Terrorism on the Rise: 5 Tips To Survive The Attack

Click here to view the original post.

The annual celebration of Ramadan, the Islamic month of fasting, is one of the most important events on the Muslim calendar.

Sadly, it is also one of the most important times for radicalized Islamic terrorists as well. There is always an increase in terrorist activity, because according to Muslim beliefs, there is an increased reward for those who are martyred or who die in a jihad.

Would you survive if caught in the middle?

In 2016, the total casualty count, both dead an injured, during Ramadan was 1,150, a horrifying number. But that number is nothing, compared to what the final casualty count will be for 2017. During the first half of the month, Islamic extremists accounted for 1,003 fatalities and 1,036 injuries.

Of course, the mainstream American media doesn’t bother covering this, as it sheds a poor light on the supposed “religion of peace.”

But the fact is real, regardless of any media cover-up. That is made easier by the fact that not one of the 73 attacks happened on US soil and only three happened in Europe, one in London, one in Paris, and the other in Germany.

The vast majority of these attacks happened in Muslim controlled countries or countries with a strong Muslim population. As President Trump noted in his speech in Saudi Arabia, Muslims themselves are the biggest victim of Muslim terrorism, all the more reason for them to join the fight against extremism and terrorism. It is in their own best interest to curtail terrorism.

It is clear that Muslim terrorism is on the upswing. While the majority is still limited to the Muslim controlled countries themselves, Europe has seen an increase in both terrorism and general violence propagated by supposed Syrian “refugees.”

We too have seen a rise in Muslim violence here in the USA, although the statistics don’t back that up. During Obama’s presidency the FBI wasn’t allowed to record and report acts of Muslim terrorism as what they were.

So in many cases, killers yelling “Allah akbar” were recorded in the statistics as “workplace violence.” The mainstream media even tried to pin such events as the Orlando and San Bernardino shootings, which were clearly acts of terrorism, on conservatives.

Perhaps this is something that the new FBI director can get straightened out. It would be nice to see some accurate figures about terrorism in the United States, rather than allowing the liberals to have their talking point of there being a greater chance of being killed by a white supremist here in the USA, than being killed by a Muslim terrorist.

But even without those records being corrected, we all know that Muslim terrorism is on the rise. Therefore, it merely makes sense, from a survival point of view, to be ready to react to it, when it rears its ugly head. You and I may never find ourselves in the midst of a terrorist attack, but that’s no longer something that we can count on.

With that being the case, it is merely prudent to be ready for the eventuality of a terrorist attack taking place somewhere where we are. Attacks like the San Bernardino and Orlando shootings have shown us that the terrorists are no longer limiting themselves to big cities. Those were both cities of around a quarter million people, yet became sites of a couple of the most horrendous acts of terrorism in our country’s history.

So what should we do to help ensure that we don’t personally end up as nothing more than a terrorism statistic? There are a few important steps that we should take.

Click here to get your Green Beret’s Guide to combat shooting mastery & active shooter defense!

Be Aware

The most important single thing that any of us can do to avoid becoming a victim, not only of terrorism, but of crime, is to increase our awareness.

Few acts of terrorism happen without some preparation and the terrorists having to make an entrance on the scene. While the amount of time between their first appearing and the time they start trying to kill people may be short, there will be some time. That’s time in which you can detect them and begin to prepare your own defense.

Most people walk around totally unaware of what’s going on around them. If their face isn’t buried in their smartphone, it might as well be. They could walk right past someone they know, without even seeing them; let alone stopping to say hi.

We need to develop situational awareness, which really means nothing more than being aware of the situation we are in. We should be constantly looking around, with the intent of identifying possible threats. Once identified, we should watch those threats, to make sure that they don’t do anything untoward.

To start with, identify what is the norm in whatever location you find yourself in. What are the people like? How do they dress? How do they act? What noises are part of the background? How is traffic moving? What stands out? What’s hidden in the shadows? Where are likely avenues of arrival and departure? All this, and a whole lot more makes up the background atmosphere, wherever you are.

Knowing what the norm is, allows you to spot things that don’t look normal. The person wearing a winter coat, when everyone else is in shirtsleeves. The delivery van that is parked in the wrong place. A deliveryman carrying a flower box down the street, without a delivery van in sight. Someone moving against the flow of traffic. Workers in uniform who aren’t working on anything.

Anything out of the ordinary can indicate danger. It may not, but it definitely deserves further study and even investigation. Don’t assume that it’s safe, unless you have some empirical evidence to back that up. Assume that there is a risk out there and try to spot it.

Avoid Target Areas

Even though terrorists aren’t limiting themselves to large cities, they still want to make a splash when they go loud. They aren’t going to try and so something in the shadows, but rather in the spotlight. They want to hit as many targets as they can and they want as many witnesses to the act as they can get.

Therefore, they are going to do their acts of terrorism in places where there is a crowd to use as both victims and an audience. They’re also going to try and pick a target that’s going to arouse the ire of their target population.

We can see this in the Orlando, Florida shooting, where the killer picked a gay nightclub for their attack. In doing so, they ensured national attention and a little extra outcry from both the gay population and liberals in general.

Granted, it’s more or less impossible to live our lives, while always avoiding potential target areas. We all need to go shopping, to church, to entertainment and sporting events, and take our kids to school.

But we should recognize those areas as what they are, potential targets. Therefore, we can’t let our guard down when we are there, but rather need to be more aware and more ready to respond to a potential attack.

Always Carry

If you don’t have a concealed carry license, you should get one. While some terrorists use knives and trucks, most today are using guns. Defending yourself against a gun, or even against a knife, without your own gun to use, is risky at best.

Most states now have a Shall Issue policy towards concealed carry licenses, and more and more states are moving towards Constitutional Carry. So, chances are, you can get a license to carry in the state where you live.

You’ll probably need to attend a class, will need to undergo a background check and there will be fee to pay. But once you do, you will have the legal right to carry the necessary tool to defend yourself.

That doesn’t mean you’ll have the right to brandish a gun in people’s faces when road rage kicks in or that you have any more of a right to shoot a bad guy than anyone else does. But then, it’s a principle of American law that you can kill in self-defense. If shooting a terrorist who is actively engaged in an act of terrorism isn’t self-defense, I don’t know what is.

But let me add a couple of notes of caution here. First of all, you will probably be outgunned, even if you are carrying a gun. Chances are, terrorists are going to use a rifle, not a pistol. That means they will have more range, more accuracy and more rounds to shoot. Those rounds will do more damage as well, passing through walls, the body of your car and even Kevlar body armor.

So you don’t want to do a John Wayne and just stand up and expect to hit them in the eye with your first shot. Learn to shoot from cover and to identify what will make good cover. Choose a handgun which will give you a reasonable chance of success; and carry extra magazines.

I personally carry a .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol, with two spare magazines. That’s a fair amount of extra weight and bulk to carry on my body, every day of my life. But as far as I’m concerned, it’s merely a minimum amount of firepower. Should I actually get into a firefight with a terrorist or two, that’s not going to be enough.

Another thing you might want to consider is carrying more firepower in your car, in addition to what you are carrying on your person. I haven’t done so yet, but I’ve considered keeping an AR-15 in the trunk of my car.

The area in which I live is a known transit point for terrorists entering the country, so I feel the risk of terrorism is fairly high. Granted, most will want to move farther into the country before doing anything, but if they feel a threat, they could let go right here in my area. In that case, having that AR-15 in my car might make the difference, assuming I could get to it.

Get Trained

Owning a gun or even carrying a gun isn’t enough. You’ve got to work on becoming competent with it.

Most shooters who don’t shoot very often can only hold their shots to a 6 inch group or larger. What that means is that when they are caught in an active shooter situation the adrenaline coursing through their veins is going to turn that 6 inch group into about a 30 inch group.

In other words, chances are more likely they will miss their target, rather than hit it.

This happens to everyone, no matter how good you can shoot. The difference is, if you can shoot a 4 inch group, it will turn into a 20 inch one. If you can shoot a 2 inch group, it will turn into a 10 inch one. If you can shoot a 1 inch group, it will turn into a 5 inch one. The better you are when shooting at a target, the better you’ll be able to be shooting for real.

But just shooting at a fixed target isn’t enough. You also need to get involved in some tactical training. That means shooting in a tactical (real life) situation.

Most shooting ranges offer some tactical shooting events, allowing you the opportunity to try them out and get some more realistic training.

The main difference between these tactical shooting events and normal shooting is that you would be shooting at silhouette targets, set up to be a life-like scenario. There will be several targets, at different ranges and different angles. Some might be partially hidden or moving.

You might also be required to move or to shoot from behind an obstacle. Finally, you will shooting against the clock, with only one shooter at a time. That clock does a pretty good job of imitating the stress of a real situation.

Have an Escape Planned

Regardless of who you are or where you are when a terrorist goes loud, your first priority is to save your own life. Your second is to protect your family. Shooting may be a part of that, but running might be as well.

Discretion is still the better part of valor, so knowing when it’s time to fight and when it’s time to run is important. Don’t put your family at risk, trying to be a hero.

Everywhere you go, look around to see the available avenues of escape. If possible, check doors to make sure that they are unlocked. Plan out how you will get yourself and your family out, if you are forced to do so.

Having a plan for how you will escape, when everyone else is running around like a chicken with their head cut off, may just be what you need to have, in order to be counted amongst the survivors.

I make it a habit of quickly thinking through a plan of action, everywhere I go. That way, if someone comes in shooting, either a terrorist or a criminal, I have something to fall back on. Is that paranoid? No, it’s prudent. I don’t dwell on the possibility, I just create a plan A and a plan B. Plan A is to shoot and plan B is to flee.

A major part of plan A is to select a good place to shoot from, so that I can hit the bad guys, without hitting any innocent bystanders. Some places, especially crowded ones, make it difficult to shoot safely. There was a man with a concealed carry license in the mass shooting at the Batman Premiere. He never drew his gun, because of the crowd and the confusion. He recognized that his chances of hitting the shooter, without hitting anyone else, were minimal.

A major part of plan B is always using my gun to protect myself and my family, as we flee. Just because I’m running doesn’t mean I’m leaving my gun in the holster. I may start my escape plan, but not be able to make it all the way. Perhaps the shooter has someone stationed outside that door. I need to be ready.

To Conclude

Following these five steps will not guarantee that you’ll get out of a terrorist situation. A lot will depend on what the terrorists do and how you respond to it. Your training will be a factor as will the actions of the other people who are there.

But it will do one thing. That’s to increase your chances of survival, by giving you a chance to fight back. Regardless of how good a chance that is, it’s one worth taking.

Because the alternative, if you can’t fight back, is to be nothing more than a lamb led to the slaughter.

Learn from the experts the secret of self-defense. Click the banner below to grab your guide!


This article has been written by Bill White for Survivopedia.

Bye-bye Climate Change

Click here to view the original post.

Amongst the many fallacies that the former president foisted upon the American people was 2015 Paris Climate Change Agreement.

While technically and legally a treaty, Obama signed it without it ever being ratified by the Senate, making our participation in it totally illegal according to the Constitution.

President Trump just solved that problem by declaring that the USA was withdrawing from the Paris agreement.

Trump is fulfilling yet another campaign promise and saving the country billions of dollars at the same time. Yet while conservatives everywhere applaud his actions, the liberal left is talking about how Trump’s actions will mean the end of the world.

The Ice Age that Never Came

In my opinion, global warming, or climate change as it is now called, is nothing but false science. The entire climate debate is driven by computer models, and anyone who knows anything about computer modeling can tell you that you can make models give you whatever results you want them too. It’s all in how you write the model and what data you give it.

Not all that long ago, the climate debate was about global cooling, rather than global warming. According to the environmentalists of the 1970s, we were entering into a new ice age, which would destroy all live. Their solution was to take billions of dollars away from rich countries and give that money to poor countries.

Then, there was a change in the wind and global cooling was replaced by global warming. Once again the environmentalists had a solution; take billions of dollars away from rich countries and give it to poor countries. Now that global warming has been proven to be fake, they changed its name to climate change and came up with a solution… you guessed it.

Clearly, the issue isn’t whether the world is warming or cooling. It’s about getting money into the hands of politicians, so that they can further their globalist goals and redistribute the wealth. Climate change, by any name, isn’t a science, it’s a religion, one which the left is trying to force upon us through political correctness, calling people “climate change deniers” and taking out tax dollars.

The reality of climate change is nothing like what the climate change movement claims. Yes, the climate changes; it has all through history and it probably will continue to change as long as the world exists. The world has known alternating warm and cool spells, long before man started burning fossil fuels.

Yet according to the left, man and man alone is responsible for the warming trend that their computer models show, once they massage the data. They have even gone so far as to name carbon dioxide a “greenhouse gas” and the biggest danger to the climate there is.

Obviously, these so-called scientists have forgotten their basic biology, or they would remember that animals breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide and plants breathe in carbon dioxide and breathe out oxygen.

In fact, how would plant life would be served if we had a carbon dioxide level that was four to five times higher than what we have today? It happened before, during the Jurassic Period.

If were it to suddenly rise that high again, would we see an explosive growth of plant life around the globe? Would it be any reason to be concerned about the rain forests, as they would grow faster than the tribal farmers could cut clearings to farm? Under the circumstances, farmers would see incredible yields from their crops, going a long way towards solving global hunger, wouldn’t they?

But mankind is no more able to boost the carbon dioxide level to that point, than we are to prevent it from rising. That’s because the biggest producer of carbon dioxide in the world is the world’s oceans. After that, it’s the decomposition of biomass around the globe.

Compared to these two sources of carbon dioxide, what our atmosphere receives from the burning of fossil fuels is a miniscule amount.

Who’s Making the Difference?

Even so, the Paris agreement was supposed to be a turning point in mankind’s history, with mankind finally taking responsibility for our destruction of the climate and taking drastic action to put an end to that destruction. The goal of the summit and ensuing agreement was to reduce the average temperature of the Earth by two-tenths of a degree Celsius, by the turn of the next century.

Yet the agreement itself could only accomplish a few percentage points of even that miniscule goal, if every signatory nation fulfilled their commitment to the agreement. America’s commitment, which would have cost us billions of dollars, would account for only 0.023 degrees of change, by the end of the century.

One of the biggest problems with the agreement is that each nation is given permission to establish their own goals. Hence, China and India, the first and third largest consumers of coal, respectably, aren’t committing to reducing their coal consumption at all before 2030, the end date of the agreement.

In fact, China, which uses 41% of the coal burned in the world (more than the next 11 consumers combined), is planning on increasing their consumption of coal over the next decade and won’t even consider any reductions until after 2030.

So, what Obama and Kerry had negotiated was a treaty which hurt the United States, while allowing other countries to continue polluting. Even if we take the whole global warming hoax out of the equation and look at the agreement just from the viewpoint of polluting the world we all share, this was a horrible agreement. No wonder President Trump wants to get out of it.

By the way, the United States has drastically reduced our dependence on coal anyway, before the Paris agreement and before Obama’s war on coal. With the energy industry moving away from coal and towards natural gas, the cleanest burning fossil fuel there is, we are making great strides in reducing the pollution we create.

Of course, that creates another problem for the environmentalist; that of fracking. In order to harvest the nearly unlimited supply of natural gas trapped beneath the surface of the Earth, gas companies are using hydraulic fracking to push the gas out of the sedimentary layers in the ground and towards wells where it can be harvested.

Where is This All Going?

Getting out of the Paris agreement will be good for the country. The price tag on reducing global temperatures by 0.2°C by the turn of the century is $100 trillion (that’s not a typo).

By exiting the agreement, Trump is refusing to pay that blackmail and the high cost to our country. That will ultimately help taxpayers and businesses across the country. Oh and, all that money would have bought us essentially… nothing.

But what if it is real? What if global warming or global cooling were something that we should be concerned with? Would the methods that are being proposed by its proponents effective?

No. All that the politicians and environmentalists have done is to create a huge, expensive industry, which lines their pockets, without offering any real solutions. Spending $100 trillion without coming up with a solution isn’t effective use of money, no matter who you are.

Actually, the real cause of global climate fluctuations has been discovered. It’s caused by the main source of heat for the surface of the Earth… the Sun. Variations in the Earth’s orbit around the sun cause the warm and cool spells that have existed throughout the Earth’s history.

Nothing man has done or can do will affect that at all. The Earth will continue to go through alternating warm and cool spells, for as long as the Sun will shine and the Earth will continue its orbit around the Sun.

But let’s think about this for a moment. First of all, it appears that the orbital variations the Earth has been experiencing are evening out. As far as I know, no scientist has declared that, I’m just basing it on the fact that the “little ice age” of the 17th to 18th centuries was not as cold as previous ice ages. While there was an increase in polar ice, it didn’t come as far towards the equator as had previously happened.

Okay, so it looks like we’re safe; but what if we’re not? What if my conclusion is totally wrong? What if a huge asteroid hits the Earth with enough mass and energy to put more instability into the Earth’s orbit? Would we see an increase in the global warming and cooling periods?

Yes, most assuredly that would be the result.

In that case, with life on this Earth being such a delicate thing, how could mankind survive? What could we do to make it through another ice age or a period of global warming that brought surface temperatures up another 50 degrees? Is there an answer to that?

Actually, the answer to this question has been known for decades. While such a massive shift in the Earth’s temperature would cause massive amounts of plant and animal life to die, mankind could survive, taking at least some of nature along with us. The secret would be to go underground.

An underground bunker or even an underground city could be designed to maintain a reasonable temperature year round, even while the temperature on the surface was considerably hotter or colder than it is today. This solution was proposed as early as the 1970s, back when the argument was whether global warming or global cooling would kill us first.

Or there are other options that humankind could appeal to?

This article has been written by Bill White for Survivopedia.







In Memory Of…

Click here to view the original post.

For most Americans, Memorial Day is nothing more than a day off work; an opportunity to do some work around the house, take a leisurely day off, or maybe go on a family outing.

There’s no special significance to it, other than not having to go to work.

But Memorial Day is so much more than that.

Since 1941, Congress established that the last Monday of May be reserved as an official federal holiday; a holiday specially created for those who have served and died in our nation’s armed forces. This day is about them, from those who laid down their lives at the battles of Lexington and Concord, to those who we lost in the two Gulf Wars.

Each of these brave men and women wrote a check to the United States of America, with the amount filled in as “anything, up to and including my life.” Each and every one of those checks have been cashed; not always for the full amount, but for some amount. As the saying goes, “all gave some and some gave all.”

So while the average American is coking their hot dogs and hamburgers on the grille, America’s veterans are seeing so much more. They are seeing their friends and unit mates, who made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom.

This isn’t just a day off from work, it’s a day of remembrance; remembering those who stood in the gap, giving their all, so that others might have freedom.

What Our Freedom is About

The United States of America is unique in many ways. Many of those first brave settles came here so that they might escape persecution and have religious liberty. This love of God and desire for liberty is enshrined in our First Amendment, granting us freedom of religion, the first of all our freedoms.

While the federal government has whittled away at our freedom over the years, imposing more and more restrictions on what we are free to do, America is still the land of freedom and we Americans enjoy more freedom than the citizens of any other country in the world.

