2 WHITE POLICE OFFICERS RESTRAIN BLACK OFFICER FROM ASSAULTING SUSPECT and MAIN STREAM MEDIA is SILENT

I often disagree with YouTuber  “the Officer Tatum, but his position on this is spot on. 

ITS NEO-MARXISM - FINALLY SOME COURAGEOUS MAIN STREAM NEWS ANCHORS HITTING THE NAIL on the HEAD

Finally, what we at RTR have been constantly identifying as the primary political ideology that has gripped all developed nations like it has third world countries... NEO-BOLSHEVIK / NEOMARXISM. 

All those who have claimed a cultural Marxism was just a “far right” conspiracy theory, while using the false left right paradigm that fuses seemingly  conservative but very Communitarian ideology they have unknowing to the majority of the public poisoned traditionalism. Have a listen to this:

Thank you Sky News Australia!!!

VIRGINIA POLICE WHO SHOULD BE GOING TO PRISON GET OFF COMMITTING SERIOUS CRIMES THAT WOULD PUT ANY OTHER PERSON BEHIND BARS FOR YEARS

I have had about all I can handle seeing just how corrupt the system itself has become. However, rather than blame it on causes that aren’t, and rather than defend those like George Floyd, a man who held a gun to a pregnant woman’s belly during a robbery, making him some sort of deified poster child for a Marxist movement lead by idiots who purchase millions in real estate, I choose to take each situation and look at it fresh. I don’t race bait, nor am I oblivious to its perceived influence. But in this situation I just watched an Army lieutenant violated so badly while remaining composed and calm. Watch for yourself and see if you can spot the same crimes I do. 

- Aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

- Aggravated assault - pepper spray

- Deprivation of Rights under the color of law 

        by long after realizing no crime had been committed continued to restrain a free law abiding man. 

- 4th Amendment violation illegal search

- Animal cruelty - Assault of a United States Army service dog.

And all while giving conflicting orders...

They instructed the man NOT TO PUT HIS HANDS IN THE CAR.. but insisted he get out while his seatbelt was locked. 

That set of conflicting orders was responded to more than reasonably by the man placing his hands where they could be seen and not moving a muscle. 

The officer in the end commits extortion by telling the man that if he just wants to “let it go and move on down the road he would do nothing. But if the man did want to “push the issue “ he would be charged with a litany if bogus charges that could ruin his entire career. 

MY VERDICT: 

6 YEARS IN PRISON for officer spray happy. 

3 YEARS for the other for following Officer Dipshit down that path to lunacy. 

RTR TRUTH MEDIA

HUNTER BIDEN - A SLEEPY CRACKHEAD WHO the COMMUNISTS MANIPULATED WHICH COMPROMISES the ENTIRE BIDEN PRESIDENTIAL ADMIN

A crack smoking pawn of the Communists. -

NEW YORK TIMES DEALT CRUSHING BLOW and EXPOSED AS INTENTIONAL LYING PROPAGANDISTS

In a stunning blow, New York Times has been taken to the woodshed by Project Veritas and beyond the slinging of words the New York Times was utterly and completely castigated by a judge For doing exactly what they claimed Project Veritas was doing. This video report from James O’Keefe lays it all out with evidence. As many of our readers know, while most of us at RTR TRUTH MEDIA lean to the right, we are not affiliated with any party and our dedication is to the truth no matter where the truth takes us. 

 

As a reminder to anyone and everyone who is not familiar with exactly how the New York Times has been a subversive rag here’s some quotes that should be eye-opening if you haven’t read them already. The following comes from a publication that the CIA regularly has as part of their investigative reports.

Media Protects Bilderberg Group

• Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller and other Bilderberg luminaries frequently and gushingly thank the media attending their secret meetings for covering up their global conspiracy. 

Exclusive to The SPOTLIGHT 
By James P. Tucker Jr. 

Each spring, when Bilderberg meets behind closed doors at a remote luxury resort sealed off by armed guards, police and, frequently, the host nation's military, luminaries from the world's major newspapers and broadcast outlets attend on vows of secrecy. 

Thus, Bilderberg makes the mainstream press part of the conspiracy of silence, causing them to ignore a major story. Over the years, Bilderberg coverage by the SPOTLIGHT has resulted in advance stories on the end of the Cold War, the downfall of Margaret Thatcher and other earth-shaking events. 

Often, the gratitude is expressed individually during cocktail-sippings, with Kissinger, Rockefeller and others thanking Donald Graham, publisher of The Washington Post, and high officials of The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal and other newspapers and network television anchors. 

