severely depressed or having suicidal idealizations, access to firearms should be completely restricted. This is also true for knives, ropes, and all medications – including those that can be purchased over the counter. Seek medical assistance as soon as possible.
Written by Molly Carter Article posted with permission from Ammo.com