Category Archives: Constitution

40% of young Americans support government censorship of free speech

Freedom of speech is a fundamental tenet of the United States of America, understood by our Founding Fathers as an “unalienable right” given to all human beings (“endowed”) by God (“their Creator”). As stated in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

An alarming percentage of U.S. Millennials, however, as many as 4 out of 10, support government censorship, i.e., abridging the Constitutional right of freedom of speech of anyone who makes public statements “offensive” to “minorities”.

Millennials are those born between 1981 and 1997 who are 18 to 34 years old in 2015.

Jacob Poushter reports for PewResearchCenter, Nov. 20, 2015, that American Millennials are far more likely than older generations to say the government should be able to prevent people from saying offensive statements about minority groups, according to a new analysis of Pew Research Center survey data on free speech and media across the globe.

The poll comes at a time when America’s colleges and universities increasingly restrict free speech, in the name of racial and ethnic equality, “safe zones” and protecting delicate students from “micro-aggression”.

The survey asked people whether they believe that their fellow citizens should be able to make public statements that are offensive to minority groups, or whether the government should be able to prevent people from saying these things.

While Americans as a whole are less likely to favor government censorship of free speech than other countries, U.S. Millennials stood out as the group that most favors censorship. Here are the survey results for Americans:

  • Overall, 28% of Americans are pro-censorship; 67% support free speech.
  • 40% of Millennials are pro-censorship vs. 58% pro-free speech.
  • The elderly (ages 70-87) are most pro-free speech: 80% are for vs. 12% who favor censorship.
  • Women are more pro-censorship (33%) than men (23%).
  • Democrats are more pro-censorship (35%) than Independents (27%) or Republicans (18%).
  • Non-whites are more pro-censorship (38%) than white non-Hispanics (23%).
  • The less educated — those with only a high school education or less — are more pro-censorship (31%) than those with some college (29%) and those with a college degree or more (22%).

2015 Pew Survey on free speech - USA

Here’s how Americans compare with Europeans. No wonder Europe, especially Germany, seems helpless before the tide of Muslim “refugee” invaders.

2015 Pew Survey on free speech - Europe

It appears young Americans are just waiting for a demagogue to mold and mobilize them into a new Hitlerjeugend (Hitler Youth), Communist Youth League, or Maoist Red Guards.

Remember this?


Half of D.C. residents want a return to citywide gun ban

Apparently we don’t need no Second Amendment…

liberal logic 101

A Washington Post poll found that 51% of D.C. residents said they would like to reinstate a ban on gun ownership in the city that was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2008.

And this comes even as D.C. has seen a 58 percent spike in homicides this year — almost all from gun violence.

On Friday, a federal appeals court will consider whether, in the absence of a ban, D.C. officials can continue to enforce certain restrictions on carrying firearms on the streets of the nation’s capital. This includes the requirement that a person state a “good reason” to obtain a concealed- carry permit. In May, I reported on how a judge ruled that a person no longer has to show a good reason to get a permit to carry concealed handguns outside their homes and businesses.  This issue will be addressed again in court on Friday (requiring individuals to show “good reason to fear injury,” backed up by evidence of specific threats or previous attacks).

In September, The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 that D.C. cannot ban gun owners from registering more than one pistol per month or require owners to re-register a gun every three years. The court also invalidated requirements that owners make a personal appearance to register a gun and pass a test about firearms laws.


The poll also found that reinstating a total ban on gun ownership is most popular among white residents (62 percent), particularly whites with college degrees (67 percent) and white women (65 percent). African Americans, particularly those living in areas of the city that have experienced a 50 percent increase in robberies at gunpoint this year, were also among the least supportive.

Well gals, guess you’ll just have to resort to urinating on a potential attacker (#LiberalTips2AvoidRape) while in D.C. That will do the trick, I’m sure! (obvious sarcasm)


King Co. Sheriff asks off-duty officers to carry guns, extra mags after Paris attacks

A move that every one who supports the Second Amendment should practice.

Sheriff John Urquhart

Sheriff John Urquhart

Although the majority of King County residents are very liberal, the Sheriff has some common sense. reports that King County Sheriff John Urquhart has instructed off-duty deputies to carry their sidearm with extra magazines, following the deadly Paris attacks.

Prompted by the Paris terrorist attacks, the sheriff sent his deputies a request, via a letter, that off-duty officers be armed with their service weapons and extra magazines of ammo should a terrorist attack hit the Puget Sound region. He said, “It’s not a policy, it’s a request.”