But secrecy is so crucial that the collaborating press is often thanked as part of the formal proceedings, too. 

A source who attended the 1991 Bilderberg meeting in Baden Baden, Germany related the following comments to The SPOTLIGHT and attributed them to mattoid David Rockefeller. 

We are grateful to The Washington Post, New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. 

But the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march toward a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bank ers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries. 

The high-ranking State Department official, who has been a reliable source on Bilderberg for more than a decade, went on to say: "I am unable to confirm those precise words, but I have absolute knowledge that Kissinger, Rockefeller and the others always express their gratitude to the collaborating media, many times as individuals and sometimes during a formal meeting." 

Henry Kissinger reportedly made similar remarks during the Bilder berg meeting in Evian, France in May 1992: 

Today Americans would be outraged if UN troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow, they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there is an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will pledge [sic] with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. 

The one thing that every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being by their world government. 

The SPOTLIGHT reported on this meeting on June 8, 1992, saying that Bilderberg was determined on "conditioning the public -- especially 'those stubborn Americans' -- to accept the idea of a UN army that could, by force, impose its will on the internal affairs of any nation."

1957 - US NEWS & WORLD REPORT - There is No 14th Amendment - by David Lawrence - Historical Archive

               There is No "Fourteenth Amendment"!
                               by
                         David Lawrence
                    U.S. News & World Report
                       September 27, 1957
     A MISTAKEN  BELIEF --  that there  is a valid article in the
Constitution  known   as  the   "Fourteenth  Amendment"   --   is
responsible for  the Supreme  Court  decision  of  1954  and  the
ensuing controversy  over desegregation  in the public schools of
America.    No  such amendment was ever legally ratified by three
fourths  of   the  States   of  the  Union  as  required  by  the
Constitution itself.     The so-called "Fourteenth Amendment" was
dubiously  proclaimed by the Secretary of State on July 20, 1868.
The President  shared that  doubt.    There were 37 States in the
Union at  the time,  so ratification by at least 28 was necessary
to make  the amendment  an integral  part  of  the  Constitution.
Actually, only  21 States  legally ratified  it.  So it failed of
ratification.
     The undisputed record, attested by official journals and the
unanimous writings  of historians,  establishes these  events  as
occurring in 1867 and 1868:
     1.   Outside the  South, six  States --  New  Jersey,  Ohio,
          Kentucky, California,  Delaware and  Maryland -- failed
          to ratify the proposed amendment.
     2.   In the  South, ten States -- Texas, Arkansas, Virginia,
          North  Carolina,   South  Carolina,  Georgia,  Alabama,
          Florida, Mississippi  and Louisiana -- by formal action
          of their  legislatures, rejected  it under  the  normal
          processes of civil law.
     3.   A total  of 16 legislatures out of 37 failed legally to
          ratify the "Fourteenth Amendment."
     4.   Congress --  which had  deprived the Southern States of
          their seats  in the Senate -- did not lawfully pass the
          resolution of submission in the first instance.
     5.   The Southern  States which  had rejected  the amendment
          were coerced  by a  federal statute passed in 1867 that
          took away  the right  to vote  or hold  office from all
          citizens  who  had  served  in  the  Confederate  Army.
          Military governors  were appointed  and  instructed  to
          prepare the roll of voters.  All this happened in spite
          of the  presidential proclamation of amnesty previously
          issued  by   the  President.    New  legislatures  were
          thereupon chosen  and forced  to "ratify" under penalty
          of continued  exile from  the Union.   In  Louisiana, a
          General sent  down from  the North  presided  over  the
          State legislature.
     6.   Abraham Lincoln  had declared many times that the Union
          was "inseparable"  and "indivisible."  After his death,
          and when  the war  was over,  the ratification  by  the
          Southern States of the Thirteenth Amendment, abolishing
          slavery, had  been accepted  as legal.  But Congress in
          the 1867  law imposed  the  specific  conditions  under
          which  the   Southern  States  would  be  "entitled  to
          representation in Congress."
     7.   Congress, in  passing the  1867 law  that declared  the
          Southern States  could not  have their  seats in either
          the Senate  or House  in the  next session  unless they
          ratified   the    "Fourteenth   Amendment,"   took   an
          unprecedented step.  No such right -- to compel a State
          by an  act  of  Congress  to  ratify  a  constitutional
          amendment  --   is  to   be  found   anywhere  in   the
          Constitution.     Nor  has  this  procedure  ever  been
          sanctioned by the Supreme Court of the United States.
     8.   President Andrew Johnson publicly denounced this law as
          unconstitutional.  But it was passed over his veto.
     9.   Secretary of  State Seward was on the spot in July 1868
          when the  various "ratifications"  of a spurious nature
          were placed  before him.   The legislatures of Ohio and
          New Jersey  had notified  him that they rescinded their
          earlier  action  of  ratification.    He  said  in  his
          official proclamation  that he  was not  authorized  as
          Secretary of  State "to  determine and  decide doubtful
          questions as to the authenticity of the organization of
          State legislatures  or as  to the  power of  any  State
          legislature to  recall a  previous act or resolution of
          ratification."   He added  that the amendment was valid
          "if the resolutions of the legislatures of Ohio and New
          Jersey, ratifying  the aforesaid  amendment, are  to be
          deemed  as   remaining  of   full  force   and  effect,
          notwithstanding  the   subsequent  resolutions  of  the
          legislatures of  these States."   This  was a  very big