It is the soldiers who have died, who gave us that freedom, not the politicians in Washington. While they would have us believe that our freedom is granted to us by the government, the reality is that politicians have no ability to grant freedom; merely to take it away.

Our freedom was granted to us by God, and the constitution guarantees us that freedom.

Freedom is so precious to America, that we export it to other countries.

We are the only nation in history of the world, who has regularly and unselfishly sent our young men off to fight other country’s wars.

Oh, there have been many cases of those who gone to the aid of another government to fulfill a treaty obligation; but only the United States of America has done so with countries for which we had no treaty obligations, simply to help give to other the freedom which is so precious to ourselves.

The American concept of freedom isn’t just about doing what we want, although it does allow much of that, it’s about not being told what we must do. We are not told what god we must worship; we are not told what we can say and what we cannot; we are not told what work we must do or where we must live.

America, and the American Constitution allow us to decide all of that for ourselves.

Were it not for those in uniform, we would not have those rights. It is our country’s military strength which keeps others from dictating to us; conquering this great land and imposing some restrictive form of government upon us.

Yet it is the internal threat which is greater today. There are always those who want to control, simply for the sake of controlling. They feel they have a right to dictate others lives to them. The USA is not immune to that. We too have those who would dictate to us; those who are convinced that they are better equipped to rule our lives, than we are ourselves.

To those people, the military is a threat; it is the ultimate trump card. One which can take their authority away, simply by their existence. For as long as mankind has existed, power has come out of the force of arms. Yet, while our military forces are subject to civilian rule, they are not blindly subject. Rather, our military serves with its eyes open, protecting and defending “the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

Should there ever be a need for a second American Revolution, it is the veterans in our country who we will be able to count on to lead the charge.

From the militia groups that gathered to protect Cliven Bundy from an overbearing government and uncalled for aggression, to the two million bikers who rode down the mall in protest of Islamic terrorism, none of our veterans have forgotten their oath.

Many still stand ready to defend the Constitution, regardless of where the enemies come from.

So when we gather together today, whether it is around the barbecue grill or on the beach, we must remember those who have sacrificed for us. We must remember their dedication and sacrifice. Their willingness to give all to protect the rest of us. We must not forget their sacrifice or what that sacrifice has bought for us.

Today, veterans will don their old uniforms, digging them out of the attic. They will visit the monuments and gravestones of those who they served with.

This is their day; a day of remembrance, a day of tears. So when you see them walking in your town, stop and thank them for their service; for the sacrifice that they made and for their willingness to lay it all down, in the service of a higher good.

Truly, our military receives little thanks. They come home from their wars and are often forgotten. The Veterans Administration does a poor job of caring for them. Some die because of the poor care they receive. Others are shunted off to the side by society, left with nothing more than menial jobs or living on the street. They haven’t asked for much and they haven’t created a scene. That’s not their way. Were they like that, they never would have served.

That is why we, you and I, must speak out for them. Yes, we must thank them for their service, but we must also remind our government of our responsibility towards them. All too often they are the poor who are overlooked, while others who have given nothing, receive much.

War changes you. I don’t care who you are or what sort of personality you have, when you come out of war, you are a different person than when you went in. Yet many are looked down upon, because of that change.

What would happen if those who served had not? What would be the story of our great nation, without a great military to protect it? Would we be free? I dare say not. There are many who are jealous of our riches and our success. Some would surely try coming after us, to take what we have earned… were it not for our military.

So we each owe a debt of gratitude to our veterans, both living and dead. They have loved in a way which few love, being willing to say down their lives for others, if that was what was necessary.

As it says in the Bible, “Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13).

Is that not what our brave veterans have done? Have they not laid down their lives, their dreams and their futures, as an act of love for our nation?

Perhaps these then are the greatest lovers the world has known. Not some actor in Hollywood or some playboy in New York; but rather, the quiet men and women who don our country’s uniform, willing to lay down their lives for us all.

I thank you veterans, of whatever war or even of peacetime. Each of you has given to this country, making it the greatest in the world.

Yes, we have our faults; but those are not your fault. You did your part and I am grateful. Now it is up to us to do our part; and I hope we are up to it. For the part that you have done has merely laid the groundwork for what the rest of us must do.

What is that? What is it that we must do? We must return America to her greatness. We must make the sacrifice that they made worth the cost. We must ensure that the American way of life, as enshrined in our Constitution and Bill of Rights is not lost.

We must continue to throw off the yoke of tyranny and not allow others to enslave us. We must remain strong and healthy, so that as a country we are able to continue exporting freedom to the rest of the world.

We must be America, the last hope of the world. do you see any other way for our country?

This article has been written by Bill White for Survivopedia.

Cyber-warfare Has Just Moved Into The Realm Of Reality

Click here to view the original post.

Ever since computers became popular, there have been those who wanted to hack their way in and find their secrets. For most of those early hackers, the thrill was in the chase, and the victory was in breaking in.

Most of their work was benign, with hackers being content to have succeeded in doing what they weren’t supposed to be able to do.

As computer use grew, so did hacking. But it changed as well.

With the massive connectivity and easy access that the internet offers, more and more hackers found their niche in life. These newer hackers weren’t content with merely breaching security for the sake of breaching security, they had nefarious intent in their work.

Whether that was the spread of viruses, identity theft or simply data mining for profit, it looked at the millions of computers connected to the internet as targets for attack, not just for play.

Malware has become a major threat on the Internet today, with countless hackers and even companies creating and distributing it across the world. While some is merely created for commercial purposes, placing ads on people’s computers, there is much more that spells real danger to individuals and companies worldwide.

It couldn’t stay that way though. Governments everywhere hold with the idea that only they can pursue illegal activities. While they work to keep their citizens from committing those acts, they are quick to adopt them themselves, and use them covertly to further their country or political party’s agenda.

Such has been the case of hacking and malware in general. The first to see the value of it were the Chinese, who created a cyber-warfare branch in their army. They immediately started working to find ways into other countries computers, especially those of opposing governments and their military branches.

They didn’t limit it to that. They sought out ways to attack critical infrastructure, such as disabling power plants or bypassing the failsafes on nuclear power plants.

While China got a head start on the rest of the world, other countries have been working to catch up, including the United States of America.

Rather than making cyber-warfare a branch of the military, it seems that we’ve left it up to our intelligence organs, most especially the CIA and the NSA.

Once it moved behind the walls of intelligence operations, any efforts towards U.S. development of cyber-warfare became very hush-hush. Few knew about it, and even fewer admitted it was happening.

The vast majority of Congress was left in the dark, as they had no oversight of intelligence operations. And with Congress in the dark, the American people were totally cut out of what was happening.

Vault 7, the US Government and Cyber-warfare

The most recent Wikileaks dump, cryptically called Vault 7, has breached the secrecy of US government involvement in cyber-warfare for the very first time.

Specifically, the first 8,761 documents demonstrate the CIA’s involvement in creating millions of lines of malware code, including viruses, Trojans, weaponized “zero day” exploits, remote control systems and other forms of malware.

In total, there were over 1,000 different hacking systems, Trojans, viruses and other “weaponized” malware. While the actual code does not seem to be part of the data dump (and that’s a good thing), documentation about its existence and descriptions of its capability have been released.

All of this was produced by the Center for Cyber Intelligence (CCI), a sub-agency of the CIA’s Directorate for Digital Innovation (DDI). This directorate, the most recent addition to the CIA’s organization chart, comprises over 5,000 registered users, many of whom are programmers and expert hackers.

The release of this information is a major blow against American cyber-warfare; but apparently it’s one that needed to happen. I say that, even though I’m not entirely comfortable about it, because according to Wikileaks, the CIA has recently lost control of the majority of their digital arsenal.

This extremely dangerous code has been circulated amongst former U.S. government hackers and contactors in an unauthorized manner.

Notice that I said “former,” not current. That’s the information that Wikileaks has, and also the means by which they were given access to this amazing data. Apparently one of those former workers felt the public needed to know what was going on behind closed doors.

A CIA spy secret that anyone can use to keep him or herself safe – straight from an ex-CIA officer!

The Malware Market

Should this code make it out into the dark Internet, the results could be disastrous. Apparently there is quite a market for all sorts of malware, with customers willing to pay large sums, even into the millions for programs which will permit them access to things they shouldn’t have access too.

But that’s not the biggest problem. The big one is that once out in the open, this malware could spread around the globe in mere minutes, used and targeted by an army of individual hackers.

Unlike other weapons systems, electronic weapons don’t explode and disappear. If anything, their “explosion” causes them to multiply across computers and networks, infecting more and more as they go.

While it may be possible to take them off a particular computer, usually by scrubbing the hard drive and doing a global reinstall, they never really go away. The same electronic weapons can be used over and over again.

This code got out into the open, we can’t count on the good graces of the people who have it. While some of those CIA contractors and employees will act responsibly with what they have, invariably there will be those who will see an opportunity to use it for nefarious ends or perhaps for personal gain.

There’s another aspect of this, which is even scarier than what hackers will do with the CIA’s digital arsenal. That’s what the CIA themselves have done with it.

In 2013, Edward Snowden came forth as a whistleblower, informing the country that the NSA was spying on American citizens, in contrary to the law. This new batch of information tells us that the NSA aren’t the only ones doing that. The CIA is doing so as well.

There have always been rivalries between the various intelligence agencies. FDR created the OSS during World War II to combat this problem. Yet the OSS and later the CIA haven’t managed to eliminate that rivalry. Rather, they’ve become part of it.

One of the results of these rivalries is overlaps in areas of responsibility and multiple departments performing the same task. Such seems to be the case here, with the CIA performing its own version of the NSA’s work. Yet without knowing who ordered the CIA to do this or when it was ordered, there’s no real way of knowing whether this is an authorized operation or not.

Video first seen on Fox News

But there’s more than just the CIA spying on our communications, like the NSA does. Apparently they’ve developed malware that targets iPhones, Android phones, smart TVs and even Microsoft Windows. This malware invokes thoughts of Orwell’s 1984, if anything does. With it, the CIA can turn on these devices and use them to spy on their owners.

For some reason, Samsung TVs in particular have been targeted by the CIA. Their malware, called “Weeping Angel,” which was developed in conjunction with the United Kingdom’s MI5, allows the television to operate in a “fake off” mode, where it appears to be off to the owner, but a microphone in the unit is recording everything said in the room and forwarding it to the CIA, via the internet.

This is just one example of the types of “back door” malware programs which the CIA has developed. Similar malware can be used to hack in to smartphones allowing the CIA to determine the owner’s location, read their e-mail, their text messages, search the phone’s memory and activate both the camera and microphone.

Quite literally, they can spy on anyone, anywhere, anytime they choose, and we can’t do a thing about it.

Even encryption won’t help, as the CIA has means of accessing the data, before it is encrypted. So much for the various communications platforms out there, which claim to encrypt your communications. If the CIA can access the information before it is encrypted, the encryption is useless. The government will know what’s in your communications, perhaps even before you do.

Before We Panic

All of this capability was probably developed with the best of intentions. The CIA, like other intelligence agencies, is involved in the war on terror. As terrorists tend to hide in the population and use the same communications that many of us do, it is necessary to develop the means of penetrating those communications to investigate the actions of those terrorists.

But where does it stop? What’s to say that they aren’t amassing files on each one of us? It’s already been reveled that the NSA is doing that, storing all of our communications in their massive data storage facilities. Snowden told us how that information is misused by analysts breaking the rules.

Those analysts aren’t the real issue though; the real issue is the government that is stealing our privacy. Spying on American citizens is a clear betrayal of our Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful search and seizure.

Yet we, the American people, are routinely subjected to a level of surveillance that the Founding Fathers couldn’t have imagined. Even those of us who are not doing anything illegal have things in our lives, which we would rather not have known.

Even if the CIA can demonstrate that they haven’t broken our Fourth Amendment rights, how can we trust them? There is literally nobody who has access to their files. So there is no way to prove that they are telling the truth.

The only information we would have access to, is that which they release, with the intention of demonstrating their innocence. Not exactly something you could take to a court of law.

There is only one solution for those of us who want privacy. That’s to foreswear the use of all modern means of communications. While not exactly practical, there may come a day when we need to; especially if the government starts misusing our information.

I just know one thing. I’m going to be careful about what I put out over the Internet, over my phone and through any other electronic means of communications I find myself using. There’s no reason to give anyone ammunition, which might find its way back, being used against me on some future date.

Click here to discover your part in this important “undercover operation” to protect the lives and privacy of thousands of Americans!

This article has been written by Bill White For Survivopedia. 





America Through The Eyes Of Our Founding Fathers

Click here to view the original post.


Almost 250 years ago, a band of brave men and women stood up to a tyrannical government and entered into open rebellion against it.

These rebels were motivated by a desire for liberty, not wanting their lives to be controlled by a distant government which had no idea of who they were or what their lives were like. Their rebellion became a war, which they ultimately won, creating the United States of America.

The battle cry which brought those Founding Fathers to open warfare was “taxation without representation.” They were offended by the need to pay taxes to a distant government which didn’t look after their needs.

But even worse than that, they were taxed without being allowed any representation in the parliament of that country. To them, taxation without representation was tyranny, and they rose up against it.

The opening move in that rebellion was one of controlled violence. A band of rebels, disguised as American Indians, boarded three American owned and built ships tied up to Griffin’s Wharf in Boston, Massachusetts. There, they bound the guards, and proceeded to throw the contents of 342 crates of tea, belonging to the British East Indian Company.

Why would they do such a thing? More directly, why would my great-great-great-great-great-grandfather, Silas Hubble (that’s five “greats”), a law-abiding subject of England, choose to partake in such an event? Because that tea carried a tax stamp. One more tax, levied by the English Crown, on colonists who were not represented in Parliament. That stamp became a symbol of the tyranny of England, calling for its destruction, along with the tea that bore it.

The Boston Tea Party became the spark which unified the colonies and started the war. Americans from all walks of life, gathered together to form an army, an army with one purpose – only that of throwing off the tyrannical rule of Britain.

Interestingly enough, the men who participated in this raid were very concerned about not breaking the law or causing damage to the owners of those ships. They did no violence to the members of the crews guarding those ships, merely binding them. The only damage they inflicted on those ships was a broken padlock, holding shut the hatch to the hold. They had to remove it to gain access to the tea, so they bought another padlock and left it for the captain of that ship.

This is an interesting contrast to the protests and demonstrations we see today, which are marked not only by their violence, but by their wonton destruction as well. Demonstrators, or more likely the paid agitators in their midst, make a point of breaking windows, overturning police cars and setting buildings on fire. Silas Hubble and his compatriots would be horrified.

Another huge difference between that demonstration and the demonstrations of today was their purpose. The Founding Fathers fought for freedom, which to them, meant freedom from government interference. But today’s protesters and revolutionaries are bound by the common thread of wanting a more oppressive government, one that cares for them from cradle to grave.

These demonstrators commonly call for a socialist form of government, not really understanding what that means. To them, socialism is the government giving them freebies.

But they fail to realize that for the government to do that, they must take that money and the individual freedom of their fellow Americans. Few of them have been on the other side of the fence, watching their paycheck diminish as the government took more and more away in the form of taxes.

Breaking from Tyranny

The American Revolution was against tyranny and those who joined in had a clear understanding of what that tyranny looked like. An overbearing government, far removed from their daily lives, was stealing from them in the form of taxes, while not giving them anything in return. That was tyranny.

So they went to war, an upstart collection of colonies against the mightiest army and navy in the world. That, in and of itself was remarkable. To think that untrained farmers and craftsmen would stand up against the might of the British government was truly amazing.

But to see them win and cast off the yoke of tyranny was even more amazing. They accomplished what nobody else thought was possible and so founded the greatest nation on the face of the Earth.

Having just broken the bonds of tyranny, the Continental Congress wanted to protect their fledgling nation from it ever occurring again. Through much hard work and thought, hammering out the details in endless debates, they crafted one of the greatest political documents of history – the United States Constitution.

The purpose of the Constitution was to define and establish the government of this new nation. It was written with certain goals in mind, amongst which was minimal central government, creating a balance of power between the central government and the states, and splitting the government’s power between three separate, but equal branches, so that power could not be consolidated in one branch or in the hands of one individual.

That is not to say that all of the Founding Fathers were comfortable with the restraints that the Constitution placed upon the government. Some wanted a strong central government, with limited state powers. But that group ultimately lost out to those who wanted a small federal government.

Another disagreement led to the writing of the Bill of Rights, the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution. Some felt that the Constitution, as drafted, guaranteed those rights. But others did not feel so, as they were not specifically enumerated.

Ultimately, this latter group won out, and the Bill of Rights was created. Once again, its purpose was to limit government power, not to give the government power.

The Bill Of Rights

Remember that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects peoples’ right to keep and bear arms for purposes that include self-defense. The Second Amendment was written so you can defend yourself!

LIMITED OFFER on President’s Day! Get your FREE Smith and Wesson Tactical Folding knife! 

Limited Government

Yet when we look at Washington today, we see a massive bureaucracy, which tries to meddle in every area of our lives. The Founding Fathers would be horrified by this, as it is the last thing they ever wanted. If anything, the Constitution and Bill of Rights give more power to the “several states” rather than to the central government. Yet the central government has stolen that power.

There is nothing which demonstrates more clearly than the Civil War how state power has been stolen.

While the main motivating factor in Southern cessation was slavery, the fact that the federal government didn’t allow them to secede, but rather went to war over it, was a massive theft of state powers by the federal government. In it, the several states lost their right to determine whether they would freely associate with the rest of the nation, or not.

Were the Founding Fathers to resurrect today, the first thing they would do is scale the federal government back. The Old Executive Office Building, originally built in 1871, was erected to be the home of the Departments of State, War (Army) and Navy. Yet today, it houses none of these functions, merely acting as an annex to the White House and holding additional staff members to the President.

To those Founding Fathers, several of the departments of the Executive Branch would be baffling, seen as unnecessary or as treasonous to the American people. They had fought for liberty and to find departments of the government which were meddling in the affairs of the citizens would bother them greatly. To them, the federal government we have today, would be even worse than the government they broke away from in the Revolutionary War.

Giving our government the benefit of the doubt (something I’m not normally wont to do), I believe that some of those departments would be accepted and understood by the Founding Fathers, after explanation and reflection. But not many.

Overall, they would see them as unnecessary meddling in the lives and businesses of the American people. In the cases of things that are necessary governmental services, such as education, they would ask why that wasn’t left at the state or even local level, as it was during their time.

But no governmental department would bother them more than the infernal IRS. Considering that they had just fought a war to get out from under the yoke of unreasonable taxation, the very idea that the American people would tolerate the existence of such an organization would be baffling. It would not surprise me if they were to rush it en masse, burning the building to the ground, as soon as they were made aware of its presence.

Citizen Legislators

The original Continental Congress, which published the Declaration of Independence wasn’t made up of professional politicians. Rather, it was made of farmers and businessmen, who left their homes to go to Boston and returned back home after the government’s business was concluded.

Alexander Hamilton, who presided over that Congress, was a ship’s captain, who returned to his ship and set sail, once the Congress was dismissed.

Video first seen on Scott Bacher

In creating the United States of America, the Founding Fathers were breaking away from the aristocratic rule of European countries. There would be no hereditary royalty who ruled the people, but rather representatives who were elected from the communities they represented.

