Independent media, news reporting, analysis, opinion, forensic historical research presentations. From a Libertarian to Anarcho-Libertarian Anti-Federalist perspective.
It’s really bad enough this journalist that has been not only censored for “not spreading medical mis/disinformation”, but it is his second fraudulent punitive strike based on a false allegation which is in reality the “actual” disinformation, and in fact defamation as such accusations damage ones credibility. The video, to make matters worse were of an official Texas State government session and state senator arguing a few points that sounded seriously alarming. So to be cautious, the journalist in question uploaded the video to “unlisted” so he and his associates could vet 1st the veracity of the video - was it actually the Texas state Senate, which was yes. Then, was the information contained correct? And if it wasn’t a report would have to be done on that. It was an incomplete production in the middle of the process - not a complete and public video. The purpose of doing it this way is that it can be shared with the team of journalists that comprise this website and channels staff, as well they are not rich and this specific journalist was the victim of a burglary and identity theft and lost all his computers so had only the YouTube account to save content he was working on.
YouTubes claim of “spreading” anything is false, yet the account still remains struck as the news cycle ticks on and as they are prevented from preparing for the next radio show.
All of this after some time ago received a defamatory strike accusing he and the channel of cyber bullying and hate speech, which has foundations in a foreign political ideological belief not shared by the journalist or any of his staff that has its foundations in Marxist ideology, as opposed to the traditional American tenet of freedom of speech with Supreme Court decisions that only limit said speech based on threatening or statements that would be considered to cause alarm which could very likely be construed as causing or having the likely potential to cause severe distress .
The interview was of a man that was currently being sued and therefore being accused himself of such a claim. The man in question was Wolfgang Halbig who has just recently been arrested in possession of the ID of one of the Sandy Hook parents Leonard Pozner, a man he stands accused of harassing. Here is where that turns defamatory toward the journalist in question. The interview conducted with Mr. Halbig has no content of stalking, bullying, hate speech, and in fact was an interview to try and ascertain where the lawsuit stood (it’s current disposition) and other maters unrelated to the Sandy Hook shooting or to any specific individual or claim regarding veracity of officially reported events. In other words YouTube chose to do to this journalist what in a sense they had already convicted Halbig of regardless of the content of the interview. It is the absolute worst form of hypocrisy and should see YouTube rightfully sued. It is one thing to try and tear down long standing American tenets like an individual’s right to free speech, especially hated, despised or maddening speech, as fluffy unicorns and rainbows and honey do not require such protection. And sometimes the most long held beliefs are disproven by a dedicated minority. Sometimes even of one. I can’t help but think of that picture of Hitler giving a speech and the one man in the audience with a scowl on his face and arms crossed in obvious disapproval. Today that man would likely be the target of aYouTubes overbearing defamatory process that quietly harms people in reality, not with mere words but direct and deliberate actions. How long will it be until these people realize that this does nothing for the cause of peace nor does it prevent harm from occurring at all. In fact, it causes feelings of severe anxiety, stress, anger, and righteous indignation and the latter of those emotions can be the most deadly, because there is nothing more dangerous than someone who knows that they have been wrongly accused and damaged and who are only given a joke of a process to remedy the damage.
That journalist I have referred to in this article is myself. And I for one have had ENOUGH!
Its about time we see some real men taking a stand against this statist tyranny. I have not gone too far from home during this plannedemic, but when I have I have done so as I always had, and as I always will. I bring a mask with me for the potential possibility that an emergency may potentially occur that might require me to make an exception. Buy it would have to be someone’s life on the line.
As I’ve had to go out to conduct research for my next major video report I’ve seen some insane behavior that makes me think that the movie Idiocracy was not merely entertainment but prophetic
I usually agree with what Tucker Carlson says. But Im also one to realize exactly how dangerous he can be by what he doesn't say, and by the Marxist expressions he uses without identifying them for what they are. Please help me bring it to the attention of the Fox News audience.
I don’t believe in government handouts. Because the government produces nothing but bills and obligations for the American people. But if money is to be made available to stimulate the economy or help businesses, then it should be made available for everyone. Equally. Only granting loans to “select races” is against the law. If this is allowed to continue there will be eventual unrest and bloodshed I fear. That is what history tells us.
The
CORONAVIRUS CULTURAL MARXIST REPLACEMENT RELIEF BILL
I am not a “white supremacist”. I am
Just an average American male. I have friends and family of all sorts of backgrounds and cultures. The natural ebb and flow of human interaction can become quite diverse. And that is fine when naturally occurs. But there is absolutely an agenda underway and this bill is just one small example at how racist those who are engaging in this replacement agenda actually are while trying to paint everyday people on that light.
It’s a dangerous and potentially deadly agenda that will absolutely cause some to violently react. They are however a mere symptom of the illness. The illness is this poisonous ideology. Marxism is dangerous.
The insanity of these obviously indoctrinated students causes one to seriously consider if tuition is really worth paying for. I believe our youth could learn far more by deciding what they want to do in life and watch YouTube. That is insanely plausible compared to classrooms like the one seen here. I said that some time ago in jest.
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:
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.
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."
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.]
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.
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.
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?
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
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
38. “Poverty is spiritual halitosis.” – George Orwell, 