          "if."  It will be noted that the real issue, therefore,
          is not  only whether  the forced  "ratification" by the
          ten  Southern   States  was  lawful,  but  whether  the
          withdrawal by the legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey -
          - two  Northern States  -- was  legal.   The right of a
          State, by action of its legislature, to change its mind
          at  any   time  before   the  final   proclamation   of
          ratification is  issued by  the Secretary  of State has
          been confirmed  in connection with other constitutional
          amendments.
     10.  The Oregon  Legislature in October 1868 -- three months
          after the  Secretary's  proclamation  was  issued    --
          passed a  rescinding resolution,  which argued that the
          "Fourteenth Amendment"  had not  been ratified by three
          fourths of  the States  and that the "ratifications" in
          the     Southern      States     were     "usurpations,
          unconstitutional, revolutionary  and  void"  and  that,
          "until such  ratification is completed, any State has a
          right  to   withdraw  its   assent  to   any   proposed
          amendment."
     What do the historians say about all this?  The Encyclopedia
Americana states:
     "Reconstruction added  humiliation to  suffering....   Eight
     years of  crime, fraud,  and corruption  followed and it was
     State legislatures  composed of  Negroes, carpetbaggers  and
     scalawags who obeyed the orders of the generals and ratified
     the amendment."
     W.  E.  Woodward,  in  his  famous  work,  "A  New  American
History?" published in 1936, says:
     "To get  a clear  idea of  the succession  of events  let us
     review [President  Andrew] Johnson's  actions in  respect to
     the ex-Confederate States.
     "In May, 1865, he issued a Proclamation of Amnesty to former
     rebels.   Then he established provisional governments in all
     the  Southern   States.     They  were  instructed  to  call
     Constitutional  Conventions.     They   did.     New   State
     governments were  elected.   White men only had the suffrage
     the Fifteenth Amendment establishing equal voting rights had
     not yet  been passed].   Senators  and Representatives  were
     chosen, but  when they  appeared at  the opening of Congress
     they  were   refused  admission.    The  State  governments,
     however, continued to function during 1866.
     "Now we  are in  1867.   In the  early  days  of  that  year
     [Thaddeus] Stevens  brought in,  as chairman  of  the  House
     Reconstruction Committee,  a bill that proposed to sweep all
     the Southern  State governments  into the  wastebasket.  The
     South was to be put under military rule.
     "The bill passed.  It was vetoed by Johnson and passed again
     over his veto.  In the Senate it was amended in such fashion
     that any  State could  escape  from  military  rule  and  be
     restored to  its full  rights by  ratifying  the  Fourteenth
     Amendment and  admitting black  as well  as white men to the
     polls."
     In  challenging   its  constitutionality,  President  Andrew
Johnson said in his veto message:
     "I submit  to Congress  whether this  measure is  not in its
     whole character,  scope and  object  without  precedent  and
     without authority,  in palpable  conflict with  the plainest
     provisions of  the Constitution,  and utterly destructive of
     those great principles of liberty and humanity for which our
     ancestors on  both sides  of the  Atlantic have shed so much
     blood and expended so much treasure."
     Many historians  have applauded  Johnson's  words.    Samuel
Eliot  Morison   and  Henry   Steele  Commager,  known  today  as
"liberals," wrote  in their  book, "The  Growth of  the  American
Republic":
     "Johnson returned  the bill with a scorching message arguing
     the  unconstitutionality   of  the  whole  thing,  and  most
     impartial students have agreed with his reasoning."
     James Truslow  Adams, another noted historian, writes in his
"History of the United States":
     "The Supreme  Court had decided three months earlier, in the
     Milligan   case,    ...   that    military    courts    were
     unconstitutional except  under such  war conditions as might
     make the  operation of  civil  courts  impossible,  but  the
     President pointed  out in vain that practically the whole of
     the new  legislation was  unconstitutional.   ... There  was
     even talk  in Congress  of impeaching  the Supreme Court for
     its  decisions!   The  legislature  had  run  amok  and  was
     threatening both the Executive and the Judiciary."
     Actually, President  Johnson was  impeached,  but  the  move
failed by one vote in the Senate.
     The Supreme  Court, in  case after  case, refused to pass on
the illegal  activities involved  in  "ratification."    It  said
simply that  they were  acts of the "political departments of the
Government."   This,  of  course,  was  a  convenient  device  of
avoidance.   The Court  has adhered  to that  position ever since
Reconstruction Days.
     Andrew C.  McLaughlin, whose  "Constitutional History of the
United States" is a standard work, writes:
     "Can a State which is not a State and not recognized as such
     by Congress,  perform  the  supreme  duty  of  ratifying  an
     amendment to  the fundamental  law? Or  does a  State --  by
     congressional thinking  -- cease  to be  a  State  for  some
     purposes but not for others?"
     This is  the tragic  history of  the  so-called  "Fourteenth
Amendment" --  a record that is a disgrace to free government and
a "government of law."
     Isn't the use of military force to override local government
what we deplored in Hungary?
     It is  never too  late to  correct injustice.  The people of
America should have an opportunity to pass on an amendment to the
Constitution that  sets forth the right of the Federal Government
to control  education and  regulate attendance  at public schools
either with federal power alone or concurrently with the States.
     That's the honest way, the just way to deal with the problem
of segregation  or integration  in the  schools.   Until such  an
amendment  is  adopted,  the  "Fourteenth  Amendment"  should  be
considered as null and void.
     There is  only one  supreme tribunal  -- it  is  the  people
themselves.   Their  sovereign  will  is  expressed  through  the
procedures set forth in the Constitution  itself.
                             [ END ]
[OCR'd text from U.S. News & World Report, September 27, 1957,
page 140 et seq.]
                   