There was to be no permanent political class either. Representatives would be farmers, craftsmen and business owners who had earned the trust of their neighbors. They would serve in government part time, returning to their communities to run their farms and businesses.

Yet today we have a permanent political class, where most of our politicians at the federal level have spent their entire professional lives as politicians. Few of them have any other skills or know any other profession than that of governing, and because of that, they are largely disconnected from the people that they represent.

I can clearly imagine any one of the Founding Fathers facing off against Congress and using Donald Trump’s famous line, “You’re fired!” They would see the permanent political class as nothing more than the permanent ruling class in England, something that they tried to eradicate on these shores.

Balance of Power

As the Founding Fathers looked closer, they would quickly see how the balance of power between the three branches of government has been corrupted. Through the years, both the Executive and Judicial branch have stolen power from the Legislative branch, reducing the influence of Congress, while increasing their own.

The idea of governing by executive fiat was never a part of the original plan, although power for executive orders are written in the Constitution. But that was only intended to give the president power to execute laws that were already in existence; not create his own or eliminate those he didn’t like.

Likewise, the judicial branch was never given power to create their own laws by the decisions handed down from the bench. Their function was limited to determining whether the laws created by Congress had been broken or not.

Decisions such as Roe vs. Wade and the supposed right of homosexuals to marry in same sex marriages would horrify them; not just for the lack of morality behind those decisions, but because the Supreme Court was adding “rights” to the Constitution which didn’t exist.

Morality & Religion

Speaking of morality, we must remember that of the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence, 53 of them were Christians. Twenty-seven of them had attended seminary. This nation was founded as a Christian nation; the only one in the history of the world.

Yet, Barack Obama’s declaration that this is no longer a Christian nation is much closer to the truth than many of us would care to face. Christianity is on the decline, rapidly being replaced by Secular Humanism, Islam, the New Age movement and outright atheism.

Many of the original settlers on these shores came here for religious liberty. At that time, the phrase “religious liberty” referred to the expression of the Christian religion, not Islam, secular humanism or any of the other religions which are seeking to take over society. They were concerned about a government sponsored church forcing everyone to accept the “official” version of Christianity, as the Church of England imposed upon their society. Hence the First Amendment gives us the right to freedom of religion.

Nevertheless, the morals of today, or more correctly the lack of morals in our modern society, would be shocking to the Founding Fathers. They created this country to be a Christian country, expressing Christian values and living in accordance with the commandments of the Bible. What it has become today would be both shocking and repugnant to them.

Helping the Poor

The poor have always existed. The most ancient evidence that exists shows poor people populating the world. In fact, the vast majority of people have been poor, throughout the majority of history. Helping the poor was seen as a work for churches, religious societies and other “do-gooder organizations” (non-profit corporations).

Some of the poor were poor due to circumstances beyond their control. These are often referred to as the “widows and orphans” of history. The Christian Bible even makes reference to them, admonishing Christians to help them out.

But there were others who were poor because of drunkenness, laziness and a lack of a good work ethic. While their numbers were much lower than those of today, they existed.

In the culture of the 1700s and 1800s such people were looked down upon. Their problems were seen as something of their own creation. As such, they earned no pity and were not supported by the community. Any handouts were reserved for those considered to be “legitimately poor,” the aforementioned widows and orphans.

The idea that the government would be in the business of redistributing wealth to help the poor was something totally foreign to them. They would not understand it.

While they were all good men, who probably would have reached out a hand to help a person in need, they would never think that their taxes would be spent in such a way. They especially wouldn’t think that entitlements would become the single largest part of government spending.

Yet that’s what we have today. I can see these men admonishing citizens and especially the church, to take up this burden and remove it from the government. They would probably be some of the first to give, in order to make this possible.


In reality, the America of today is vastly different from the America of our Founding Fathers. We have come so far down the road of change, that it’s doubtful that they would recognize the country as being the one they had founded. While some of that can be written off to changes in society and technology, even without those changes, they would not recognize the country we have become.

More than anything, they would be concerned about the size of our federal government, both in the amount of wealth it takes from our economy and the amount of regulatory burden it puts on people’s lives. While some of that is obviously necessary, they could not accept it as it is.

Were the Founding Fathers alive today, we could expect a second American Revolution, and they’d be the ones to start it.

Grab this offer on Presidents’ Day! Click the banner and get your free Smith & Wesson knife today!


This article has been written by Bill White for Survivopedia. 




6 total views, 6 views today

Rate this article!

[Total: 1    Average: 5/5]

An assault on our right to self-protection.

Click here to view the original post.
In legal terms, Australians have a right of self-defence. While some states rely on the common law and others have it enshrined in statute, the right itself is never questioned. Moreover, juries consistently refuse to convict those charged with serious offences whenever self-defence is made out.

What we don’t have is the practical ability to exercise that right. Possessing any object specifically for the purpose of self-defence, lethal or non-lethal, is a criminal offence. There are many women, raped and/or murdered, who would have been liable to prosecution had they been carrying anything that might have saved them.

The Pension Assets Test to be implemented on 1 January 2017.

Click here to view the original post.
The Pension Assets Test to be
implemented on 1 January 2017.

So here’s fair warning to all politicians of any persuasion, this group of aged voters may be about to make the greatest impact on any Federal election in history, ignoring them may be the start of a changed political
environment in this country.

Change the Entitlements I absolutely agree, if a pension isn’t an entitlement, neither is
theirs. They keep telling us that paying us an aged pension isn’t sustainable.
Paying politicians all the perks they get is even less sustainable!
The politicians themselves, in Canberra, brought it up, that the Age of Entitlements is over: The author is asking each addressee to forward this email to a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise.
In three days, most people in Australia will have this message. This is one idea that really should be passed around because the rot has to stop somewhere.
Proposals to make politicians shoulder their share of the weight now
that the Age of Entitlement is over:
1. Scrap political pensions.
Politicians can purchase their own retirement plan, just as most
other working Australians are expected to do.
2. Retired politicians (past, present & future) participate in Centrelink. A Politician collects a substantial salary while in office but should receive no salary when they’re out of office.
Terminated politicians under 70 can go get a job or apply for Centrelink unemployment benefits like ordinary Australians.
Terminated politicians under 70 can negotiate with Centrelink like the rest of the Australian people.
3. Funds already allocated to the Politicians’ retirement fund be returned immediately to Consolidated Revenue.
This money is to be used to pay down debt they created which they expect us and our grandchildren to repay for them.
4. Politicians will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Politicians pay will rise by the lower of, either the CPI or 3%.
5. Politicians lose their privileged health care system and participate in the same health care system as ordinary Australian people.
I.E. Politicians either pay for private cover from their own funds or accept ordinary Medicare.
6. Politicians must equally abide by all laws they impose on the Australian people.
7. All contracts with past and present Politicians men/women are void effective 31/12/16.
The Australian people did not agree to provide perks to Politicians, that burden was thrust upon them.
Politicians devised all these contracts to benefit themselves.
Serving in Parliament is an honour not a career.
The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so our politicians should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.
If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people, then it will only take three or so days for most Australians to receive the message.
Don’t you think it’s time?
THIS IS HOW YOU FIX Parliament and help bring fairness back into this country!

7 Steps To Increase Privacy When Using The Internet

Click here to view the original post.

Internet Privacy

Software manufacturers, utility companies, hotels, law enforcement, banks, government agencies and criminals all stand to gain from you surrendering your privacy. They are all selling the lie that you must be a drug dealer or a terrorist if you prefer to communicate anonymously.

It’s brainwashing. Don’t be a sheeple. Good guys value privacy too.

Americans have traditionally valued privacy very highly. Many still do. Many have “voted with their feet” and moved to less densely populated Western states and Alaska.

“The Greatest Generation” and those who lived through the great depression counted privacy among our inalienable, God-given rights. Americans stood united on the issue from the founding fathers right up until “generation x”.

It’s pretty easy to spot when privacy began its cycle of demise.

But what changed? What initiated the down-hill slide? Why was this cherished fundamental of the American dream devalued? How did we lose our grip on it?

These questions affect us all. Many factors joined forces to wage war on privacy, and now it’s our turn to fight back taking these seven steps to protect our privacy.

1. Implement Strong Physical Security

Ever heard that possession is nine tenths of the law? All jurisdictions recognize that you have rights regarding your home or place of residence. Make use of them. They are barrier to those who abide by or at least fear the law. For the rest, you need to make sure your property is not a worthwhile target. Don’t leave physical deterrents out of the privacy equation.

On the technology side of the equation, you might have decent security and SOP in place. No passwords written down anywhere near the computer.

But if someone gets into the same room with your computer, there are any number of ways to penetrate that security. They could install a keystroke logger that makes a note of your every keystroke. So do due diligence in regards to physical security.

  1.  Encrypt, Encrypt, Encrypt and Encrypt Some More

Encryption is one of the very best tools in your arsenal. As long as your data is properly encrypted, even if all your other security measures fail, no useful information will come out of the encrypted data … period, end of story.

If you only take one single piece of information away from this steps, make sure it’s to create effective data encryption SOP and follow it to the letter.

If you do this one thing, even if your enemies descend upon your home like the US Military on Bin Laden or put crime tape around or bag everything and every property you own, they won’t get a shred of useful data.

They will have to rely purely on external, largely circumstantial, sources of evidence.

Encryption Internet

  1.  Don’t Adopt New Technology Prematurely

Choose not to adopt emergent technology until security bugs have been found and patched and you understand how the new technology will impact your privacy.

There are many reasons not to adopt these new technologies prematurely:

  • You pay a premium to be on the “bleeding edge” of technology.
  • Why beta-test (troubleshoot) a manufacturer’s new product for them? Waiting until the first round or two of patches or revisions have been made ensures a more robust platform.
  • Many new products are highly proprietary when they first hit the market so you will be locked in to the options offered by the manufacturer. Once the other manufacturers have time to respond, you will have far more options to customize the product to your needs, resulting in a superior solution.
  • Lastly and most important to this course, it’s much safer to adopt a technology after it has been poured over and reverse-engineered by privacy experts and they have published their findings.
  1. Don’t Create New Online Accounts that Hamper Your OPSEC

Delete any that you already have submitted. How many accounts do you have with email services, search engines, banks, investments, utility companies, internet service providers, credit cards, social media, shopping, schools, organizations, backup services, file sharing, software developers, app stores, entertainment, games or other types of websites online?

And how many of them do you use on a consistent basis?

Remember that every account is a potential OPSEC liability. Learn how to decrease your exposure when you do create accounts.

Some of you may want to get rid of any accounts you created before you learned how to create them and use them without creating undue vulnerability.

  1. Configure Your Technology’s Privacy Related Settings

Configure content and settings of hardware, software, apps and accounts to reflect the level of privacy you desire and don’t choose hardware, software, apps or accounts that will affect your privacy in ways that are unacceptable to you

If you participate in social media using your real name and information, you are volunteering all kinds of information to anyone who’s interested.

If your employer or a potential employer, employee or anyone else for that matter looks up information that you voluntarily posted to social media sites that you participate in, that’s on you. You put it out there for everyone to see.

Many websites and developers are now at least paying lip service to privacy because folks like us are making a lot of noise about the issue and it’s costing them brand equity which translates into money. The result is that privacy settings and privacy statements have come about.

We’ve argued long and hard for them, so use them. Read the statements and third party security reviews to discern which features and settings of your hardware, software and sites you use will make a difference.

In many instances, you may need to stop using them and use a competitive product that values your privacy or at least recognizes that the concept still exists. Invest the time to understand and configure your technology’s privacy-related settings to protect and limit distribution of your information as opposed to volunteering as much information as possible.

Make use of technology as a tool to effect change on a large scale. Lastly, take into account who each device, software, app or account is created by, their privacy philosophy, where they are physically located, and what jurisdiction it falls under.

The Homeland Security alphabet soup might squeeze American companies left and right or accuse them of being unpatriotic if they don’t grant unfettered access to email accounts but that’s not as easy to do in another countries.

Some US agencies even infiltrate large companies someone deems vital to national security. They recruit employees to spy for them. This is not exactly top secret knowledge. But that’s not as easy to do in other countries, especially in countries that take a dim view of recently exposed US espionage activities.

  1.  Delete or Destroy

If you ever have to defend your life with a firearm in the US, you will likely have to defend yourself again in court.

Once you’ve fulfilled your responsibilities of informing the authority and calling for assistance if your attorney was standing to the side and saw the whole thing, he would probably walk over to you and staple your tongue to the roof of your mouth.

He would do it to shut you up because he knows that the burden of proof is on the prosecution and he wouldn’t want you saying anything that might make the prosecution’s job any easier. He would do it even if he was certain you were innocent because he wouldn’t want to give the other side any more resources to work with than they already have.

The same principle applies to privacy, and everything, not just computer files. Crosscut shred paper, redact everything else. If you need to submit receipts for reimbursement, they might need to see your name and the amount, but do they need your credit card billing address or confirmation numbers that might yield more information?

When it comes to information, get rid of anything and everything you don’t need, especially  data or computer files of any kind. Give the following criterion a try: if it’s not beautiful, useful or cherished, get rid of it.

Think of it as giving whoever is after your information less to work with. Sanitize everything you can obtain access to as long as you don’t have to break any laws to do so. The more unnecessary copies of data you have laying around, the more complicated the task of managing and securing them will become.

When it’s time to get rid of sensitive information, don’t just delete it or format the drive and throw it in the trash or give it away. Data can be extracted from many storage media even after it has been deleted or the drive has been formatted.

The storage device must be destroyed using data destruction protocols. Destroy the hard drives, SSD’s flash memory, magnetic or optical and any other durable storage medium in such a way that makes the data unrecoverable. Memory technology is constantly in a state of flux.

Different methods are used to destroy a hard drive that stores data on a magnetic medium than a solid state hard drive or an optical disc or a tape drive and so on. It’s a simple matter to look it up or we can go into more detail in a more in-depth course. The important thing to take away here is to research how to destroy the data on the device before attempting to destroy it.

Do not simply destroy it. If you need to destroy data in a hurry, there are ways to do that. Systems can be created where you can literally “push a button” and walk away, but they usually involve the release of a large amount of energy in the form of heat and light and are noisy.

Video first seen on Snocrash.

  1.  Remove or Change Sensitive Information from Databases

By law, many businesses must remove your information from their databases if you request it. The largest, most-used non-governmental databases are maintained by large, legitimate businesses. Their internal SOPs require employees to obey the law.

If they didn’t, they would expose themselves to huge liabilities, and by law, they must remove you from their database if you request it.

Opt out. You didn’t make your digital breadcrumb trail in a day and you’re not going to get rid of it in one. Get your identity squared away first and create a new email specifically for this purpose. Choose a secure email provider from those recommended or find one that meets your needs. Don’t use that email for anything else but getting removed from email lists.

Many will let you remove yourself without requiring a pound of flesh. Click and you are out. Others will make you email them so they can email you back with a link that will enable you to remove yourself from the database, that’s where this email will come in handy. They may ask you to send an email requesting removal and will email you the link that will enable you to remove yourself from their database, so it will be more believable if the email resembles your name in some way.

I doubt you’ll come under scrutiny if the name of your email has nothing to do with your name, but it’s a thought. Some companies will demand to see ID. It’s a process, not an event, but it’s worth it.

What you can’t delete or encrypt can often be changed. The vast majority of search techniques search only the most current data available in order to avoid reporting incorrect, information because it’s useless for most purposes. So changing the information, effectively overwrites it in most databases for most purposes.

You need to decide to whom you will give real information and to whom you will give misinformation. In life and as you take steps to improve your privacy, companies will ask you for information. They will turn around and give it or sell it to all of their parent or sibling corporations, affiliates and pretty much anyone with a dollar in their pocket. Direct marketers buy lists of information all the time.

If you conduct a business today, you are asked for sensitive information at every turn. If you refuse to give information, it will create a very awkward moment that gets you noticed at the very least and in many cases they will refuse to do business with you or remove your name form their list if that’s why you’re contacting them.

I strongly caution you against giving false information to the government, commit identity fraud by using another person’s identity or committing credit fraud by lying on a credit application.

You can provide misinformation without breaking any laws, just be mindful of the law. After all, if you’re giving it up, you’re giving up your rights.


This article has been written by Cache Valley Prepper for Survivopedia. 

8 total views, 8 views today

Rate this article!

[Total: 0    Average: 0/5]

5 Reasons Why Your Neighborhood Terrorist Loves Gun Control

Click here to view the original post.

survivopedia 5 reasons terrorism

I must start off by saying that walking through the mind of a terrorist with my dainty little feet is no easy task. These individuals are some of the most perverted, disgusting, sad excuses for living beings that we will ever know in this world.

But, clearly, they are not stupid.

Nevertheless, if we are to put an end to their attempts to ruin our culture, we must understand what they see as our greatest weaknesses and extrapolate how they will move to exploit them. It is my sincere contention that gun control is something terrorists love because it creates a weakness they can exploit at every level of our personal and social existence.

I feel, if there is one pet rabid viper of terrorists that we have nursed to our bosom in this society, gun control with its gun grabbing fangs is it.

Gun Control Divides People

Even though there is no such thing as an issue that everyone agrees on, matters surrounding autonomy and self defense are of major interest to terrorists.

Since their goals usually include harming people and spreading fear, they absolutely laugh with glee when one group seeks to disarm another within the same society; especially when the people being disarmed (example veterans) are the ones terrorists want to murder.

“Divide and conquer” is one of the simplest and most effective strategies when it comes to spreading terror and winning wars. The insanity of gun control itself within the context of a homeland proven unsafe from terrorists is like a free lunch to them. Any terrorist worth his or her title can do any number of things to divide us even further:

  • they can sit back and wait for other carefully scripted media spins such as the ones surrounding Sandy Hook to take hold and drive a panic based wedge between gun owners and gun grabbers.
  • they can launch one or two terror attacks such as in San Bernadino just to remind everyone they are here and can successfully strike at any moment.
  • Terrorist will act to feed and encourage anti-gun movements. This may include eliciting sympathy from them – much as murderers and rapists gain sympathy from the same group of people that see them as “victims”. No doubt, if the anti-gunners have their way, they will welcome terrorists to our homeland in hopes that they can work out their psychotic aggression and then move on to become good wholesome members of society.
  • Terrorists may also observe that the anti-gun movement is also paired with anti-war and anti-law enforcement ideals and values. The wise terrorist would make donations to the bank accounts and campaign accounts of anti-gunners in order to speed up the disarmament of our nation’s citizens.
  • Above all, the terrorist will lie and deceive so as to spread as much chaos as possible before attacking physically.

Gun Control Puts Government in a Failing Position

Prohibition and the war on drugs offer ample evidence that there are some places where law, and the attempt to enforce them does more harm than good.

Quite frankly, if people want to own something, buy something, or do something, they are going to try and achieve their goal no matter who or what stands in the way. When a government such as ours seeks to regulate guns among a population accustomed to having them, it is a recipe for disaster.