The sheriff added, “We are living in tough times…and certainly what happened in Paris could happen here in Seattle. I want to make sure my deputies are willing, available and have proper equipment to fight that if it happens.”

Urquhart has the guts to say what Obama wont – that the biggest threat to the area is homegrown terrorism, and locals who decide to support terrorists organizations such as ISIS. “What I am worried about, what causes me lose sleep at night, is a homegrown terrorist,” Urquhart said. “That’s somebody that hasn’t come over from Syria, that’s not an official part of ISIS, but has been radicalized by ISIS by their propaganda. They’ve been implored to take action wherever they are, around the world,” he said. “I’m afraid of a homegrown terrorist that does something here. It’s going to be a soft target.”

Urquhart believes that having off-duty deputies armed and prepared will greatly help the situation. “We are all frustrated by what’s going on, mainly because we don’t know what to do. This threat is so nebulous, and yet so real. And I thought this is something we can do,” Urquhart said.

“I always tell my people to be vigilant, ‘if you see something, say something,’ all of that. But it’s not enough,” he said. “Here is something they can do. They can be ready. We have the training. We have the experience. We have the weapons; let’s carry them.” (Amen to that!)

The King County Sheriff’s Office has 700 commissioned officers, according to Urquhart. While off-duty deputies were once required to carry their service weapon wherever they went, that is not the case currently. But for Sheriff Urquhart, it’s already a personal policy that he follows. “I carry all the time,” he said.

I carry because of crime in my town (recently, a woman was walking her dog on a neighborhood street in the afternoon and a man came up behind her and put a knife to her throat) and I typically leave work when it is dark. I trust that my firearms skills will protect me much better than urinating on a potential attacker.

Also, because I can.

second amendment3


State governors refuse Syrian refugees, 98% Muslim, who get staggeringly generous services from taxpayers

Yesterday morning, Donald Trump correctly tweeted that Obama is “insane” for flooding the U.S. with Syrian refugees since his administration doesn’t know who they are and if among them are members of ISIS.

Later that morning, as reported by Politico, Trump spoke to conservative radio host Laura Ingraham and said this about the refugees:

They send them to the Republicans, not to the Democrats, you know because they know the problem … why would we want to bother the Democrats? In California, you have a Democrat as a governor; in Florida you have [Republican] Rick Scott so they send them to the Republicans. Taking these people is absolutely insanity.”

According to the Associated Press, governors from both parties have accepted refugees, although the number is nearly double for GOP states. More than 1,000 Syrian refugees have been accepted into states with Republican governors since January 1, while just over 500 have moved to Democratic-led states. (The number of Republican governors outweighs Democrats, 31 to 18, however.)

Here’s a map showing where Syrian refugees were resettled:

↓ Click map to enlarge ↓
Syrian refugees in USA

The map, however, is dated, as 10,000 more Syrian refugees recently arrived in Louisiana, according to the Agence France Presse.

According to The New York Timesthe Obama administration will increase the number of worldwide refugees the U.S. accepts each year to 100,000 by 2017, a significant increase over the current annual cap of 70,000, and will explore ways to increase the overall limit of refugees beyond 100,000.

The number of state governors who are refusing to accept Syrian refugees is growing, to more than half by late Monday, Nov. 16, the majority of whom are GOP governors. The refusenik states are:

  1. Alabama
  2. Arkansas
  3. Arizona
  4. Florida
  5. Georgia
  6. Idaho
  7. Illinois
  8. Indiana
  9. Iowa
  10. Kansas
  11. Kentucky: Republican governor-elect, who will take office next month, also refused.
  12. Louisiana
  13. Maine
  14. Massachusetts
  15. Michigan
  16. Mississippi
  17. Nebraska
  18. New Hampshire
  19. New Jersey
  20. New Mexico
  21. North Carolina
  22. Ohio
  23. Oklahoma
  24. South Carolina
  25. Tennessee
  26. Texas
  27. Wisconsin

State leaders are upset because the federal government relocates Syrian refugees in their state without notifying them.

Already, a Syrian refugee resettled in Louisiana is reported missing.

According to WBRZ, Catholic Charities, the refugee resettlement group that resettled that refugee said the immigrant left for another state after a couple of days, and they don’t know where the refugee went since they don’t track them.

Catholic Charities, like all the other “voluntary agencies” that resettle refugees (as well as illegal immigrants), is not doing this gratis but is paid by the government taxpayers.