BORDER PATROL WHISTLEBLOWER CHASTISES BIDEN ADMINISTRATION

THE CONSTITUTION - ITS MORTAL WOUND ABOUT TO BE MADE INTO LAW

RTR TRUTH MEDIA - You are about to watch history in the making. George Orwell’s 1984 is coming alive in real time. The following is an article by Reason Magazine. Time is of the essence in making the public aware. I will be adding my input in dark red text. Like this.

Sheila Jackson Lee's sweeping licensing and registration scheme suggests what Democrats would do if they didn't have to worry about the Second Amendment.

A gun control bill that Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D–Texas) recently introduced gives you an idea of what Democrats might do if they did not have to worry about the Second Amendment. 

The Sabika Sheikh Firearm Lic. & Registration Act would establish a national database that is supposed to include every gun in the country, 

make it a felony to own a firearm or ammunition without a license from the Justice Department, ban magazines that hold more than 10 rounds and "ammunition that is 0.50 caliber or greater," and criminalize possession of a "military-style weapon" without a special license. Violating the bill's provisions would be punishable by hefty fines and long minimum prison sentences, which Lee ordinarily claims to oppose.

Did anyone explain to Ms. Jackson Lee about Ex Post Facto laws being unConstitutional? This miserable woman who is making the World Communist Movement extremely happy, should be thrown out for this alone. Any politician who suggests such a blatantly unConstitutional law should be prosecuted for treason. 

The registration requirement applies to both currently owned firearms  nd guns purchased after the bill takes effect. The bill would give current owners three months to report "the make, model, and serial number of the firearm, the identity of the owner of the firearm, the date the firearm was acquired by the owner, and where the firearm is or will be stored" as well as "the identity of any person to whom, and any period of time during which, the firearm will be loaned to the person." New buyers would have to report that information on the date of purchase. Failure to comply would be punishable by a minimum fine of $75,000, a minimum prison sentence of 15 years, or both.