Here is what terrorists see each time a gun control measure is put in place:

  • They see something that the government cannot enforce without shedding blood of American citizens, or taking other risks that hurt the very people terrorists want to kill. Just take a look at the number of lives lost in drug related killings over the years and how many lives are still lost because the government seeks to impose rules on a culture that is not ready or willing to accept them.
  • When governments seek to control something at the price of violence, terrorists know they are succeeding. Each dollar spent on gun control, each speech made against the gun culture, and each new law is one that tells terrorists that resources have been taken away from fighting radical Islamic terrorism. This, in turn tells them that our government would rather show its weakness and “kick the dog” represented by American gun owners instead of take bold and definite action against sleeper radical Islamic terror cells in this nation.
  • No matter how much money the government prints, there is a limit to what that money will buy. We simply cannot afford to squander money, energy, and talent on gun control when radical Islamic terrorist are here in the US; and may even be seeding their ideologies in Venezuela, Bolivia, and other South American countries that gave former Guantanamo Bay detainees refuge.

Gun Control Puts Money in Terrorist Bank Accounts

Nowhere on Earth do the laws of supply and demand work so well as in the black market. The more laws you make against guns, the more people are going to want them. Since terrorists are fully capable of making guns and smuggling them into the country, rest assured that they can, will, and do make a fortune on black market trade.

Just as an example, do we really know how many black market machine guns (I mean the real kind, not some glorified hunting rifle like the AR-15) are out there and in the hands of terrorist sleeper cells? We can never know that answer anymore than we can know how many tons of illegal drugs are on the streets at any given moment.

The fact of the matter is anti-gun laws are about as realistic as a spouse thinking his/her partner isn’t cheating just because of a marriage certificate. Just because statistics show one thing or another, that does not mean specific married people aren’t tom catting under cover! “Out of sight, out of mind” does not mean these weapons are truly gone.

They may well be in the hands of radical Islamic terrorists who are just waiting for the right moment to use them. Sadly, this problem does not exist just here in the United States, it exists in every single nation that has gun control.

Not only are criminals and terrorists manufacturing and selling weapons at a profit, they are doing so at an incredible profit that goes right back into advancing their disgusting plans.

As strange as it may sound, I feel there is also a second way that gun control puts money in terrorist bank accounts. Consider a situation where you are fed up with the level of incompetence that seems to be coming from the US government. Now let’s say you are a citizen of a foreign country where ISIS, Boko Haram, or some other terrorist group is taking over at an accelerated rate. If you are looking for safety and security, how can you trust in a foreign government that is moving to disarm its own people in the face of the same terrorist threat?

The fact of the matter is right now there are millions of innocent Muslims and Africans that were either kidnapped by terrorist groups or their towns and cities are occupied by radical Islamic terrorists.

Each and every one of those people knows they wound up in this situation because their own governments were successful in imposing gun control and confiscation. If you, as an individual are thinking about your own future, wouldn’t you see more advantages to turning against a government that seems to be turning against its own people and their right to self defense?

I feel this is precisely how gun control puts money in the bank accounts of terrorists. I also feel it explains why people in the Middle East seem both apathetic and hesitant to do what the United States asks them to do.

Gun Control Puts a Lower Price Tag on Human Life

If terrorists are to achieve their goals, they must do so in a way that maximizes profit and reduces risk. When the person or people you want to kill or injure are well armed, then you it will cost you more to achieve your goal. Should that person, such as a veteran or active member of the military also be trained well enough to use that gun to maximum advantage, the price associated with murder goes even higher. Now let’s have a look at how gun control is selectively lowering the price paid by terrorists that choose to attack veterans right here in the homeland:

  • Over 10% of all homeless people are veterans, fact commonly shared on social media in an effort to obtain donations for homeless veterans or raise awareness. Not only does this mean they are vulnerable because of poverty, it also means they are not likely to have guns because they cannot complete the background check required to own a gun. From that perspective, all a terrorist in this country has to do is visit any place where homeless people are known to gather. Not only is it likely they can murder 10 people with ease, there is every chance they will bag at least one veteran.
  • Gun control only serves to lower the monetary value of every other person that is unable to obtain a gun because the cost of killing, kidnapping, and injuring them is much lower. For example, many people today cannot understand why terrorists chose to attack those who worked in a school for the developmentally disabled in San Bernadino CA. Aside from being a gun free zone, the former employee that committed the massacre clearly knew that his co-workers would not be armed, and therefore it would cost substantially less to murder them.
  • Anti-gunners constantly talk about how they value the lives of children and (rightfully) say there is no amount of money that can replace a child. Nevertheless, each time a school goes without armed guards, or youths over the age of 7 are not allowed to carry and defend themselves, it sends a message to terrorists that it is costs much less to go after our children. Don’t forget these terrorists are not worried about facing “justice” or human law because they do not have any exit plan other than to die at the end of their rampage.

Gun Control Does not Solve the Real Cause of American Discontent

It would be tremendously ignorant and naive to say that US citizens are happier today than they were 8 years ago. Not only do we grapple with rising prices, rising taxes, and shrinking wages, but there is a definite sense of misery across the land.

Just take a look at pictures of yourself from 2007 and compare them to recent ones. Do you smile or laugh less when at parties or with friends? Did you wind up starting on anti-anxiety and anti-panic medications in the last 8 years?

Do you feel like you are trapped in an endless mire of debt, taxes, and obligation to others? If you answered yes to these questions, then you know exactly what I am talking about when I say the general feeling across our nation is “misery”. You also know that job losses, relationship failures, passing on of family members, and other sad events cannot wholly account for what you may be feeling inside and seeing in the faces and actions of others.

Now let me be clear here and say that for most people, there can be no joy in hearing about children, veterans, and others murdered with guns.

To say that NRA members (many of whom are doctors, nurses, veterans, and members of law enforcement) or other gun advocates do not feel these losses is beyond ignorant; especially when those truly enjoying the spectacle are radical Islamic terrorists and others determined to destroy our nation once the citizens are disarmed.

No matter how gut wrenching these deaths may be, it is time to stop preventing one group or another from having guns just because they “might” commit a massacre. It is time to do the opposite – it is time to arm more people so that terrorists and criminals alike have more enemies to contend with, and must pay a higher price for every life they take or try to take.

If there is one explanation for the rise of “radical” candidates such as Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, it is the general state of unhappiness in our daily lives. Instead of having real, meaningful conversations about how to bring joy back to our nation, we spend endless hours fighting over a few hunks of metal that just happen to be some of the best tools for self defense.

Historically speaking, terrorists have already seen how unhappy people seek to impose gun control, and then become easy targets for terror attacks. I feel this is very much what happened in Nigeria, and is ongoing as we speak in France, Germany, and right here in the United States.

In this election, the issue of gun rights is one that I feel every prepper should use as an absolute litmus test. We, as nation under attack by terrorists right on our own soil, should not be limited in gun ownership just because guns are used to commit mass murders or other crimes.

The fact remains that terrorists, like criminals will attack where it is cheapest and easiest to do so. In my opinion, the best way to drive radical Islamic terrorism (and other kinds) out of business is for every person to be well armed with guns, thus driving up the price every terrorist must pay to kill and spread mayhem.


This article has been written by Carmela Tyrell for Survivopedia.

5 total views, 5 views today

Rate this article!

[Total: 0    Average: 0/5]

5 Real Solutions To Gun Violence

Click here to view the original post.

Survivopedia 5 solutions

It is more than fair to say that the loudest anti-gunners don’t really want to solve any problems. All they want to do is pass a bunch of laws so that people think they can get things done.

As we have seen in other countries that were swayed by similar people, destruction and terrorism are sure to follow.

That all being said, each and every person reading this has a chance to actually help stop gun violence by reaching out and doing something useful. It does not matter if you are for or against gun rights, all that matters is that you have a sincere wish to stop a killing in a neighborhood or family near you.

Teach Children Gun Safety

Not so long ago, gun owners in this country passed hunting and other traditions down from one generation to another. While this is still true for many parts of the country, there are also many people that do not have the advantage of a robust upbringing on gun safety and use.

This factor combined with the fact that respect and gun safety are not taught in schools means that children have insufficient guidance on how to behave around guns.

When it comes to teaching children about guns, let’s start off by drawing an analogy to other important things that are learned around the same age when gun safety training should begin. As a parent, you probably used a very different approach when teaching your child to avoid a hot stove and how to handle matches.

In the former instance, you may have warned the child that certain things were not safe to touch. If they did not listen and touched a hot pot or pan, they learned quickly enough to pay attention to what you said and what to be wary of.

On the other hand, your parents probably took a different approach to teaching you how to handle matches. You may have been told to stay away from them until you were taught how to use them, and may have been punished if caught playing with them.

It is sad to say that many children today learn “gun safety” through violent cartoons, movies, video games, and even songs. If we truly want to stop gun violence and instill a sense that life is sacred, gun safety needs to be taught in a responsible way. Children that are not old enough to handle a gun or stay away from them as directed should not be allowed near them.

Any child that is not old enough or responsible enough to handle a gun should also not be allowed to read, view, or listen to media or entertainment venues that promote the wrong or careless use of guns.

Equalize Gun Ownership Across All Social Classes

As we have already seen, gun owners are some of the wealthiest in our nation, while those who need protection from guns are some of the poorest. If we are to have a safe and equal society, then everyone must be able to own guns regardless of income status.

From homeless people right on up to billionaires, each person should have a gun and sufficient ammo to use for personal needs. Training and practice areas should also be offered at taxpayer expense for anyone that cannot afford these services.

Consider that if we can spend millions to billions of dollars each year on crime and crime prevention, it is truly much better and cost effective to put the power of self-defense directly back into the hands of the people.

Putting guns in the hands of every citizen also has two other important functions:

  • Right now our society is heavily divided along many different lines. Our language is changing in ways that make us think we know what others are saying, when in fact we have no clue. Gun ownership and maintenance comes with a set of very precise terms and procedures that can act as point of agreement among diverse people. Since guns also symbolize respect, there is also a chance that people will be less inclined to lie, cheat, and behave in other ways that serve to undermine the fabric of our nation.
  • Right now we have an unknown number of people in this country that did not come in legally. While we may think many of them are from Mexico and South America, it is no secret that many people from the Middle East may be making their way through the same porous border to our south. Because of the nature of terrorism and the conditions in these countries, it is entirely possible that millions of sleeper cell terrorists and “lone wolves” may already be here. Our homeless citizens and poorest citizens are likely to be the first attacked. Those attacks will be successful and overwhelming if we do not make gun ownership equal and unfettered across all income brackets.

Reach Out to People at Risk

One of the saddest consequences of all these discussions aimed at pushing gun control is that over half of all gun deaths are actually suicides.

When people are lost in pain, illness, or other types of distress, it does no good to tell them that you want to take their guns away. This only makes people in need more inclined to hide the fact that they need help and also makes them feel less confident of their ability to manage their daily lives.

Instead of punishing people for being sick and threatening them with gun confiscation, it is time to reach out to these people and actively work to gain their trust. Anyone can hold a gun and lock it up for someone that feels like they are on the edge.

Anyone can be a friend, listen, and help another person in need get back on their feet mentally and emotionally. Unfortunately, the way gun control laws are written these days, the very people that may be trusted to hold a gun are the very ones prohibited from doing so.

This only leads to more deaths, more massacres and more fodder for anti-gunners hell bent on getting their way.

In some traditional gun owner families, including mine and my husband’s, it was not uncommon to hold a gun for a family member or close friend until they demonstrated that it was safe for them to have the guns back. This is distinctly different from making a law in which the guns are held by a stranger, or a whole host of red tape must be gone through to regain access to a gun.

People that know you best and trust are the ones you will go to instinctively; and they are also the ones that are best able to determine if it is the right time to give your guns back.

Situation Awareness and Common Sense

Anti-gunners are very fond of saying that gun rights advocates are paranoid for thinking there is a criminal or terrorist hiding under every rock. Nevertheless, the numbers prove them wrong. Have a look at your risk of being the victim of a violent crime, even without concerns of terrorism:

  • 1 out of every 10 women will be the victim of a rape. If you are a woman, remember that the next time you go shopping and stand on line with 9 other women. One of you may have, or will be the victim of rape. When you go to vote this year, remember that the Democrat rape crisis platform consists mainly of telling women to urinate on rapists in order to deter them, and then toddle on off to the hospital for a rape kit and an abortion.
  • 7 out of every 10 people will be the victim of home burglary. Anti-gunners run around saying that you should not need more than 10 bullets to protect your home and family. Nevertheless, in a panic situation, you may in fact need a magazine that holds 30 rounds, or more. Quite frankly, unless anti-gunners have actively been involved in home robberies and can prove they can do better than the police or the average home owner, they have no place judging what is, and what is not a “personal use” sized magazine. Bullet size, gun type, and many other factors make it unreasonable and dangerous to limit magazine size.
  • 4 out of every 10 people will be robbed. Elderly people, the disabled, and the homeless all run a greater risk of being robbed. Isn’t it better to empower these people with guns instead of leave them at the mercy of criminals that are probably using the black market to get what they want?

Aside from carrying a gun, it is also very important to be aware of everything going on around you. Without accurate assessment of the people around you, it becomes difficult to avoid crimes, and also increases the likelihood that you will need to use a gun to defend yourself or someone else.

Together with that, situation awareness is also very important in a nation where terrorists are actively planning and carrying out their disgusting acts.

When you start paying attention to what people are doing, and learn how to spot suspicious behavior, then you become empowered and able to help the society around you.

From active shooters to suicide bombers, having a gun will give you the chance to take action to resolve immediate threats, and quite possibly reduce the number of lives lost. As it stands, anti-gunners refuse to admit that armed people are harder to commit acts of terror and crime upon.

Terrorists and criminals, however, live in the real world and aren’t about to take the risk of trying to overcome armed citizens. They know they will lose, and for every victory they gain, the price will be far higher than they are willing to pay.

Repeal All Gun Control Laws

Gun free zones, background checks, and other gun control laws all look good on paper. All they have done here, and around the world is increase victimization against poor people and ensure that children are easier to kill in large numbers.

As getting rid of Prohibition normalized the use of alcohol in our society, getting rid of gun control will also restore guns to the level of normalcy they had at the time the Constitution was written.

Repealing gun laws in this country is only the beginning of what must be a global revolution. This revolution includes:

  • study the arguments used in favor of gun control. Understand how people are being brainwashed into going along with it. Educate about gun rights in a civil and polite way that does not cause brainwashed responses to take control of your audience.
  • refusing to vote for any leader that supports gun control
  • investigate all proponents of gun control to see who they get their money from. You may just uncover a massive scandal or some hidden criminal action that will get them removed from office.
  • recalling all leaders that attempt to impose gun control
  • immediately petition and seek to overturn gun control laws through legal challenges
  • form networks with pro-gun advocates throughout the world to ensure gun control is appealed in all nations
  • Learn about gun control in world governing organizations. Investigate and expose proponents of gun control and find out how to get them voted out.
  • Continue to educate people in the United States and in foreign countries about the benefits of unfettered gun ownership. Never forget that there are some people in this world that have been heavily brainwashed, have never been around guns, and do not know better than what they were taught. Be a patient teacher and a role model for all the best that is in our American gun culture.

There is no question that there is too much crime and terrorism in this world. Focusing on gun control as a “cure all” or “beginning point” is not a viable answer.

As we learned with alcohol, and continue to learn with drugs, actually resolving issues around material objects cannot be done by limiting those objects. Rather, we must sit down and look for ways to work among people in such a way that a major crisis can be averted.

For those at risk of committing suicide or killing others because of personal problems, we must build very personal and very tangible bonds of trust that can be used in time of need. For terrorists and criminals who may be beyond our mental and emotional reach, situational awareness combined with arms for every citizen remains the best and safest answer.

We, as a nation and world do not need ham handed, lame brained gun control laws to get in our way. We can do a better job without having to put aside a single gun.


This article has been written by Carmela Tyrell for Survivopedia.



51 total views, 51 views today

Rate this article!

[Total: 0    Average: 0/5]

5 Things Anti-Gunners Get Wrong About Gun Rights

Click here to view the original post.

Survivopedia 5 things about gun control

Of all the memes floating around on the internet, few match those presented by anti-gunners when talking about gun rights advocates.

No matter where you look, fake statistics are used to advocate for gun control even as millions of innocent women and children are being wiped off the face of the Earth by criminals and terrorists.

It should come as no surprise that a movement funded by millionaires and promoted by former anti-war activists fails miserably when it comes to the most fundamental truths about gun ownership, the American gun culture, and why it is so very important for as many people as possible in our nation and world to have unfettered and unrestricted access to all kinds of guns.

Guns Protect Liberty and Move the World Forward

If you look at the relationship between the United States and England today, you would never guess that our founding fathers would have been called terrorists and worse by citizens and supporters of Britain in the colonies.

When people strive for liberty and disagree, sometimes the only answer is to thrash it out until both sides come to terms with each other. Despite the memes of anti-gunners educated with Common Core history, we have seen tragedies worldwide when liberty is not protected and defended with guns owned and used by the common people:

  • Strict gun control in Syria created a situation where only the military, the police, and ISIS had guns. This left the people of Syria helpless as terrorists took over city by city, and forces them to leave their homeland instead of stay and defend it. In a situation like this, ISIS and other terror groups have insufficient resistance from the people they seek to dominate. As such, there is no reason for them to stop their violent actions. If you can understand that a dog digs in the garbage because it can, then you also understand that terrorists take over unarmed people because they can.
  • Hitler and his infamous Nazis were very particular about disarming Jews and others that they intended to wipe off the face of the Earth. Perhaps if the Jews in Germany had guns, Hitler would never have been able to carry out the holocaust let alone invade other nations. From this, I feel we learn that there is no such thing as disarming a population for a “higher social good” without secretly considering taking other actions that will lead that populations oblivion.
  • China is another country notorious for gun control. Even though very little media gets out from this communist nation, we did see what happened in Tienanmen Square. That kind of suppression along with such a brutal massacre should be enough to convince anyone that liberty for the people cannot exist when citizens are disarmed or denied access to any kind of gun they wish to have.

It’s About Guns as Much as the Person Behind the Gun

As a general rule, anti-gunners look only at the harm caused when guns are used by people in ways that we find to be wrong.

Nevertheless, if they bothered to cull reports from local news stations around the nation, they would see that for every child murdered in Sandy Hook, hundreds may have been saved that day by armed parents. Dozens to hundreds of innocent men, women, and children are saved by guns every single day because “good people with guns stop bad people with guns”.

Now, some anti-gunners run around saying that approximately half of ex-cons admit that they don’t get guns because there is a law stopping them. Only a person seriously ignorant about the state of crime and the legal system these days would consider this statistic as a valid argument for gun control.

To the point, almost 50% of all homicides alone go unsolved. To add insult to injury, almost 5% of people on death row were exonerated based on new evidence. These numbers do not take into account the number of people that chose to go to prison in order to cover for someone else. Now, let’s do the math to show what’s really happening with this statement about ex-cons.

  • Let’s start off by saying that out of 100 murders, 50 people went to prison, and 50 escaped.
  • Through additional testing ,we found out that 5 people put in prison were, in fact, innocent.
  • Of the 50 people that went to prison, 25 of them say they would not buy a gun because it is illegal. That means only 25% of all murderers avoid gun ownership because of a law, while a whopping 75% will go on with business as usual.
  • Of the 25 people that said they would not own a gun because it is illegal to do so, it is likely that 5 of them were innocent to begin with. That leaves just a 20% compliance rate with gun control laws.