Liberty News recently published an audio recording of a phone call between a representative of Refugee Services of Texas and a man posing as a potential volunteer.

As summarized by The American Mirror, the services given to refugees, all paid for by taxpayers, are “staggering”. They include:

  • $925 of “welcome money” per person.
  • Being picked up at the airport
  • Finding and securing an apartment
  • Setting up the apartment “so it’s livable” with a Walmart gift card to buy “all the items needed for the refugee’s apartment.”
  • Providing bus orientation
  • Transporting them to Social Security office to apply for card
  • Helping find employment
  • 8 weeks of English as Second Language (ESL) classes
  • A job readiness class after they “graduate” from the ESL class. There, they’re taught how to compete against Americans for jobs by learning “how to be professional in the United States, how to fill out a job application.”
  • Sign up for a few “cash assistance programs” but refugees supposedly are only eligible to enroll in one.

According to Liberty News, Refugee Services of Texas is “one of the largest networks set to receive Syrian refugees,” received $1,243,000 in tax dollars last year. That amount is expected to “increase significantly” this fiscal year.

New Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) is calling for a “pause” in the refugee program, citing national security risks in the wake of the Paris attacks. (Washington Post)

And if you think the Syrian “refugees” being “resettled” in the U.S. are Christians, think again.

Less than 2½% (or 53) of the 2,151 Syrian “refugees” currently in the U.S. — the ones we can track — are Christian. As many as 97.5% (or 2,098) are Muslims. (Source: CNSNews, h/t FOTM‘s MomOfIV)

See also:


On Monday, Nov. 16, 2015, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, moved to kill funds for Obama’s plan to bring 85,000-100,000 refugees to the United States. Demanding hearings on the plan, Sessions said that the cost to resettle the refugees could soar past $55 billion and they would be allowed to receive housing, welfare and food stamps. (Washington Examiner)


A good weekend in Chiraq: Only one killed and 13 wounded in gun violence

Pretty sad when just one murder and 13 others wounded is considered a good weekend. But it’s Chiraq, after all.


MyFoxChicago reported Sunday afternoon that 14 people had been shot — one of them fatally — across Chicago since late Friday.

The homicide happened at 12:30 p.m., when a 25-year-old man was walking in the 1600 block of West Howard when someone walked up and shot him in the chest and back, according to Chicago Police. He was taken to Presence Saint Francis Hospital in Evanston, where he later died, police said.

The two latest non-fatal shootings happened within half an hour – see if you spot a similarity:

  • A 24-year-old woman was shot in the head in West Ridge’s 6000 block of North Western Avenue. She walked into Swedish Covenant Hospital about 4:15 a.m. and her condition was stabilized, police said.
  • About 3:50 a.m., a 16-year-old boy was shot twice in a drive-by attack in Irving Park.He was sitting in a vehicle in the 4100 block of North Drake when another car pulled up and someone inside started shooting. The boy was struck in the shoulder and back and the driver took him to Swedish Covenant, where his condition was stabilized, police said.

Nothing good can be happening in Chiraq between 3:00 – 5:00 am in that city. Nothing.

Welcome to Chicago sign

See also:


Association of police chiefs advocates gun control

The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) was founded in Chicago in 1893 as the National Chiefs of Police Union.

IACP’s stated mission is to advance the science and art of police services; develop and disseminate improved administrative, technical and operational practices and promote their use in police work; foster police cooperation and the exchange of information and experience among police administrators throughout the world; bring about recruitment and training in the police profession of qualified persons; and encourage adherence of all police officers to high professional standards of performance and conduct.

Note that nowhere in the IACP’s mission is gun control.

Obama at 2015 conference of International Association of Chiefs of Police

AWR Hawkins reports for Breitbart, that on October 26, 2015, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) met in Chicago for their annual conference where they dropped their push for longer prison sentences and, instead, focused their attention on gun control.

Along with the National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence (NLEPPGV), the IACP joined Democrat presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Martin O’Malley in calling for an expansion of background checks to all gun sales.

Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy

Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy

According to ABC 7, Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy said the chiefs “are not going to relent” in this push because “This is too important. Americans are dying and we need to do something about it.”

But McCarthy did not address the recent study by the University of Chicago Crime Lab which shows that criminals in his jurisdiction are not getting their guns from gun stores or gun shows or the Internet. Rather, Chicago’s criminals are getting their guns through “personal connections” on the street, which are not affected by background checks on gun sales.