Licenses would be limited to people 21 or older who pass a criminal background check, undergo a "psychological examination," complete at least 24 hours of training, and pay an $800 "fee" for liability insurance. The examination, which may include assessing "other members of the household in which the individual resides," would be conducted by a government-approved psychologist charged with determining whether the applicant is "psychologically unsuited to possess a firearm."

I want you to name another natural right of which any of these conditions would apply? How about the right to free apeech? Or how about the right to be secure in your person home papers and effects? This is insanity and it’s happening. I never thought I’d actually see it. But I do believe they are preparing for war against us. Look to the Capitol “insurrection” so called. A bunch of gaslit operatives that has given politicians a serious buffer from the people. Now would be when they would do this. Before the American people can demand it be taken down. This bill also informs the United States Military who owns guns and where they keep them. Why?

IIThe psychologist would be required to interview "any spouse of the individual, any former spouse of the individual, and at least 2 other persons who are a member of the family of, or an associate of, the individual to further determine the state of the mental, emotional, and relational stability of the individual in relation to firearms." Denial of a license would be mandatory if the applicant has ever been "hospitalized" because of "conduct that endangers self or others," a "brain disease" such as "dementia or Alzheimer's," or a "mental illness, disturbance, or diagnosis," including (but not necessarily limited to) depression, homicidal ideation, suicidal ideation, attempted suicide, and addiction to a controlled substance or alcohol.

If this has been the case back in the days of our founders no one would have had arms and “long like the Queen”would be our motto today. 

That disqualification goes far beyond the psychiatric restrictions that federal law currently imposes on gun ownership, which are already overly broad but apply only to people who have undergone court-ordered treatment. Lee is saying that anyone who has ever been treated in a hospital for any of these conditions, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, should never be allowed to own a gun, no matter how long ago it was and regardless of his current mental state.

If this asshat has her way, people who may desperately need treatment and that might have willingly gone and sought help will now refrain. I’ve seen people go through horrible times and live the rest of their lives well adjusted and happy. This woman is insane. This bill is not merely dangerous to individual liberty, but directly to people’s lives and well being 

In addition to those mandatory disqualifications, the attorney general "may" deny a gun license to someone who "has a chronic mental illness or disturbance, or a brain disease," is addicted to drugs or alcohol, has attempted suicide, or has "engaged in conduct that posed a danger to self or others," as determined by "prior psychological treatment or evaluation." That casts the net even wider, since it includes people who were never hospitalized for these reasons and leaves open the question of how the government determines that someone is "addicted" or has a "mental illness or disturbance." According to some estimates, nearly half of Americans qualify for a psychiatric diagnosis at some point in their lives, which gives you a sense of how expansively "mental illness" is defined but is hardly a sound basis for denying people their Second Amendment rights.   If an applicant does not survive this gauntlet, it would be a felony for him to possess a firearm, punishable by the same fines and prison sentences as failure to register. That applies to current owners as well as new buyers. People who have been licensed for less than five years would have to renew their licenses every year; people who have been licensed five years or longer would be eligible for three-year licenses. If a gun owner neglects to renew his license, he would be subject to the same fines and prison time as someone who never got a license.

Lee lists a bunch of specific models that qualify as "military-style weapons," a.k.a "assault weapons." The definition also includes semi-automatic rifles that accept detachable magazines and have two or more of these features: "a folding or telescoping stock," "a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon," a "bayonet mount," a "flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor," or a "grenade launcher."

That last feature is not much use without grenades, which are banned as "destructive devices" under federal law, and the rest have nothing to do with rate of fire, muzzle velocity, or ammunition caliber. A rifle without these features is just as lethal as a rifle with them. Lee nevertheless wants to require a special license for "military-style weapons," requiring completion of "a training course, certified by the Attorney General, in the use, safety, and storage of the weapon, that includes at least 24 hours of training and live fire training." Except for specifying "live fire training," this is the same as the requirement for a standard gun license. The main point seems to be identifying owners of "military-style weapons," in case Congress later decides to ban them.

Lee is not waiting to ban large-caliber ammunition and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, which are standard for many popular handguns and rifles. Possessing the former would be punishable by a minimum fine of $50,000, a minimum prison term of 10 years, or both. Possessing the latter would be punishable by a minimum fine of $10,000, at least a year in prison, or both.

Any gun possessed by someone who has failed to register it or does not have a current federal license likewise would be subject to confiscation. That person could then be prosecuted and sent to prison for at least 15 years.