With that kind of abysmal failure, it is no wonder that mass murders happen most in gun free zones, section 8 housing, and other areas where people cannot get access to guns. These statistics alone prove that criminals simply don’t care about the laws, they will get guns, and they will use them.

gun free zones

Gun Rights are About Self Defense in a World of Changing Threats

Some anti-gunners claim that the US Constitution should be narrowly interpreted when it comes to gun types. According to them, the only guns citizens should have are black powder muskets and other weapons that were commonly available around the time the Constitution was written.

If we are to go by those standards, perhaps these very same people should consider giving up on a number of wider interpretations of the Constitution including:

  • the creation of the social security system (retirement plans didn’t exist in the 1700’s)
  • Obamacare (health insurance didn’t exist back then)
  • federal oversight of medical doctors (back then just about anyone could be considered a medical practitioner, including faith healers)
  • the entire automobile regulation system (perhaps we should all go back to horse and buggy as the ultimate means to stop all those nasty accidents).

When it comes right down to it, the Constitution wasn’t directly meant to cover a lot of things that we now consider part of our modern society. The fact of the matter is our founding fathers were some of the wisest, most forward looking people that ever walked this Earth. They knew all kinds of technologies were coming to fruit in terms of weapons. If they only meant citizens to have certain kinds, it is for certain they would have said so.

The decision to allow unfettered access to guns was one of the best things our founding fathers could have done. Today, we live in a different world with threats that may have a different appearance, but still come down to predator vs. prey.

From trucks crashing into crowds of people to suicide bombers, all modern forms of attack on citizens can still be stopped with a gun. No matter how anti-gunners try to wheedle out of this fact, they must eventually admit that law enforcement and military alike use guns to bring an end to active terror situations.

But hey will always resist admitting this, because then they must also admit that when citizens on the scene are armed, it takes less time for them to respond than it does for the police to get there and then get to the attacker.

murder rate

Gun Ownership Can be a Matter of Duty

In several articles I have written about the fact that criminals and terrorists are the ultimate opportunists. If they see a chance to steal, rape, or murder, they will do so as long as they gain more than they risk.

An unarmed person is always going to be a tempting target because these criminals have the advantage of surprise at the moment of attack, and they may also have guns of their own. If they know that their intended victim is armed, they know there is a chance they will lose.

So what happens when people do not carry guns or take other measures that leave them too vulnerable to criminals and terrorists?

  • One possibility is that as criminals and terrorists walk among us, they will seek out these targets and confine their activities to vulnerable populations. These populations, in turn, will demand protection in the form of police and militaries. For each person that cannot or will not defend themselves, someone else may have to die for them. Each person without a gun becomes both a target and inspiration for those intent on committing harm.
  • Criminals and terrorists accustomed to preying on those who are unarmed will amass money and more weapons. At some point, they will see large groups of people as suitable targets for their disgusting plans. As they go from success to success, their attacks will increase and become more devastating. Armed citizens can stop this process, however gun free zones prevent us from seeing this in action. In a world where citizens are armed with guns, breakthrough of crime against groups would be minimal, and put down very quickly.
  • Next, criminals and terrorists will move on to the most obviously armed people in our society – law enforcement officers. They will study their actions, look for weak points, and devise plans that ensure maximum damage to their targets. We are seeing this right now in our own nation, yet fail to understand that they themselves are the exact kind of weak link that embolden criminals and terrorists.
  • Eventually, as we saw in Nigeria, terrorists and more organized bands of thugs will overthrow military bases and wipe entire towns off the map. Even this situation can and could be stopped when every citizen is armed with guns.

Statistics do not Predict or Work at the Individual Level

Have you ever been diagnosed with a serious illness? If so, then you may also have been told what chance you have of overcoming the illness and living beyond a predicted period of time.

Chances are, one of the first challenges you had to overcome was throwing out all the preconceived notions from friends, family, and medical providers. Probably, one of the first things you did was say “I am not a number”.

All too often in these debates on guns, we hear about statistics as if they absolutely predict the future or as if they must be the control of our lives. Nevertheless, we are not consigned to predestiny because one of God’s greatest gift to us is free will.

That all being said, here are the main reasons why statistics related to gun violence are used to create circular and patently false arguments by gun control and gun grabber advocates:

  • Statistics gathered in the past do not account for changes in factors underlying those statistics. Let’s say that 50 to 20 years ago, a glass of milk contained 30% of the USRDA of Vitamin D. Now let’s say that from 19 years ago to present, Vitamin D is down to just 15% per glass. If we are act on statistics generated on data from 20+ years ago, we might still believe that milk is the best source of Vitamin D. Even though the statistics say “drink one glass a day”, the reality is we must drink 2 glasses. In a similar fashion, arguments against gun rights do not account for the rise of terrorism as a global problem. No matter how many times they point to gun control in England and Australia, the fact remains Nigeria, France, and Germany are awash in terrorist events that require arming the general population.
  • Statistics that are based on too small a population or are not gathered for long enough also present a serious problem. Gun control has not been tested long enough in countries that have it, especially considering the way global threats are changing. When 1 out of every 5 nations on this planet is under attack by terrorists, it is a clear signal that we cannot and should not disarm.
  • As in the cases of illness, winning the lottery, or even getting safely from one place to another, statistics cannot reveal the outcome of any given event before it happens. The only thing we know for sure, 100% of the time is that it takes a good person with a gun to stop criminals and terrorists, regardless of the weapon they choose.

In our society, doctors, lawyers, nurses, police officers, members of the military, computer programmers, politicians (including anti-gunners and gun grabbers) and scientists are the kinds of highly educated people that likely make up over 50% of all gun owners.

When anti-gunners cannot grasp the five most fundamental things about gun rights, they do no service to the real problems facing our nation and world. We cannot allow these fundamental errors in judgment to go on shaping policy and laws in our nation and abroad.

Remember, this election to make gun rights your litmus test. Vote, recall, and petition!


This article has been written by Carmela Tyrell for Survivopedia.




4 total views, 4 views today

Rate this article!

[Total: 0    Average: 0/5]

Children Murdering Children: The Enduring Legacy of Gun Control

Click here to view the original post.

20003767 - road sign stating gun free zone

20003767 – road sign stating gun free zone

Of all the groups of people harmed most by gun control, none are as obvious as children. Not only are children senselessly murdered in gun free zones, kidnapped and tortured, the anti-gun movement hides behind the innocence of children and uses them as emotional triggers.

If we are ever to liberate our nation and the world from the waste and horror caused by gun control, we must have clear understandings about how these laws hurt children, and how we must change not just our government, but global governing bodies as well.

Gun Free Zones are Deadly to Children

Did you know that the very first modern day massacre of children happened in a gun free zone and was carried out by a child?

In less than a year from the passage of the amended Gun Free School Zone Act, Barry Loukaitis murdered two classmates and one teacher. Barry was just 14 years old, but he ushered in the era of children murdering children with the blessing of the federal laws and other gun control laws across the nation.

This and other cases of children (under age 21) murdering children in gun free zones right here in the US include:

  • Evan Ramsey (age 16) murdered one student and a principal on 2/19/1997 in Bethel Alaska
  • Luke Woodham (age 16) murdered 2 fellow students on 10/1/1997 in Pearl Mississippi.
  • Michael Carneal (age 14) murdered 3 fellow students attending a prayer circle at Heath High School, a gun free zone, on 12/1/1997 in West Paducah, Kentucky.
  • Mitchell Johnson (13), and Andrew Golden (11), murdered 4 students and 1 teacher on 3/24/1998 at Westside Middle Highschool, a gun free zone, in Jonesboro, Arkansas
  • Kip Kinkel (15) murdered 2 students on 5/21/1998 at Thurston High School, a gun free zone in Springfield Oregon.
  • Eric Harris (18) and Dylan Klebold (17) murdered 12 students and one teacher on 4/20/1999 at Columbine High School, a gun free zone located in Littleton, CO
  • Victor Cordova (12) murdered one student on 11/19/1999 at Denning Middle School, a gun free zone in Deming, New Mexico
  • Charles Andrew Williams (15) murdered two students on March 5, 2001 at Santana High School, a gun free zone in Santee, California.
  • Donald R. Burt Jr, (17), murdered one student on 3/30/2001 at Lew Wallace High School, a gun free zone in Gary, Indiana
  • John Jason McLaughlin (15) murdered 2 students on 9/24/2003 at Rocori High School, a gun free zone located in Cold Springs, Minnesota.
  • Adam Lanza (20), murdered 20 children on December 14, 2012 at Sandy Hook Elementary School, a gun free zone in Newtown, Connecticut.
  • Jaylen Ray Fryberg (15) murdered 2 students on 10/24/14 at Marysville-Pilchuck High School, a gun free zone in Marysville, Washington.

Aside from every one of these murders happening in a federally mandated gun free zone, let us not forget that, according to federal law, in almost all cases, it was also illegal for these children to have guns. No matter whether children murder children, or adults murder children, the fact remains that one law, two laws, hundreds of laws will not stop that tragedy from happening.

The fact that there was no one on the premises of these schools with a gun created more bloodshed, more ruin, and more horror.  In every case, it required police, who had to get to the school, and then to the suspect before the rampage could be stopped WITH A GUN.

It is a universally known fact that the person on the scene first is going to be the one most likely to accomplish their agenda. When murderers want to be the first on the scene so that they can carry out their sick acts, it is patently obvious that they have picked, and will continue to pick gun free zones.

We Don’t Need Studies to Tell Us About the Children Murdered Because of Gun Control

If you think the loss of innocent lives in schools and other gun free zones is a horrific nightmare, then you may not realize much worse may be going on right in your back yard or up the street.

You see, while your children sleep, eat, and play in a home secured by loving, armed, and vigilant parents, other children are not so fortunate. These children are at the mercy of a system that doesn’t allow the parents to have guns because they are living in Section 8 housing, or some other law was passed to disarm people group by group.

And, as you may well know, many of these parents are poor to begin with because the very same people that promote gun control are also the ones  driving our jobs overseas and taxing our nation to death.

If that’s not a disgusting way of using money to disarm the nation and violate our Second Amendment rights, I don’t know what is!

Video first seen on Indiana State Police Information Channel.

Gun Control Doesn’t Limit Itself to Killing America’s Children

Since 2007, a whopping 22% of recognized countries in this world have experienced one or more terrorist attacks at the hand of radical Islamic terrorists, and most of those countries had more than one attack in any given year. To make a list of all the children murdered  in these attacks and point out all of the places with strict gun control is a heartbreaking exercise.

For the moment, let’s focus on 3 of the worst terrorist tragedies overseas involving children slaughtered in gun free zones or nations with strict gun control.


Two of the worst massacres of children at the hands of radical Islamic terrorists occurred in Nigeria.  The first occurred on December 13, 2014, and was carried out by Boko Haram.  At least 35 people were murdered, and almost 200 women and children are missing to this day.  According to the country page for Nigeria at gunpolicy.org, this country is listed as “permissive” insofar as gun rights.

Unfortunately for the anti-gunners, anyone with half a brain that clicks on the citation for that will see that the article quoted was published in 1969.  If you scroll down and look a the  more modern information, you will see that Nigeria is a textbook example of what gun grabbers want to do to this country.

When gun control was imposed on Nigeria in 1990, it became illegal for citizens to own machine guns, hand guns, and “military rifles”. This situation shows so clearly how gun laws only serve to limit non-criminals such as the innocent men, women, and children that were left at the mercy of well armed terrorists.  

To add insult to injury, not one father, not one mother of these missing children has a gun with which to defend themselves from future attacks. It is no wonder that Boko Haram and other terrorist organizations are sitting back laughing as they rape these girls and torture them. Not only did they get away with it, but they know they can get away with it over and over again in every country and area where gun control makes it impossible for people to defend themselves.

Nigeria. Again

Perhaps it should come as no surprise that Boko Haram, did, in fact, strike twice at the children of Nigeria. This time, they didn’t just “hit and run”.  Beginning on January 3, 2015, and ending on January 7th, Boko Haram once again thumbed their noses at gun control after overrunning a military base. Once the only viable guns in the area were neutralized, Boko Haram slaughtered thousands, including innocent women and children.

No matter how much the governments try to reduce the numbers with conflicting fatality reports, the fact remains that 17 towns are gone, and thousands of people remain missing. Clearly, if the people of these villages had guns, we would have far more terrorists laying around dead. When it comes to the harmful impact of gun control on children, Nigeria is one of the best cases because it clearly shows the opportunistic nature of terrorists and how they will strike again and again at any area they see as weak.


An elementary school was attacked on December 16, 2014, resulting in the murder of 132 children.  In order to stop the bloodshed, the Pakistani military had to intervene in order to save almost 1000 more lives.

According to the country page for Pakistan at gunpolicy.org, once, Pakistan is also  listed as “permissive” insofar as gun rights. On the surface, civilians are allowed to own just about any kind of gun, however, all guns must be registered with the government. Unfortunately, this link fails to show the truth about how gun control helped murder those 132 children.

You see, in Pakistan, schools are gun free zones, just as they are here in the United States. As with every other nation on Earth, terrorists will attack and kill in any building or location where they know law abiding people won’t be carrying guns, because they know they can get away with it. Even though Pakistani forces eventually caught the terrorists that attacked the school, there is no bringing those children back, and every terrorist planning an attack knows gun free zones are the best places of all to spread terror and fear.

So What Do We Do About “Gun Violence”?

If there is one thing we can all agree on, it is that the murder of innocent children must stop. I would certainly love to believe that a law restricting guns could fix all of this, however the test of time and case after case proves that laws will not solve this problem.

If children aren’t slaughtered with guns, they will be slaughtered with trucks full of fertilizer, poison gas, and anything else that terrorists can get their hands on. From that perspective, I feel the answer cannot be found in limiting the rights of citizens. Rather, the answer is found in expanding them.  Here’s what I feel would reduce “gun violence” and the slaughter of children here and around the world:

  • Get rid of all public gun free zones.
  • Citizens and businesses that do not own guns should have themselves, their home, and place of business taken off the list of people and  addresses for law enforcement to respond to in the event of a crime or act of terrorism; unless they can prove that they have alternative adequate means to defend property and body. Since anti-gunners are notorious for pointing out the evils of law enforcement right along with guns, there is no reason why our tax dollar should be paying for the very safety they seek to take from the rest of us.
  • Set up a federal program whereby all people can get at least one free gun plus training on how to use it. People that cannot afford guns should also have all fees waived for permits,etc.
  • Speaking of permits, it is also time to do away with all government hindrances on gun ownership and how people choose to carry them.
  • Children should be taught gun safety and marksmanship as soon as they enter the pre-school and elementary school system.
  • At least one  gun range and ammo source, paid for by the federal government, should be available for the poor and needy so that they can practice their skills.

Far to many people today have been brainwashed into believing that guns are only of use in a gunfight. Nevertheless, even in the recent terror attack in Nice, France, the police had to use guns to stop the slaughter of innocent people.

Guns can, and are used to stop terror attacks and crime sprees of every kind, regardless of the weapons used by the attacker. When guns are only in the hands of the police and military, it is the children that suffer.

As we have seen in the US, France, Germany, Pakistan, Nigeria, and every other nation on Earth, guns aren’t going to magically disappear because laws are made against them. The only thing that disappears is personal safety and the safety of our children.

In this election season, Donald Trump is the only presidential candidate willing to give even a slight inkling of how dangerous the “gun controlled” world is. He is also the only candidate willing to get rid of “gun free zones” and admit that they are worse than a failure. Even if you disagree with Trump on everything else, this one issue is the most important litmus test of all.

No nation can be free of crime and terror when citizens are disarmed. No child can be safe in a school not guarded by guns. Shameful as it may be, this is the condition of the nation and world we live in today. To deny that for the sake of gun control, I feel, is the kind of ignorance and selfishness that lead to the destruction of us all.

Each time you hear different, just look at the growing list of terror attacks throughout the world and their magnitude and let your own eyes be the judge of just how serious these problems are.











1 total views, 1 views today

Rate this article!

[Total: 0    Average: 0/5]

4 Ways The Anti-Gun Movement Supply Crime And Terrorism

Click here to view the original post.


As I write this, three more police officers in Baton Rouge, LA are dead, and three more have been wounded. Even as these officers lay in a pool of blood, the left wing stubbornly refers to this as a “racial matter” and offers “gun control” as the miracle cure for the whole mess.

But even as these people demand disarmament, their very own rhetoric creates more innocent victims in our schools, in our movie theaters, among people of color, and among our civil servants.

Unfortunately, when anti-gunners write and speak, I feel, they have a tendency to use their words in ways that justify things that no humane being would ever agree to. In this election season, let’s have a look at the dark side of the anti-gun movement so that it becomes easier to see how it contributes to crime and terrorism.

Anti-Gunners Deny Human Equality as it Applies to Self Defense

I know some people are going to say that the 2nd Amendment is “subject to interpretation”. Let us not forget that the Constitution was written by military commanders and soldiers. As with any other soldier or veteran across time, they were every bit as aware of the difference between civilians and military personnel. Surely, if they had not meant for the common people to have guns, they would have made that absolutely clear.

Not only did the founders of our nation mean for us to have guns, it is my contention they meant for us to have unfettered access to anything we want regardless of how technology changes over time.  It is clear to me, that “equal under the law” applies to guns for every citizen in this nation.

Weird as it may be, when liberals talk about “equal rights” for the elderly, veterans,  minorities, LGBT, the disabled, the mentally disturbed, ex cons, and women, they never admit to the Constitutionally guaranteed equal right to self defense with a gun.   Instead, they appear far more interested in  deep throating our children with Common Core sex ed, and then say equal under the law only goes so far as men and women using the same bathroom!

Nevertheless, for every group whose rights they pretend to defend, they consistently seek to use the “reward” of recognition of other “rights” in order to prevent these people from speaking out about the right to keep and bear arms. Have a look at some of the disgusting things anti-gunners say to people that should be armed, but instead become victims of criminals and terrorists for want of a gun:

  • The elderly, disabled, and mentally disturbed, via the Social Security Administration, are being disarmed if they cannot manage their own money. Since when does asking someone to write you checks for you suddenly mean you don’t have a right to a gun in order to protect yourself from robbers and others that target the elderly? To add insult to injury, statistics show that these are the very people most likely to be the victims of crimes, not the ones carrying them out.
  • Veterans with PTSD and other disorders are being told they can’t carry guns in the homeland even though foreign terrorists have ordered them to be murdered. As I said in another article, don’t our veterans deserve a right to protect and defend themselves regardless of the condition they come home to us in?
  • The poor and minorities of all races living in Section 8 housing are told that they cannot have a gun for self defense, yet they are the ones most likely to be robbed, mugged, raped, and murdered, in part, because there are not enough police to patrol these areas. Why should where you live determine whether or not you  have a right to defend yourself by any and all means?
  • As for the LGBT –  just look at that “gun free zone” night club in Orlando where dozens were killed and injured by one gunman while waiting for police to arrive and take him out USING GUNS. Nuff said?  If you can’t protect yourself with a gun while you are out on a date, what makes you think you can protect yourself at any other time just because a “law” says you are protected?
  • Ex cons are another group that liberal anti-gunners seek to garner support from, yet they don’t want to admit that they, too, can easily become the victims of terrorists. Quite frankly – I feel –  people that have paid their dues to society just don’t deserve that, no matter what they did in the past. The right to self defense does not go away, and neither should the right to keep and bear arms.
  • And then, the anti-gunners brainwash women into believing they aren’t strong enough or smart enough to carry guns. So how is it a woman can “safely” spread her legs for everyone in the town courtesy of Planned Parenthood, get drafted, and “do everything a man can do”, but she can’t own and use a gun? Since I wrote about this in another article, I’ll just leave it to you, dear reader, to go on over and read about the egregious harm caused to women by the anti-gun movement.