In other words, criminals have already abandoned all the outlets where McCarthy wants to put more gun control. This means the only people who would be limited by the police chiefs’ proposed expansion of background checks are the law-abiding citizens who need guns most.

Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke

Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke

Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke says:

I was extremely disappointed when I heard that my fellow law enforcement executive colleagues had gotten into bed with Obama and his gun confiscation mission. That’s really what it’s about. It’s not about reducing violence, it’s not about reducing mass murder or suicides. The real intent of Obama and these gun groups is gun confiscation and they know they are going to have to do it step by step. They’re not going to be able to go after that today, as there would be fierce blowback. So they are doing it in stealth ways and this IACP meeting is one of those ways.

Clarke points out that “the chiefs who met in Chicago speak for themselves, they do not speak for the law enforcement profession.” He says that National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence (NLEPPGV) has embedded itself with the IACP, and that doing so is a “slick” way of not simply getting its message out but of making it look like law enforcement really does support more gun control. Funding for groups like NLEPPGV comes from the Ford Foundation, identified by Clarke as part of an “anti-Second Amendment crusade.” 

Clarke said:

We, in law enforcement, have an obligation to be on the side of crime victims. Not on the side of the criminal element. Gun control has nothing to do with the crime and violence that these chiefs see in their cities on a daily basis and they know it. But many of them, especially in your large urban centers, are under the thumb of anti-gun, soft on crime, mayors. And they have to sing from the same sheet of music that their mayors are singing from.

But the crime and violence we see in our cities and counties is not the result of a lack of background checks, and these chiefs know that. The research and data are there. Criminals don’t care about laws in general and they don’t care about gun laws or gun restrictions. They will find a way to get around those.  And that’s why I ultimately say that the chiefs’ push for more gun control has nothing to do with reducing violence. Rather, it has to do with gun confiscation.


1961 law aims for elimination of U.S. military and all civilian arms

If you think the New World Order and a global government are relatively recent ideas that began with Bush the Elder, George H. W. Bush, think again.

Those ideas can be traced back at least to the Kennedy Administration, but under a different terminology — the Arms Control and Disarmament Act of 1961, which began as H.R. 9118. The bill was passed by both houses of Congress and, on September 26, 1961, was signed into law, becoming 22 U.S.C. § 2551.

This is how radical the Arms Control and Disarmament Act is. (Click here for the Act in PDF.)

On page 1, the Act declares that “An ultimate goal of the United States is a world which is free from the scourge of war and the dangers and burdens of armaments; in which the use of force has been subordinated to the rule of law….”

The purpose of the Act is “to provide impetus toward this goal by creating a new agency of peace to deal with the problem of reduction and control of armaments looking toward ultimate world disarmament.”

Here’s a screen shot I took from the Act:

Arms Control and Disarmament Act

The job of this new federal “agency of peace” is “to provide the essential scientific, economic, political, military, psychological and technological information upon which realistic arms control and disarmament policy must be based.”

The Act defines “arms control” and “disarmament” as “the identification, verification, inspection, limitation, control, reduction, or elimination, of armed forces and armaments of all kinds under international agreement including the necessary steps taken under such an agreement to establish an effective system of international control, or to create and strengthen international organizations for the maintenance of peace.”

Translated into simpler English, the Arms Control and Disarmament Act aims at none other than the elimination of the U.S. military and of all civilian firearms (“armaments of all kinds”) — all to be placed under an international body (“system of international control”).

The “agency of peace” turned out to be the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA), an independent agency of the United States government — an agency established through a separate statute passed by Congress, which exists outside of the federal executive departments (those headed by a Cabinet secretary), and which while constitutionally part of the executive branch, is independent of presidential control, usually because the president’s power to dismiss the agency head or a member is limited.

In 1997, the Clinton administration integrated the ACDA with the State Department. The ACDA’s executive is Obama appointee Under Secretary Rose Gottemoeller. She communicates with the president (Obama) through the secretary of state (John Kerry).

The ACDA’s current programs appear to be international in focus:

  • Stopping Nuclear Testing
  • Banning Chemical Weapons
  • Reducing Strategic Nuclear Arms
  • Keeping Nuclear Weapons out of the hands of rogue states
  • Preventing the use of disease as a weapon of war

Since its passage into law, the Arms Control and Disarmament Act has been amended 9 times, the most recent amendment was in 1989 in the George H. W. Bush administration.