These are odd prescriptions for an avowed critic of mandatory minimums to offer. Here is what Lee said when she introduced a sentencing reform bill in 2015:

We come together today armed not only with the knowledge that our criminal justice system is deeply flawed, but with the commitment to fix these flaws. The cost of this system is incredibly high, not just in dollars spent, but also in dollars lost. Every person taken out of a community and placed into a prison is a person who cannot contribute to a family, a community, and our society. Worse, this system takes an incredible human toll, with the cycle of incarceration in a constant state of destruction. Today, with this legislation, we unify to reject a system that is often more effective at creating criminals and collateral damage than actual justice.

Yet Lee now wants to transform millions of Americans into felons, threatening them with long prison terms for peaceful conduct that violates no one's rights. A clearer example of how readily partisans forsake their supposed principles when they prove inconvenient is hard to imagine.

Lee's bill is named after Sabika Sheikh, a foreign exchange student from Pakistan who was murdered in the 2018 mass shooting at Santa Fe High School in Texas. The perpetrator of that attack was 17, meaning it was already illegal for him to possess the .38-caliber revolver he used (except for temporary possession in specified circumstances, such as hunting or target shooting). In addition to the revolver, he had a 12-gauge shotgun. Neither would qualify as a "military-style weapon" under Lee's bill. In other words, her legislation has nothing to do with the crime she invokes to justify it, which is par for the course with anti-gun politicians.

The system Lee imagines is completely impractical, since gun owners would be understandably reluctant to identify themselves and their firearms so they could be entered in a federal database and required to apply for licenses. Politicians pursuing far less ambitious gun registration schemes have found that voluntary compliance is the exception rather than the rule. Since the Justice Department would not have the resources to go after millions of recalcitrant gun owners even if it knew who they were, the result would be random application of Lee's draconian penalties to the few who happened to attract the government's attention.

Who would those people tend to be? As a legislator who decries racial bias in policing, Lee ought to know. Current restrictions on gun ownership already disproportionately hurtAfrican Americans, who are more likely than whites to have felony records that permanently bar them from possessing firearms for self-defense, no matter the nature of the offense or how long ago it happened. Lee's bill would only compound that problem. Call that what you want, but it is manifestly not an attempt to fix a "deeply flawed" criminal justice system that is "often more effective at creating criminals and collateral damage than actual justice."

It should go without saying that violent criminals will be even less motivated to comply with Lee's requirements than the average gun owner. They already obtain, possess, and use guns illegally. They will not be fazed by another layer of criminality.

Lee's bill so far has no cosponsors, and it is unlikely to make much progress. But it reflects a broader mindset in the Democratic Party, which used to at least pay lip service to the Second Amendment but lately talks and acts as if it does not exist. After promising to respect the Second Amendment in 2004, 2008, and 2012, the Democrats erased the constitutional provision from their 2016 platform, although they did mention "the rights of responsible gun owners." The 2020 platform omitted even that phrase.

President Joe Biden does occasionally mention the Second Amendment, which he says he respects. "It's within our grasp to end our gun violence epidemic and respect the Second Amendment, which is limited," his campaign website said. How limited?

We know that Biden's Second Amendment does not cover guns he does not like. He conceded that the federal ban on "assault weapons," which was part of what he has proudly called"the 1994 Biden Crime Bill" but expired in 2004, had no impact on the lethality of legal firearms. Yet he supports a new and supposedly improved version, including a magazine ban similar to Lee's and a requirement that current owners of the targeted firearms either surrender them to the government or follow the same tax and registration requirements that apply to machine guns.

During an argument with a Detroit autoworker last year, Biden suggested that the Second Amendment no more protects the right to own "assault weapons" than the First Amendment protects the right to falsely cry "Fire!" in a crowded theater. And although the Supreme Court has described handguns as "the quintessential self-defense weapon," possession of which for home protection is indisputably protected by the Constitution, Biden thinksshotguns are better for that purpose. While Biden has not said his preference should be enforced by law, his policy prescriptions might be different if the Court had not ruled so clearly on the issue. His explanation of why he is willing to let people own guns, which focuses on hunting rather than self-defense, does not inspire much confidence that his avowed respect for the Second Amendment is based on a clear understanding of its function.

A situation like the movie Red Dawn could happen. To dismiss that as fantasy requires one to ignore not only history but the agendas of those such as the Weather Underground etc. Anyone, including and especially politicians who attempt to conflate the 2nd Amendment with hunting are being blatantly and completely dishonest and therefore should as a result be dismissed from their seats. These folks lining up the vehicles of tyranny need us disarmed. Then just think how happy China would be. 