As you can see, in case after case, anti-gunners deny every group of special interests the right to keep and bear arms even though this is the one right that serves as the lynch pin for every other right.

As we have seen in Syria, Nazi Germany, the former USSR, and many other places in the world, when the people do not have guns or the absolute equal right to self defense, they wind up having no rights at all. No matter whether a terrorist attacks you in a night club, a serial killer attacks you in a parking lot, or someone else attempts to harm you, the fact remains, in that moment, guns are the only remedy that create even some degree of equality between predator and prey.

Without Guns There are Insufficient Consequences for Committing Crime

In the arena of nuclear weapons, there is something called “M.A.D.” or Mutually Assured Destruction that is said to keep nuclear nations from blowing each other out of existence. As among politicians, perhaps it is also so among average citizens. Our human race must still contend with everything from the wiles of nature to disaster of our own making.

Guns are precisely the kind of weapon that make people think twice about attacking each other. This is especially true of criminals that see risk differently than law abiding members of society. Never forget that criminals are classic opportunists that only look at the tangible capacity to take in the “here and now”.

Laws don’t matter when the opportunity to take what they want is open and available. When criminals know that people are armed and ready to defend themselves, they move on to easier targets.  From that perspective, anti-gunners reduce the immediate consequences of criminal acts, and therefore invite those acts against to be carried out against children and other innocents.

Without Guns, There are Also Insufficient Consequences for Terrorism

For the sake of this article, I make a distinction between terrorists and other criminals because, in acts of terror, there is a stated desire to disrupt and change society in a harmful fashion. By contrast, your garden variety criminal – even a serial killer – is more focused on how the event relates to him/her, and not the impact on society.

As such, I believe the risk assessment for a terrorists is a bit different than for other crimes. A murderer might be deterred by someone carrying any kind of gun, but a terrorist will pay more attention to the type of gun and the (for lack of a better term) machismo of the carrier. Terrorists want to know if they can generate fear in their victims and the larger society, not whether they can escape with their lives.   This is why all civilians need unfettered access to any and all forms of weapons, including military grade equipment (aka big stick = big… well you get the picture).  If a terrorist knows they will be outnumbered and unable to create fear in the crowd, they get no satisfaction, so they will not waste their time.

Sadly, we are seeing just how much fun ISIS is having slaughtering millions of unarmed people all over the Middle East and Europe because these people don’t have the power of a gun with which to do the necessary. To my thinking, the problem is as much unarmed citizens as it is the very nature of ISIS and other “terror groups”.

Anti-Gunners Promote Race Riots and Cop Killings

Criminals and terrorists are not stupid – they will always pick on gun free zones. People that go to these places are telling the world they are disarmed, and, therefore, vulnerable. These are the places where anti-gunners endanger people most by calling gun carriers paranoid and attempting to intimidate others into not carrying a gun.

Far too many naive, unsuspecting people these days practically advertise the fact that they want to be raped, robbed, kidnapped or worse by virtue of  being unarmed. To a criminal looking for easy pickings, anyone brainwashed by anti-gun rhetoric is good enough target for all their sick agendas.

Today, this disgusting outcome has evolved into a situation that is also increasing the risk to our police officers. Every time a citizen cannot defend themselves from a criminal, that means a police officer must do the job for them. Now here’s how that leads to the murder of both innocent people of color and the police:

  • Let’s start off with a situation where a “gun free” store that has video surveillance cameras is robbed by someone with a gun. Since the store worker has no gun, the criminal gets away.
  • Next, the police arrive, but the only trace of the perpetrator is on the surveillance camera. And there, in the grainy image, they see a man of color.
  • And so the pictures go out, and the police roam around trying to look for this one criminal on top of stop other crimes in progress.
  • Then one fine day, a cop thinks he has found the “suspect”. Maybe the officer has been told someone suspicious is around, maybe something else has got his/her attention.
  • The suspect may reach for a gun, or maybe he’s been conditioned by a behavioral scientist via the media to freak out at the sight of a gun. Either way, it ends with a dead suspect and a police officer left holding the smoking gun.
  • And then… as is the way of human nature, efforts are made to retaliate. This costs more lives, and drives us closer to the kind of civil war that no gun law, and no martial law will ever be able to control or stop.

It should be obvious that when elected officials do not support the equal right of self defense of the nation’s police, soldiers, and citizens, it sends a message of encouragement to our enemies.  I feel right now anti-gunners are saying loud and clear that our citizens are “too crazy” or “too weak” to have guns, and  that our police are too incompetent to send out without cameras on their shoulders.

In my opinion, when anti-gun politicians bemoan how horrible it is that our citizens have guns, that also sends a dangerous message to terrorists.

Stop and think about it. If you were ISIS, would you want to hear that the nation you plan to attack is filled with people that can handle guns and are have the full support of the government behind them? Would you be encouraged to attack  if you heard that soldiers and guns are a normal part of society?

Of course you wouldn’t!  Common sense alone dictates you would move on to weaker cultures that don’t have guns, and therefore are easily driven to the kind of fear where retaliation is impossible and domination is guaranteed.

While the anti-gunners run around saying they only want to “keep the public” safe, their actions and the way those actions are read by our enemies send the opposite message. If it is an embarrassment and a disgrace to discriminate against people based on gender, sexual orientation, color, mental condition, age, or religion, then it is also just as disgraceful to say that a person’s right to self defense with a gun can be limited by others.

This election season, we have a choice to make, not just about how our country runs, but on how our friends and enemies see us. Are we going to stand with the police, the people of color, the poor, the veterans, and the disabled and uphold our collective right to keep and bear arms?

Or, are we going to throw them to the mercy of terrorists and criminals just as we threw the children of Sandy Hook and every other massacre to misguided freaks that made such horrific use of gun free zones and other gun control laws?


This article has been written by Carmela Tyrell for Survivopedia.

1 total views, 1 views today

Rate this article!

[Total: 1    Average: 5/5]

Gun Control: A Holocaust Against Our Soldiers And Veterans

Click here to view the original post.

Survivopedia gun control

Even as our nation celebrates unparalleled freedom purchased with the blood and guns of our soldiers and veterans, a massive attack on our troops is underway.

While liberal, left wing media paints gun control as a matter of public safety, the fact is the entire agenda amounts to a holocaust on our soldiers and veterans. When people who have been trained to defend our nation with guns are called incompetent to own and use guns on our own soil, this amounts to mental and emotional abuse by those who sent them off to war. 

We as a nation must stand up and say no to gun control and demand a full repeal of all restrictions on access to guns and ammunition.  Read on to find out just how dirty and ugly the gun control agenda is in light of issues related to our veterans and soldiers.

Isn’t Anti-War a Good Thing?

Anyone that lived through the ’60’s knows that the anti-war movement was anything but a “peaceful” movement. Soldiers returning home were beaten, harassed and murdered by “activists” that wanted to make a statement. Even though the outwardly violent side of this movement seems to have died down over the years, the fact remains that many of these anti-war protesters may still harbor a hatred for our soldiers and veterans.

It should come as no surprise that leaders in that age group are more than eager to take away gun rights and refer to gun owners as ignorant, crazy, or socially unfit because, in my opinion, it represents a secret way to demonize, humiliate, and make veterans feel like they do not belong in our society. Let us not forget that every veteran carried a gun at one time,  and many still do.

Ironically, the proof of anti-war hatred hiding behind the gun control agenda can be found in the very language and  weapons that anti-gunners seek to ban and confiscate. Have you noticed that they wrongly call  AK and AR weapons “assault rifles” when they are, in fact, little more than glorified hunting/sporting  rifles that are nothing like a true machine gun?

The very term “assault rifle” calls to mind warfare and the anti-war hatred aimed at the soldiers that used weapons significantly different from the AR and AK platforms. Thus, in a very sneaky and unethical fashion, the anti-gun leaders are, in effect, inciting hate against US veterans because their insistence on using incorrect, war related terms triggers emotional responses in truly ignorant people that haven’t quite let go of their radical past.

For the sake of simplicity, truth, and clarity:

  • AK and AR rifles are no different from other hunting and sporting rifles in the sense that they can have adjustable or fixed stocks.  An adjustable stock will not make a the gun fire faster or fire without pulling the trigger.
  • AK and AR platforms require you to pull the trigger each time a bullet is to be fired.  This is no different from any other gun on the civilian market.
  • The AR uses a measly .22 caliber round and some ” wildcat cartridges” that have a similar effect to a .30 caliber round.   By law,  a minimum of .24 to .30 caliber is required for animal hunting.   The bottom line is the AR is no more deadly than any other rifle used for hunting and sports.
  • The rounds commonly used in the AK-47 also barely meet the requirements for hunting animals, let alone humans.  The AK-74 fires a .22 caliber bullet designed to hunt woodchucks and other 4 legged, non-human varmint hunting.
  • Although AK and AR rifles “look like” battlefield rifles, they simply aren’t.
  • Are these “assault rifles” in the same way as an M-16’s commonly carried by our soldiers? I think not, yet anti-gunners constantly and (I feel) maliciously use battlefield terms to create a war that simply did not exist before they took their anti-war, anti-soldier rhetoric and transferred it to guns.

This is not to say that anti-war is a bad thing. The vast majority of people in this world (including me) would love to be free of warfare and violence. The desire to live a happy, full life in harmony is precisely why our veterans went to war, and it remains their goal to  go on with their lives and raise their families.

Without fail, anti-gun agenda with is radical anti-war roots veers too often into irrational emotionalism that only serves to harm our veterans and undermine the security of our nation. If the anti-war protesters that spawned the anti-gun movement believe so strongly in their cause, they would be much better off telling enemies of our nation to disarm instead of picking on our veterans from behind the shield of “gun control”.

But then again, such a move would represent real, hard, tangible work, and it is much easier to “kick the dog” and push those who are struggling to put their lives back together further into oblivion.

This, I feel is the cowardice and true ugly face of anti-gunner and gun grabber movements. Now let’s have a look at the psychology put into play here, and how it now affects not just our veterans, but now also our police officers.

Obama’s Executive Order 13707 and Why it Matters

According to selected excerpts  Executive Order 13707,  (note – admittedly the text of this executive order does not once mention guns or gun control, however the pattern of Obama’s speeches suggest it can be used for, and abused for the sake of  the purposes outlined in this article.  Furthermore,  incompetent vetting will make it even easier to push the public into unnatural and dangerous stances against veterans, guns, and the police.)

“…behavioral science insights can support a range of national priorities…”

Behavioral science is defined as: “A scientific discipline, such as sociology, anthropology, or psychology, in which the actions and reactions of humans and animals are studied through observational and experimental methods.”. Note the study of Psychology, whose four purposes are defined as: “The purpose of psychology is to accurately describe, explain, predict, and change human behavior and mental processes. It strives to achieve these goals within all spheres of human activity.”

With these universally recognized definitions in mind, its is very clear that this executive order essentially aims to change the behavior of people in order to fit “national priorities”.  But what are those priorities, and are they always for the good of the people?  For example, according to Fox News, in 2013, Obama clearly labeled passing gun control laws as one of his top priorities.

Now let’s have a look at some other “top priorities” by other leaders that have done enormous harm. Within the last 100 years alone, we have seen Assad in Syria, Nazi Germany, life behind the former Iron Curtain, North Korea, and, lest our own government be left behind, the evils of “scientific research” paid for and carried out by our own government.

From this perspective alone, we cannot say that “national priorities” are always in line with what is best for groups (including veterans and soldiers) and citizens under the government’s control.  In this case, anti-gun agendas have already caused an endless number of deaths, and, this very moment are fueling the murder of police officers, the instigation of racial violence, and, ultimately, act as a destructive force against our veterans and soldiers.

The human mind, spirit, and emotions are every bit as important as the body. When you rob someone of their mental wellness, or seek to manipulate them emotionally and mentally – that’s abuse no matter who does it or what justification they claim. In my opinion, using “behavioral science” to further some vague set of not precisely defined “national priorities”  is every bit as predatory as the other “scientific experiments” that wreaked havoc on innocent human bodies. The ends do not justify the means associated with the long term psychological damage that can be wreaked upon our nation, and in particular, to our veterans.

“(iii) recruit behavioral science experts to join the Federal Government as necessary…”

Remember Little Albert? If not, let me tell you about his interactions with one of those “behavioral science experts” named John B. Watson. While in the  midst of a kinky extramarital love affair with his assistant, Rosalie Rayner, Watson decided to test out his theories about classical conditioning on an innocent 9 month old baby.  Here is the basic design of the experiment:

  • Little Albert was allowed to play with a mouse, dog, monkey, a rabbit, and other furry objects in order to make sure he had no fear of anything with fur on it.
  • Next, Little Albert was allowed to play with the mouse. Each time he touched the mouse, a loud sound was made that caused him to startle and cry.
  • The next time Little Albert was presented with the mouse, he cried and tried to escape as if the sound had also been made.
  • Upon showing little Albert other furry objects and animals, he reacted with the same fear.

Even though this experiment is considered an unethical little naughty frowned upon by modern psychology, it is very clear that Obama’s executive order allows psychological experimentation on unsuspecting citizens for the purpose of achieving “national priorities” such as gun control.

In that atmosphere, the only ones who will get to perform these experiments on the public are ones that seek to push the gun control and gun confiscation agendas.  These people may already think nothing of performing live autopsies on animals, and think nothing of electrocuting people for the purpose of “treatment” just to get a paycheck.  What is to stop these people from using staged traumatic events to manipulate the public into accepting gun control, and give up God knows how many other rights?

Not only that, but it seems these “experts” are just as cloaked in secrecy as those who make decisions about how medical care is delivered under Obamacare (if I’m not mistaken, Sarah Palin referred to this part of the act as allowing for the formation of  “death panels”.)

In short, our nation, and our 2nd Amendment rights are no longer properly guarded and protected by our elected officials. They, and our veterans may well be at the mercy of a bunch of nameless and faceless “behavior  science experts”  that may have hidden anti-soldier turned to anti-gun agendas. Let’s just say this would not be the first time that government vetting for various purposes (like several debacles in relation to security clearances) resulted in utter chaos and destruction!

So, now, here’s  how I feel Little Albert applies to gun control, and why the anti-gun agenda is anti-soldier. And as we have learned recently, the anti-gun movement  is spiraling like a hurricane into a nationwide movement that will ultimately lead to murdering and maiming police officers regardless of their color.

  • Before Obama made gun control a top priority, people paid little, if any attention to guns, even though we have all been exposed to them one way or another.
  • Each time a shooting occurs, we see people crying on TV (who can’t empathize with someone that is crying or upset?), and all sorts of frightening images and sounds paired with the sight of a gun.  It would not surprise me if the way these stories are presented  is dictated by “behavior science experts” in their efforts to carry out Executive Order 13707.
  • A growing movement amongst anti-gunners is to actually panic and become completely irrational at the sight of a gun. Well… when people are driven out of their minds with psychobabble, they do crazy, but predictable things – just like Little Albert. In this case, the anti-gunners have transferred the conditioned hysteria over guns to anyone that carries them – including the police. And, from the place of fear, these people are reacting by murdering.
  • From that perspective, the pairing of race baiting morphing into the murder of police officers is entirely expected. The fear of guns becomes generalized or transferred to a fear of the police who wear guns openly. Fear begets violence.  And, as you know, once the police are no longer able to provide security to the citizens, martial law is around the corner. But before that happens, the anti-gun agenda will continue to look for ways to destroy our soldiers emotionally and mentally, because these are the people that took a lifelong oath, trained, and sacrificed in order to protect and defend our society and our nation.

“(ii) improve how information is presented to [individuals], whether as directly conveyed by the agency, or in setting standards for the presentation of information…”

“(iv) …  [A]gencies shall consider how the timing, frequency, presentation, and labeling of … incentives can more effectively and efficiently promote those actions…  Particular attention should be paid to opportunities to use nonfinancial incentives.”

With all the groundwork established above, it should be easy enough to see how this amounts to unethical … and more than likely illegal experimentation on the citizens of our nation.    In my opinion, when an executive order such as this exists within the context of a society that is against gun control (this has been proven time and again via numerous statistics), it amounts to psychological warfare from within our own nation.  It is also my contention, based on the background and ideologies of the majority of anti-gunners, they are not only against guns, but I feel they seek to harm race relations, our soldiers, and our police.

Our Veterans Are Not Safe in the Homeland

ISIS and other terrorist groups have called for the murder of US soldiers right in our own homeland.  They have even gone so far as to publish the names and address of soldiers that they want murdered by anyone that has a chance to do so.

Given that these terrorists have already shot up a few schools and other “gun free zones” it is obvious that disarming our veterans and soldiers turns them into walking “gun free zones”. To add insult to injury, terrorist groups are likely to be emboldened as  the police that are supposed to defend civilian society are being hunted down and murdered by anti-gun, anti-cop extremists possibly fueled by “behavioral science experts” with hidden agendas.

Right now, anyone disarmed for any reason is a “soft” target for extremists that slip through our borders just as easily as Hillary  Clinton’s aides  and Edward Snowden got  Top Secret  security clearances.

  • No soldier or veteran should have to endure threats from foreign sources while being told they are mentally incompetent or too “defective” to carry a gun, especially when those laws and demands are being made by people that used to scream “baby killer”  at our returning soldiers.
  •  No soldier of our nation, no  veteran, no citizen, should be deprived of the right to unfettered access to any and all types of guns, especially by people willing to use mental and emotional abuse for the sake of advancing vague or hidden “national priorities”.

Right now, there are anti-gun governors, members of the Congress, and members of the Senate that are not up for election this time around. Each and every one of them is still fully subject to recall or impeachment.

There are also plenty of leaders currently running for office that are willing to protect our 2nd Amendment rights. Make voting for them a priority and perhaps our nation will change for the better instead of being destroyed  by “scientific” arrogance and ignorance.

If you can’t vote pro 2A for yourself, then do it for a soldier, do it for a veteran, and do it for law enforcement officers that have their lives on the line.


This article has been written by Carmela Tyrell for Survivopedia.





2 total views, 2 views today

Rate this article!

[Total: 0    Average: 0/5]

War Against The Police. Whose Lives Matter?

Click here to view the original post.

SVP dallas shooting - Copy

Ever since the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, almost two years ago, the rhetoric against police officers has been running high. Members of the Black Lives Matter group have repeatedly called for the killing of police officers, especially white police officers.

Well, now it’s happened. The first salvo in the war against the police has been shot and it was a devastating salvo.