Proposals like Lee's help make Biden's gun control agenda look moderate and reasonable by comparison. But his attitude, like hers, shows that Democrats would be perfectly happy to expurgate the Bill of Rights if only the courts would let them.

currently owned firearms

MARXIST in AMERICAN GOVT - MANY COVERED THIS - NO ONE HAD THE COURAGE TO SAY WHAT NEEDED TO BE SAID

It never ceases to amaze me the level of outright race baiting nonsense that passes for news these days. In a recent extremely covered castigation of a conservative politician many main stream media outlets covered the skin color of everyone involved. They covered the fact that Black Lives Matter a Marxist lead organization was mentioned and even seemed to support the castigation of who they identified not as simply an American politician but a “White” politician as if his skin tone had a thing to do with his opposition to the poisonous ideology that supports the still illegal World Communist Movement. Here is the video of this exchange 

For examples of pundits and yellow journalism, check out the following articles and video. The majority of the coverage of this incident didn’t give a perfectly well known fact that the founders of Black Lives Matter as an organization admitted to being, not naturally embracing, but to being “trained Marxists”. This is not the typical expression for college educated individuals. How many college grads to you hear saying “I am a trained Podiatrist? How about “I’m a trained “ accountant?

LAWMAKER KNOCKS #BLM

Forbes Video just shows the edited exchange with no background or commentary. https://youtu.be/0TYyWoJ220M

YOU MAY NOT LEAVE the COUNTRY for CHRISTMAS - ORWELL PROVEN to be MODERN NOSTRADAMUS

RTR TRUTH MEDIA - It often never ceases to amaze me just how accurate Orwell’s non-fiction and fiction alike are both extremely real. His works were supposed to warn us what not to tolerate or accept and, well, so much for that.

My two favorite Quotes by George Orwell - "And when memory failed and written records were falsified—when that happened, the claim of the Party to have improved the conditions of human life had got to be accepted, because there did not exist, and never again could exist, any standard against which it could be tested." – George Orwell, 1984

     “If all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth."  – George Orwell, 1984

————-

Eric Arthur Blair, better known by his pen name, George Orwell, was a brilliant English writer of the 20th century who transformed literature with his piercing social commentary and allegorical style. Considered classics, his novels Animal Farm and 1984 are read in classrooms around the world. His works have become so entrenched in popular and political culture that the term “Orwellian” is now commonly used to describe totalitarian and authoritarian societies.  

Orwell also wrote numerous nonfiction books and essays documenting his own life experiences, which similarly express his gift for satire and controversial views on government. Throughout his writing career, he never feared tackling challenging topics and expressing his opinions, no matter how subversive. Read on for George Orwell’s best quotes about truth, reality, freedom, politics, power, and money. 

Quotes About Truth & Reality

The concepts of truth and reality are major themes in many of Orwell’s novels—especially the chilling dystopian classic, 1984. As Orwell asserts, reality is what you make of it, but the truth isn’t always so clear. 

1. “There was truth and there was untruth, and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad.” - George Orwell, 1984

2. “Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else.” – George Orwell, 1984

3. “This is the inevitable fate of the sentimentalist. All his opinions change into their opposites at the first brush of reality.” – George Orwell, The Road to Wigan Pier

4. "It's the one thing they can't do. They can make you say anything—anything—but they can't make you believe it. They can't get inside you."  – George Orwell, 1984

5. "And when memory failed and written records were falsified—when that happened, the claim of the Party to have improved the conditions of human life had got to be accepted, because there did not exist, and never again could exist, any standard against which it could be tested." – George Orwell, 1984

6. "If all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth."  – George Orwell, 1984

7. “The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.” – George Orwell,Animal Farm

8. “The best books... are those that tell you what you know already.”  – George Orwell,1984

Quotes About Freedom

Many of Orwell’s works center around freedom and oppression—whether political or personal—as he seeks to define what being free truly means and questions what kind of freedom is worth living or dying for. 