On July 7th, people who claimed to be part of Black Lives Matter staged a demonstration in Dallas, Texas, protesting the killing of two young black men in other parts of the country.

While it doesn’t appear that the organizers of this event had any plans for violence, there was at least one other, not associated with Black Lives Matter, who had their own agenda. This 25 year old man, Micah Xavier Johnson, opened fire on the police from a sniper’s perch; killing five and wounding six others, in addition to two civilians who he wounded.

Johnson, a former military reservist, was sent home from Afghanistan in 2014, charged with sexual harassment. Even though his file was flagged for a “less than honorable discharge,” he was honorably discharged and returned to his home. Little was heard from him since then. He had no police record, had not committed any other crimes and basically lived a quiet life, focused around his love of basketball.

But underneath the surface, there were things going on in Johnson’s heart and mind. He was hearing the message of Black Lives Matter, especially the call for violence against the police. He was also hearing an anti-American message at his mosque in the Dallas suburbs.

Who is to Blame?

Regardless of who actually pulled the trigger, it appears to me that some blame can be placed on the Black Lives Matter group, even though the killer had no association with them. We have no way of knowing for sure, but it’s quite possible that Johnson was at least in part motivated by those calls to violence.

At what point is a person guilty of incitement to violence and at what point is it protected speech under the First Amendment?

That’s a hard question to answer; but if the same standard is applied, which is used for pastors who preach against homosexuality, then those who have been speaking publically about killing cops, are as guilty as the man who pulled the trigger.

Johnson, who goes by the name “Micah X” was apparently named after the Black Nationalist leader Malcolm X. Both belong to the same group, Nation of Islam, where Malcolm X rose to a position of leadership. The mosque which Micah X attends, is apparently part of one of the branches of Nation of Islam (the organization has split since Malcolm X’s time).

The Nation of Islam is a black organization, loosely tied with Islam. I say loosely tied because from what I know of Islam, they would at best shunned by most Muslims and at worst killed as apostates. I think they are more a racist political revolutionary group, than they are a true expression of religious belief of any sort. While they claim to be Islamic, their version of Islam has been culturally adapted to the American Black community.

Islam has been attractive to some American Blacks, especially anti-white blacks, for the same reason that it was attractive to the Arabs in the Middle East during the Middle Ages. Christianity was and is seen as the white man’s religion, by those who oppose it, even though there are many black Christians.

Islam offers them an alternative; something that is decidedly not white. For that reason alone, blacks who blame their suffering and poverty on whites, flock to Islamic groups like the Nation of Islam and the New Black Panther Party.

But when you mix radical Islam with militant revolutionary ideas, then feed it to people who are disenchanted with society, you have an explosive mixture. That’s what happened here. Micah X got a strong dose of these teachings, which resulted in him taking violent action.

While the Nation of Islam isn’t associated with ISIS and their theology is doubtful, they still play into the hands of radical Islamic goals. By inciting violence and violent rhetoric, they cause unrest, creating fertile ground for the recruitment of more members to the ISIS ranks. But even those who choose not to join ISIS can still take their part in global jihad, by participating in acts of violence here at home.

So, whether or not the Nation of Islam is truly Islamic or not, is ultimately inconsequential. They are working towards a similar goal. While the members of these groups have their own vision for America, they don’t have the numbers of the true Muslims. Eventually, they will have to fully convert to Islam, or they will be cut out of the victory.

With that in mind, the shots that Micah X fired, could be the opening salvo in the war against police. Black Lives Matter, the New Black Panthers and others have been calling for this war since Ferguson, now it looks like they have it. The question is, where does it go from here?

Video first seen on Face the Nation on CBS.

You may think that I’m being premature or presumptuous in calling this a war against the police, but the attack in Dallas was not the only attack to take place. While it was the largest, and the killer claimed to not be affiliated with any group, there were several other attacks against the police within the same 48 hour window. That’s too much to call it coincidence.

Protests happened around the country, for the same reason as the protest in Dallas. While some were relatively peaceful, doing nothing more than blocking traffic, there were others which turned violent. A number of police officers were attacked, either wounding or outright killing them. Atlanta, Miami, Fort Lauderdale, and other places, Black Lives Matters demonstrations were held. None became as violent as the one in Dallas, nor was there the violence, looting and destruction that we’ve seen with Black Lives Matter in the past, but they weren’t exactly peaceful either.

I believe that we’re going to see an escalation in violence against the police, even while the founders of Black Lives Matter are trying to reduce the violence in their own organization. There are always others who copycat the actions of criminals, especially those who gain national media attention. Must like the mass killings that have been going on, others will follow in the footsteps of Johnson, seeking to emulate and improve upon his success.

There are those who complain about our police becoming militarized. I have had my own concerns about that. But in the light of the dangers that our police forces face every day, I am not surprised that they are becoming militarized. If they don’t, they will become outgunned, outmaneuvered and all too many of them will end up dead.

That’s not to say that I’m in agreement with the federal government militarizing administrative departments. I can see no reason for many of the feds to be armed and militarized like they are. They are not police organizations, so they don’t have the same needs the police do.

But the police do have needs. They are still the thin blue line that protects us from the barbarians. With the ever-increasing risks of terrorism, including domestic terrorism caused by the extremist groups that I’ve been mentioning, police need to be able to defend themselves. They also need to be able to count on the support of law-abiding citizens, whether that be merely verbal, or in going to assist police officers when they are in a shooting situation.

I did that once, stopping to help a police officer who was outnumbered and quite possibly outgunned. As a member of my state’s National Guard, I felt a responsibility to help that officer. Fortunately, I was in uniform at the time, so he was able to recognize me as a good guy. Nevertheless, by joining forces with him, I was able to change the equation, making it so that he was no longer outnumbered.

America actually has a long history of armed law-abiding citizens standing ready to help and support our law enforcement officers. Whether joining in a posse or providing information on a crime, the police and other law-enforcement officers have long been able to count on the support of law-abiding Americans.

Yet today, there are those who are working to undermine that support. The media reporting and liberal rhetoric that surrounds each of these shootings, has been the cause of much violence. Every time a white police officer is forced to use deadly force against a young black criminal, the police officer is tried in the court of public opinion and found guilty, before the facts are truly known.

But then, the news media has given up on facts anyway, preferring to stick with liberal talking points instead.

A lot of the blame for the deaths of those police officers can be laid right at the feed of those same news anchors and reporters. If they weren’t so quick to act as left-wing propagandists and instead did their job of finding out the facts and presenting them to the public, people would know that police are less likely to shoot a young black man, than they are to shoot a white one.

But then, that doesn’t match their liberal talking points, so they won’t bother to say it.  

12_620x110This article has been written by Bill White for Survivopedia.







video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_qkvXLuGsc

2 total views, 2 views today

Rate this article!

[Total: 0    Average: 0/5]

Your Freedom… Is It To Die For?

Click here to view the original post.

Survivopedia freedom and guns

It would almost be amusing, if it were not so sadly tragic, how easy it is for the POTUS to manipulate and re-direct the minds of so many Americans who should know better.

With a nascent grass roots effort emerging to scrutinize the legality of Bureaucratic Fiat lists like the No-Fly list now seeded and sprouting in the forest of dissident citizenry, Obama simply brought out his two-stroke despotic weed whacker to trim us down, and made us all feel bad and guilty that we don’t have another killing of due process add-on gun ban to the illegal ‘no-fly’ list.

Laundering the Brains of ‘We, the Sheeple’

The main nonsense logic being that if they are ‘bad enough’ to not be allowed to fly, they are bad enough not to be allowed to have a gun. But if they are THAT bad in the first place, then why aren’t they arrested and charged accordingly?

Also our ‘honorable’ Congressional legislators just wrapped up a Broadway Stage performance in their last session before breaking for the holiday entitled ‘Feckless Government Dysfunction’, starring the House Democrats as comedy REPs ‘acting’ in the best interest of our Constitutional rights.

Instead of someone introducing a Declaration of War resolution against the Middle East enemy Islamic State, which just initiated a direct guerilla attack on our American soil in Orlando, murdering innocent civilians, in their own declaration of war on America…

The Leftist totalitarian branch of our government got into a hissy-fit to disrupt proceedings until they got their impudent temper tantrum way to illegally eviscerate more of our 2nd/A rights from our Constitution, along with our 4th/A rights to due process. Doubtless, we have all gone mad.

But this could fall into the ‘nothing is as it seems’ category. It might have really been a distraction re-direction to get an ‘insider’ deal going with the Omnibus bill.

They knew they’d be hard pressed for gaining any new gun control legislation. But they wanted to try to derail some Republican initiatives, by ‘scaring’ the Republicans into thinking they might not be able to prevent a universal background check winning vote, or a couple of other incremental gun control. All of these measures in their slowly but surely ultimate goal of total Australian/Canadian/UK confiscation and disarmament agenda. They at least might get some concessions on something else Obama can use to bolster his voting bloc…like maybe an ease up on immigration reform?

The amazing part is that some of the Republicans apparently want to do a treasonous compromise for their personal share of the spoils.

In the recent Senate voting session John McCain, and a couple other-I-don’t-know-what-you-call-‘em, turncoat politicians pretending to be Republicans actually voted ‘YES’ in the Senate FOR a proposal essentially allowing the FBI to arbitrarily and capriciously snoop through anybody’s emails any time they want for any reason WITHOUT A WARRANT!

I know Johnny Boy McCain, didn’t have a very nice stay at the Hanoi Hilton back in the day, and I deeply respect his service, but DUDE, did the NVA guards hit you in the head too hard too many times? Get help, John, please?

Fortunately, all the Fascist gun control bills failed in the Senate last time, but only by a thin margin of maybe a couple votes on some proposals! And just now the ‘enemies at the gates’ introduced yet another new bi-partisan compromise ‘no fly-no buy’ bill in the Senate! Also supported by a RINO Senator named Flake.

Video first seen on Sen. Jeff Flake.

But we didn’t elect a republican Senate and Congress majority to do what the liberal leftist Democrats want! We hired them to STOP their totalitarian party from gaining any more ground on their path to enslave us!

There can’t be any compromise on our freedoms? All that does is make it easier for them the next time they slide down the slippery slope to totalitarianism? They must be stopped now!

Make sure you contact your Congressional Reps TODAY and let them know in no uncertain terms that they had better NOT vote in ANY new anti-Second or 4th Amendment laws! Let them know you’re concerned and will be checking how they voted!

And in Addition to Obama’s Manipulative Disinformation…

You have master liars like Rep Jim Himes, who was one of those loud mouth anti-2nd/A birdbrain who walked-out during Speaker Ryan’s moment of silence for not pushing for more Gun Control legislation in Congress last week. Which they insultingly maintain is the cause of, and cure for, all the world’s problems.

In a subsequent media interview, Himes later asked the ultimate absurdity question of “why can’t it be at least as difficult to get a gun as it is to get a driver’s license?”

Well, obviously you never owned a car, or you are just terminally cognitively afflicted, Mr. Himes, otherwise you should know that you don’t need a NICS background check to buy a freaking car and be subjected to ownership bans. Even if you’ve committed a serious crime WITH your car, that doesn’t preclude you from owning cars or driving them on your own land like it does with guns, even if you didn’t even use a gun to commit a crime.

If you are too fool to see the insidious totalitarian disarmament agenda here, Mr. Hines, then you are too irresponsible to be trusted with legislating our future? You should resign before you irreparably harm our country, and its liberties.

Besides being in a very different ‘Public Safety’ category, mostly concerned with personal self-defense, guns have a completely different purpose. They are more of a private, individual concern, and the comparison is like alligators to artichokes.

Cars are statistically far more deadly when humans are in control of them than any firearms, due, among other things, to their ubiquitous and pervasive public social integration, and their high capacity speed and power. Far more foot pounds of potentially deadly energy than any bullets.

Indeed, almost every crime from murder to theft of the vehicle itself somehow likely involves a vehicle. So that’s why vehicles should perhaps require additional training and supervision in their function. They simply ARE MORE commonly dangerous than firearms, in complete contrast to the specious analogy you, Mr. Himes, presented.

And, the most important thing is to note in your flawed comparison that long before there were cars, people had the inherent uninfringed right to own firearms because cars simply won’t protect us much against a vicious predator, human or otherwise trying to hurt us, or a tyrannical government as well as an AR-15’s will.

Then Representative Himes persisted in mewling in affectatious public safety anguish by adding another statement that he couldn’t understand, the profound mystery of why a fairly reasonable set of {gun control} measures unleashed a torrent of hate, threats, and anger worthy of Dante’s ‘Ninth Circle of Hell’ toward elected officials who speak out for reform?

Could it be that the people are really not as stupid as you think, Mr. Hines? And they get riled when you say ‘reform’ but really mean ‘registration’ for future confiscation? Because the reality is that there is no such thing as a ‘reasonable set of gun control measures’. They are ALL anti-liberty measures.

And that the people-even many democrats and liberals- really do understand that it’s nonsense and patently dishonest to argue that there’s no such thing as an absolute right? If that were true, then why even have a Constitution? We can just make millions of Old Testament ‘Torah/Tanakh’ laws and change them anytime our leaders feel like it and be beheaded if we don’t like it?

But then it would be much worse because you can’t trust your elected officials like Himes as it is when their buddies are so agenda corrupt that they Edit Out the fact that the Orlando terrorist murderer announced he was a Jihadist soldier from the 911 call tapes, and who knows what else they covered up?!

‘Please, Stop Me…Before I Kill Your Freedom Again!’

Finally, Representative Himes said that people can’t expect to own a gun anymore without gun control reform because owning a weapon without hindrance, delay, or training… cannot trump a shooting victim’s right to see their next birthday?

Oh, please. The nauseating stench of your phony self-righteousness wafting through the halls of Congress is like what the first American soldiers entering the Auschwitz camp experienced.

And then-to add a sardonic barb to the insult, Himes says that most people agree with gun control and ‘…Congress exists to reflect the will of the people.’

I hope you don’t forget that, Mr. Himes. Because I think you are wrong. I don’t believe that the majority of true Americans want more gun control or more privacy loss.

And you can’t be ‘stopped’, Representaive Himes, because you don’t subscribe to the reality that we are all equal in the spectrum of our creation, like Thomas and Ben put forth in the Declaration of Independence. You and your wretched ilk believe you were created MORE equal and therefore eminently qualified to dominate and regulate the rest of us.

So all we can do is remove you from office to prevent future violations of our civil rights in your obsessive compulsive quest for totalitarian control over us.

Because most free thinking liberty loving Americans don’t believe your agenda based lies, right?


Then why did a Quinnipiac poll released the other day claim that 86% percent of the people they polled are in favor of a ‘no fly, no buy’ ban, and over 90% are in favor of universal background checks? Why? Because I think that Quinnipiac University is a Leftist brainwashing information manipulating POS organization and really only surveyed around 1600 people nationwide!

And if you try some demographics polling magic and happen to target Watter’s World types, and other ignorant, delusional, mind numbed and misinformed, easily bribed and manipulated sheeple, and you puppet string them with certain questions designed to elicit the desired response, guess what?

You get exactly what the mainstream media likes to use to blow out of proportion chunks all over with the help of people like Bill O’Reilly proving that he’s just as bad as Obama in many power elite ways.

He insisted that ‘universal background checks—even if they really don’t prevent crime—are not that bad because they are not actually gun ‘registration’’ either.’ When, indeed, that’s exactly what Universal Background checks are. They are, in fact, universal pre-confiscation registration.

Don’t believe me? I can even demonstrate it for you if you want to give me your name on your National I.D. card, I mean your 2005 ‘Real I.D. Act’ driver’s license/State I.D. “…your papers, please?” card.

I’ll then tell you exactly how many background checks you had and what guns you own. Or give me the serial number of any gun you have that may have been bought through a dealer, and I’ll find out who bought it, along with how many others were bought on 4473 form by the same person.

Brady Bill NICS background checks for gun purchases are nothing less than below radar gun registration data bases. Which are supposed to be illegal according to the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act. So how did Hawaii just get away with making an illegal law mandating actual total Registration -and having the gall to call it exactly that, ‘Gun Registration’, of ALL firearms in their State, AND reference that ‘data base’ with the new FBI universal data base on law abiding citizens?

Because the wannabe Island Slaves ‘submitted’ to letting their state dictatorship get away with it, that’s how! And the urban myth that the NICS data base must be deleted after 72 hours only applies to the general public according to the FOP act of ’86. NOT to LEO investigations, LOL!

So they really have a permanent registration data base of guns already. But now, with the Congressional vote, they are going for broke on any and all private transactions to be NICS background checked, as well? And we all know what history teaches us will happen once ALL gun ownership is registered?

Cold Hard Truth Be Told

In an open free society like America, the last one on Earth, by the way, there is simply can’t be total crime prevention or complete public safety. It’s a proven impossibility even in already disarmed populates like France!

The reality is that if you want to live in an environment of maximum liberty, free thought, and unbridled movement and privacy. Then the only thing that you must accept, Representative Hines, is that there will always be a percentage of violence in a social population that you can do nothing about it, until the essence of flawed human emotional content can evolve out of its natural violence and avarice mode through education and self-improved behaviorism.

In other words, NO amount of ANY so called humanitarian public safety crime prevention laws, administrative mandates, or restrictions will ever work to any imagined or hoped for value producing levels. And worse, in reality, these specious intentions only represent a more insidious deleterious opportunity for expanded government power and control motivation.

Just ask Hitler’s propaganda minister. When I listen to BO giving his obligatory ‘guns are always and forever the problem’ sound bites, I experience a gut-wrench deep in my bowels I never felt even when being shot at in combat.

Can ‘They’ really actually think we are all that degeneratively gullible? The answer is YES! And they’ll use that against us to submit us to totalitarian dictatorship.

What About Giving Me Liberty or Giving Me Death?

Well, your freedom, in case you forgot, is fundamentally more important than life. For without it, there IS NO life. Just verify that with anyone who lived under tyranny. That in itself nullifies their silly argument that “oh, but if gun control even just saves one life it’s all worth it?”

No, it is not worth it! Because that’s a terrible lie. The facts are that gun control costs more lives because it endangers people by limiting their ability to optimally protect themselves from bad humans and, as we’re seeing lately, and even more importantly… bad government. It’s a statistical, proven fact. More gun control puts more people in danger. Period.

And the other conveniently interpolated re-directed mind control technique the Totalitarian Leftists like to deploy, is to simply ignore the Constitution any time they feel like It. Or attack it as irrelevant or archaic.

Even though the fact remains that the 2nd/can’t be ‘infringed’ because it is the law of the land. It is clear and indisputable that all so-called added gun control laws are illegal because they are unconstitutional!

There’s not even a need for gun control if the criminal justice system wasn’t so dysfunctional. A more efficient system would be a far better deterrent than banning any inanimate objects. If a person does a crime, with or without a weapon, arrest and punish accordingly, depending upon the nature and level of egregious harm done.

Permanent disarmament bans not only don’t prevent recidivism but they do lay the groundwork for tyranny. It eventually makes all of us criminals by target focused laws, then subjects us to gun prohibition, and adds to their creation of the sub-cultural anti-social class of ‘ex-criminals’ we now have despite no further criminal behavior. And we remain law-abiding and nevertheless still permanently punished.