9. “Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.” – George Orwell, 1984

10. “Here you come upon the important fact that every revolutionary opinion draws part of its strength from a secret conviction that nothing can be changed.”  – George Orwell,The Road to Wigan Pier

11. “Above all, there was a belief in the revolution and the future, a feeling of having suddenly emerged into an era of equality and freedom.” – George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia

12. “The masses never revolt of their own accord, and they never revolt merely because they are oppressed. Indeed, so long as they are not permitted to have standards of comparison, they never even become aware that they are oppressed.” – George Orwell, 1984

13. “I sometimes think that the price of liberty is not so much eternal vigilance as eternal dirt.” – George Orwell, The Road to Wigan Pier

14. “To die hating them, that was freedom.” – George Orwell, 1984

15. “We are living in a world in which nobody is free, in which hardly anybody is secure, in which it is almost impossible to be honest and to remain alive.” – George Orwell, The Road to Wigan Pier

16. “That the choice for mankind lay between freedom and happiness, and that, for the great bulk of mankind, happiness was better.” – George Orwell, 1984

17. "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength." – George Orwell, 1984

Politics & Power Quotes

Political commentary is Orwell’s staple. His strong opposition to totalitarianism is clear throughout 1984 and Animal Farm as he criticizes the political structures in those stories, while his support of democratic socialism is apparent throughout his nonfiction works such as Homage to Catalonia and The Road to Wigan Pier.

18. “Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.” – George Orwell, 1984

19. “Man serves the interests of no creature except himself.”  – George Orwell, Animal Farm

20. “Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.” – George Orwell, 1984

21. “There are occasions when it pays better to fight and be beaten than not to fight at all.”  – George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia

22. “It is the same in all wars; the soldiers do the fighting, the journalists do the shouting, and no true patriot ever gets near a front-line trench, except on the briefest of propaganda-tours.”   – George Orwell,Homage to Catalonia

23. “For before you can be sure whether you are genuinely in favour of socialism, you have got to decide whether things at present are tolerable or not tolerable, and you have got to take up a definite attitude on the terribly difficult issue of class.” – George Orwell, The Road to Wigan Pier

24. “All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.” – George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia

25. “We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it.” – George Orwell, 1984

26. “One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.” – George Orwell, 1984

27. “No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?”  – George Orwell, Animal Farm

28. “In order to hate imperialism you have got to be part of it.”  – George Orwell, The Road to Wigan Pier

29. “It is this fear of a supposedly dangerous mob that makes nearly all intelligent people conservative in their opinions.”  – George Orwell, Down and Out in Paris and London

30. “Power is not a means; it is an end.” – George Orwell, 1984

31. “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” – George Orwell, Animal Farm

32. “Man is the only creature that consumes without producing... Yet he is lord of all the animals. He sets them to work, he gives back to them the bare minimum that will prevent them from starving, and the rest he keeps for himself.” – George Orwell, Animal Farm

Quotes About Money

Orwell’s opinions on money tie into his political views—especially his opposition to powerful authoritarian governments. In his youth, he witnessed poverty firsthand, leading to a satirical attitude towards money and how it shapes society. 

33. “It is curious how people take it for granted that they have a right to preach at you and pray over you as soon as your income falls below a certain level.” – George Orwell, Down and Out in Paris and London

34. “For after all, what is there behind it, except money? Money for the right kind of education, money for influential friends, money for leisure and peace of mind, money for trips to Italy. Money writes books, money sells them. Give me not righteousness, O lord, give me money, only money.” – George Orwell, Keep the Aspidistra Flying

35. “Poverty frees them from ordinary standards of behaviour, just as money frees people from work.” – George Orwell, Down and Out in Paris and London

36. “You can possess money, or you can despise money; the one fatal thing is to worship money and fail to get it.” – George Orwell, Keep the Aspidistra Flying

37. “The mass of the rich and the poor are differentiated by their incomes and nothing else, and the average millionaire is only the average dishwasher dressed in a new suit.” – George Orwell, Down and Out in Paris and London

38. “Poverty is spiritual halitosis.” – George Orwell, Keep the Aspidistra Flying

39. “If you set yourself to it, you can live the same life, rich or poor. You can still keep on with your books and your ideas. You just got to say to yourself, ‘I'm a free man in here’. . . and you're all right.”  – George Orwell, Down and Out in Paris and London

40. “In practice nobody cares whether work is useful or useless, productive or parasitic; the sole thing demanded is that it shall be profitable.” – George Orwell, Down and Out in Paris and London

41. “In all the modern talk about energy, efficiency, social service and the rest of it, what meaning is there except 'Get money, get it legally, and get a lot of it'? Money has become the grand test of virtue.” – George Orwell, Down and Out in Paris and London

42. “Faith, hope, money—only a saint could have the first two without having the third.”  – George Orwell,  Keep the Aspidistra Flying

43. “Within certain limits, it is actually true that the less money you have, the less you worry.” – George Orwell, Down and Out in Paris and London