This is not the stuff of a rational society of enlightened higher consciousness. But it is certainly the ‘meat’ in the future feasts of Fascism…

Do You Suck at Being a True American Patriot?

You might… If all you thought about or discussed with anybody this 4th of July weekend holiday revolved around shooting off some firecrackers, and how much beef and beer you’re going to need for the face-stuffing contest at the barbecue later. Instead of discussing with your family and friends and contacting your Representative on each and every bill they vote on this week.

The ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ vote in the House this time could change your little ‘Molon-Labe’ world like you can’t imagine. All these incessant Totalitarian legislative proposals and bureaucratic mandates are scaffolding for when Hillary gets in, and starts building her gallows for our liberties faster than her lying denial of the Benghazi debacle?


Unfortunately, we have a lot going against us. In a ‘Watters World’ caricature where so many of us let our freedom drift away into the sunset like a beautiful balloon, never to be seen again, and we now face a not-so- brave new Hunger Games Orwellian world, that could eventually make places like Somalia seem like an alternative choice.

You see, too many people who work harder at avoiding the social issues that affect them directly in their wallets, security, and freedom in life, then they do to preserve their liberties. Their battle cry is ‘…give me Apps and AMP Energy drinks or…I’ll just moan and groan.’

So most people just don’t really give a damn about gun control or dystopian privacy invasion. They’d rather keep their noses buried in their smartphones playing ‘Angry Birds’ during the commercials interrupting their TV cartoon shows, when they’re not texting mono-syllabic code, or sending porn selfies to their similarly civically buds somewhere else in the dehumanized vacuum of cyberspace.

So it is up to the rest of us true patriots. Just like it was back in the 1770’s. A minority that saved the majority. Because right now, it seems like the American Revolution was for nothing.

But If we re-group and stay in the political fight, we CAN still win!

And guess what, my fellow American patriots. Thanks to the way the Framers set it up, you don’t even have ‘to die for’ your freedoms anymore. All you have to do is get out there… do your duty to get seriously politically active. And VOTE!

Then maybe the next Independence Day celebration will really mean something again?


This article has been written by Mahatma Muhjesbude for Survivopedia.com.









5 total views, 5 views today

Rate this article!

[Total: 2    Average: 5/5]

Discussions with a Liberal: We Need Solutions That Work

Click here to view the original post.

Survivopedia solutions that work

Last weekend marked the long-awaited and long-anticipated wedding of my older daughter. It was an exhausting time, not only due to the amount of work I put into the wedding (I made a lot of the decor), but because it marked the visit of some strongly liberal family members who came for the wedding.

Being liberals, they of course wanted to spout all their liberal views on a constant basis; something that is tiring to any conservative. But as the days wore on, we actually found more and more areas where we had beliefs in common.

I can’t say that we agreed on everything, but we recognized areas where we would never agree and moved on. That allowed us to talk about things where we do agree, or at least could come to some semblance of agreement.

This is actually how this country used to be.

We’ve always had people of opposing views, whether they were Democrat and Republican, liberal and conservative, Federalists and Republicans, men and women, or slave owners and those who called for freeing the slaves. Our country was founded on diversity and our Constitution was written so that reasonable people would come together to work out reasonable solutions, which would work for the majority of the people.

Granted, when the country was founded, the vast majority of the people were Christians. As such, one could expect them to act with at least some Christian charity towards one another. But that doesn’t mean that they didn’t have disagreements, and even disagreements that were serious enough to warrant a duel to the death. But for the most part, they discussed their differences, looking for common ground.

That’s a whole lot different than today’s America; an America where certain parties are working overtime to pit one group against another and create every possible division between different groups. We now have blacks against whites, poor against rich, liberals against conservatives, the LGBT community against straight people, and every possible splinter group in our society vying for their piece of the pie… often to the detriment of some other group.

It’s no wonder that Congress has been unable to accomplish anything worthwhile in the last several years. Not only do we have a president who is an expert in creating divisiveness, but the Democrats in Congress are following his lead. Rather than entering into discussions aimed at finding common ground, they are demanding that everything be their way… or else.

To be fair, there are those in the Republican Party who are just as obstinate as their Democrat colleagues. This isn’t just a Democrat problem. But it’s not just a government problem either; it’s become a cultural problem. What we’re seeing in Congress is nothing more than a reflection of what we are seeing in society in general.

Take Black Lives Matter, for instance. Now, I don’t agree with any group that uses violence to make their voice heard, and I don’t agree with Black Lives Matter for their manner of expressing their grievances. But on the other hand, I recognize that their grievances are quite real. Whether or not I agree with those grievances is immaterial at the moment, they are real enough for the people who are complaining.

That alone warrants discussion; first to determine if they have a legitimate complaint and then to see what can be done to take care of their needs, without taking something away from someone else to do so. But since we can no longer discuss things in a reasonable manner, liberals are clamoring for blacks to be given special treatment and conservatives are saying “No.”

In the mean time, nobody is doing anything to help the people with the problem.

To say that every white person in this country is racist and is intentionally furthering racism against blacks is ridiculous. But that’s what’s being said. Why? Because nobody is really listening to their grievances. I’m not talking about listening to what they are saying now; I’m talking about listening to what’s behind what they are saying.

I’ve done a lot of personal counseling through the years and one thing I’ve learned is that the problem people complain about, isn’t the real problem. It usually takes a while to get to the real problem. You’ve got to listen to all the junk, before they get around to talking about the real issues.

It’s kind of like someone who has cancer complaining about the pain in their stomach. While it might be the cancer that’s causing the problem, that’s not what they are talking about. They’re focused on the pain they are feeling and no the root problem; and nothing you can do will get them to change that focus, until you deal with the pain they are feeling.

So, if we apply that to the rhetoric of these various different groups who are complaining, we would have to understand that the obvious complaints that they are making, aren’t the real issues. All they are, is an indication of where the hurt is right now.

But fixing those things isn’t going to solve their problems, all it’s going to do is allow them to uncover another area of hurt. It will take time for them to dig deep enough to get to the point of talking about the real issues.

Another thing that adds to this is that people don’t want to take responsibility for their own problems. It’s always easier to blame someone else, whether it’s a child telling the teacher that their dog ate their homework, a woman complaining about her husband, or a minority blaming their cultural problems on oppression.

benjamin franklin

But without a national dialogue about some of these issues, the root problems will never be uncovered. All that will happen is that the race baiters and those who want to cause division will continue to have their way. They’ll keep stoking the fires of dissatisfaction and anger and through them, manage to keep the country in constant crisis.

Why should anyone want to do that? Because that’s a method they use to maintain control. Without the country discussing issues and without Congress having a meaningful dialog about them, Congress is at a deadlock. That gives Obama and others of his ilk, the excuse they need to do things by executive action. He has always said “If Congress won’t take action, I will” while at the same time working overtime to make sure that Congress can’t take action. Well, guess who has learned from him and what she’ll do if she becomes president?

The Greatest Lesson of All

That’s what was so great about my family coming to visit for the wedding… we talked. Yes, we actually talked about major issues; and we did so without name calling, resorting to yelling or any of the other methods that people use on social media. About the closest it came to that was when I was told that my facts were wrong; but then, I felt the same about their facts.

If we can’t learn how to talk to one another, on a one-on-one basis, then we will never do so on a national basis. We need to get out heads out of our smartphones and out of our social media accounts and learn to talk again.

We also need to learn how to think again. All too many Americans just accept the talking points of whichever political party they belong to, and spout them off as if they were original thoughts. No, they aren’t original and they aren’t even thoughts. The most thinking that has gone into any of them is how to project the party’s position, while tearing down the other party’s. In many cases, that’s done without any concern about what is right or what’s the truth.

We will never agree on everything. My conservative position on poverty is to help people get jobs or help them start their own businesses. My liberal relatives want to give them a handout. Interestingly enough, the relatives who mentioned that are ones who don’t earn enough that they have to pay federal taxes. Even so, the right answer is somewhere in between. People need a handout, while they are learning and starting out; but ultimately, they need a way to earn their own money.

But unless we talk about how to deal with poverty, we will never find a workable plan. What we’ve tried in the past hasn’t worked; so we need better ideas. Those can only come out of bringing a group of people together to discuss the problem and looking for some new ideas.

The funny thing is that the best ideas often come about when people of diverse backgrounds, beliefs and viewpoints collaborate on the idea. If only liberals talk about poverty, they’re going to talk about giving handouts. If only conservatives do, they’ll talk about putting people to work. But when the two sides come together and hammer out a plan, there’s a much better chance that their plan will actually meet the needs of those in poverty.

It’s time to talk people. It’s time for a national conversation on a plethora of issues. Our country has needs and those needs will only be met when we come together to find solutions. We don’t need Democrat solutions and we don’t need Republican solutions. We don’t need liberal solutions and we don’t need conservative solutions. What we need are solutions that work. It’s time to look for those.

Somebody has to be the adult in the room. Somebody has to start the conversation. Somebody has to be willing to be the one to listen; not just so that they can dispute what the other person says, but so that they can look for the merit in what they say and find ways of improving it.

Will you be that person?


This article has been written by Bill White for Survivopedia.

7 total views, 7 views today

Rate this article!

[Total: 0    Average: 0/5]

More Violence, More Political Hay for the Left

Click here to view the original post.

Survivopedia hay for the left

Rahm Emanual, the mayor of Chicago, Obama’s home town, has been quoted many times as having said, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste…” But few people ever remember the end of that quote, which is the truly telling part. It goes on to say, “…And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”

Leaving the grammatical mistakes aside, this quote gives us a keen insight into progressive-liberal thinking. While they try to paint themselves as the party of compassion, Democrats are anything but compassionate.

Their history makes this clear, even though their telling of it is the opposite. We must remember that it was the Democrats, not the Republicans who were and are trying to oppress the blacks. So, while they claim to support blacks today, it’s only to get their vote.

Liberals know that they can’t get their extremist agenda passed into law; so in many ways, they’ve given up trying. That’s what’s behind many of Obama’s executive actions, as well as many of the court cases that the left brings up, purely for the purpose of defining case law to mean what they want it to mean.

With this in mind, it’s no surprise that Obama has chosen to use the Orlando shooting as one more opportunity to make political hay, rather than to do anything meaningful to protect the people of the United States of America. He cares about us just about as much as Democrats in general care about blacks.

No, I’m not being cynical with this, merely observant. Time after time, Obama has used a crisis to further his political agenda, rather than to do anything worthwhile. Once again, rather than address the elephant of Radical Islam in the room, Obama has chosen to use this act of violence to claim that there’s a need for more gun control.

In the world according to Obama, it was actually a 29 year old gun named Omar Mateen walked into the Pulse Nightclub, a gay bar in Orlando, Florida and opened fire, all by itself. I’ll have to say, that was quite a gun. I’ve never seen a gun that can walk, let alone one that has the mental capacity to pick its own targets, based on its religious/political views. Obviously, my guns are defective, or just too darn lazy to do what the president says that guns are supposed to do.

It’s become like a broken record, with Obama repeating the same talking points over and over again, each and every time that some Islamic radical or crazed young man goes off and kills a bunch of people. His total disregard for the facts and his total denial of the reality of radical Islam has turned his response to these attacks into a circus side-show, rather than a meaningful response from the man who is supposed to be the most powerful man in the world.

But maybe this time was just a little different. Obama did say that they (meaning his administration) believes this to be a terrorist act, as well as a hate crime. Of course, that statement didn’t include anything about the killer being a Muslim extremist or his ties to ISIS. Nor does it admit the fact of Islamic terrorism. But that’s all right, as far as ISIS is concerned, because they took credit for the act themselves, rather than waiting for Obama to do it for them.

Perhaps Obama’s use of the term terrorist was nothing more than a precursor to his blaming this horrific act of violence on right-wing terrorists, as he has done before. I guess you could say that Muslims are conservative in one regard though, as they want to keep things the way they used to be, back in the sixth century. But they aren’t the same sort of conservatives as we have here in the USA.

Video first seen on Thisthatamazing.

So thanks to Obama’s failure to tell the truth and place the blame where it belongs, all he’s accomplished is to stoke the political fires and show how ineffective he is as a leader. As for any meaningful response, especially one that goes after the enemies who perpetrated this act of war, we’ll have to wait for the next president to come along.

Of course, that depends on who the next president will be. Hillary is in the same camp as Obama in a number of things, most specifically her feelings towards Muslims. She has made plenty of statements showing that she supports them over US citizens. And we can’t forget that Hillary, like Obama, was indicted in Egypt for their support of the Muslim Brotherhood, a known Muslim extremist organization. She seems also responsible for allowing our ambassador to be killed in Baghdad, while not raising a finger in his defense. Rather, she made a premeditated attack on a YouTube video and its maker.

So we can expect Hillary’s reaction to these attacks to be the same as Obama’s, ignoring them for what they are, and calling for greater and more restrictive gun control. After all, the more they can do to take the guns away from the people, the better they can control the people.

What Makes the Difference?

But there may be something even more sinister in wanting to take the guns away from honest citizens. Could it be that Obama, Clinton and others are actually in cahoots with the Muslim terrorists? Could their efforts to disarm the public actually be in preparation for an all-out Muslim invasion? Could they actually be so sold out to the Muslims, that they are willing to work to create an open field for them, where Muslims would have no opposition to their killing sprees?

Apparently there were no armed citizens in that bar, who could defend themselves and stop the gunman from killing others. The left will try to use that, unrealistically I might add, to show how useless a good guy with a gun is. But in doing so, they will have to ignore the work of the Orlando police, good guys with guns, who ultimately brought the killer down.

It is clear that Obama, Clinton and their cabal have missed the import of this incident, along with that of San Bernardino, California. These are clear acts of war, propagated by a terrorist organization which is calling itself a country, the Islamic State. They have declared war on us and invaded our country; and yet our political leadership is doing nothing in response. Where is the outcry from Washington? Where is the national call to arms? Where is the condemnation of the criminal government that stands behind this incident?

This was not “homegrown terrorism” as the left would have us believe. The shooter was a Muslim who declared his ties to ISIS. His parents were immigrants from Afghanistan, a Muslim country; and even though they condemn the killing their son wrought, they are the ones who brought him up in the Muslim faith. Yes, he was born on American soil, but his act of terrorism had nothing to do with that. It was an act of Islamist outrage that people would live differently than the way that they demand.

As a conservative and a Christian, I cannot and will not condone homosexuality. But as a former member of our military, I have stood to protect the homosexual way of life. How they choose to live is their decision, and as long as they do not hurt anyone else in the process, it is their right.

I imagine I could find many other conservatives, Christians and service members who would agree with me on that. But none of us would walk into a gay bar and open fire. Yet Omar Mateen felt he had the right to do so, just because he was offended by two gay men kissing. Hey, I don’t like seeing men kiss each other either, but that’s their business. My appropriate response is to look away.

War has been declared on us by Islam in general. The Islamic State itself has declared war on us. Oh, they blame it on the United States and Obama’s drone war, but that’s mere smoke and mirrors. They declared war on us, killing Americans and our allies, long before we fired our first shot. Have we forgotten 9/11?

President Bush was right to declare the War on Terror in the wake of 9/11. Regardless of the effectiveness of his actions and the accuracy of his information in attacking Iraq, he did so in the propagation of that war. He recognized the enemy and went after it; fighting the war on enemy ground, rather than giving them the opening to continue attacking us here at home. The result? There were no more terrorist attacks on American soil during the rest of his presidency.

Yet today we mourn the seventh such attack on American soil, since Obama took office. These attacks are accelerating. With the frequency between them shortening. Why? Because we have made no effective response. Our enemy only understands strength; yet we have shown them nothing but weakness.

Say what you want about Donald Trump, he has promised to do something about Muslim extremism in this country. While I don’t particularly like him as a presidential candidate, I feel confident that he won’t just sit by and condemn guns, when it is Muslim killers who need to be condemned. He may not yet have the knowledge of how he will do that, but it is clear that he has no intention of allowing these attacks to continue unanswered.

Should Trump win the election, I feel confident that one of his first actions will be to demand that the military and perhaps the Department of Homeland Security, provide him with real plans for dealing with ISIS. It may not happen the first day, or even the first week, but the order will go out.

It is time to stop Islam in its tracks. They can have their religion and they can worship their god. But they have no right to subjugate the world and they have no right to attack American soil. It is time for a strong response and we need a strong leader, who can provide that response. Anything less will lead to the continued shedding of American lives.


This article has been written by Bill White for Survivopedia.




Youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BQGMzmzcd0 

2 total views, 2 views today

Rate this article!

[Total: 0    Average: 0/5]

From Orlando With Rage: Attacked By Terrorists But NOT Terrorized

Click here to view the original post.

Survivopedia from Orlando with rage

If you’re a regular reader, you’ve probably read some of my articles; I usually write about fun, informational stuff but not today. I live in Orlando, the City Beautiful. The land of flip-flops and Mickey Mouse, beaches and motorcycles, college kids and retirees.

On Sunday, Orlando was ground zero for the largest mass shooting in US history. My city was attacked by an ISIS-affiliated terrorist, and I’m really pissed.

Sunday morning, I went outside to walk my dogs, still half-asleep, before I turned on my TV and learned that some no-good, nut job, wife-beating jerk had decided that it was his right to judge and lethally punish a bar full of innocent people just because he didn’t like the way they lived. There were about 300 people inside Pulse Orlando, and over 1/3 of them were murdered or injured.

Pulse had a young following, so most of the dead were in their 20s and early 30s. Kids, really. According to reports, the shooter (I refuse to name him because he was just a lowly, cowardly sheep) scoped out Downtown Disney and Pulse. He chose the club because it was a “gay club”.

While it’s true that Pulse had a large LGBT following, it wasn’t exclusively that, nor were all the victims gay. Even if they were, they sure as hell didn’t deserve to be gunned down for it.

Orlando is my home as well as a prime destination for vacationers of all sorts. It’s supposed to be a place of fun; a place where fantasies are real and dreams come true. Yes, I realize that’s mostly an illusion created by commercialism, but to me, it’s true. Florida is my little slice of paradise and I’m enraged that some lowly hater spilled a river of blood in my streets.

What I’ve realized today is that the REAL illusion is the one of peace and safety that we all create.

I’ve known that security is an illusion for a long time now. That’s why I enjoy contributing to Survivopedia; I drink my own Kool Aid. I know that world-changing events are always just right around the corner, but on Sunday, I was shoved around that corner before I’d even had my morning coffee.

At least I was fortunate enough to live through the night; that’s more than what 49 of my fellow Orlandians were gifted with.


I’m sure that you’ve all been watching events unfold from afar, but let me bring it home a little bit for you. The news has been stating that they couldn’t release the names of all of the victims until the families had been notified; the truth is that families couldn’t be notified until the bodies were identified. Until just a few hours ago, they were still removing bullet-riddled corpses from Pulse.

For nearly 24 hours after the attack, Orlando Regional Medical Center was on lock-down just trying to handle the massive influx of wounded and dead kids. Nine died after arrival and several more are still in critical condition.

In total, 49 people were killed and another 53 were wounded. Three blocks around the club were blocked off for more than 24 hours so that bodies could be recovered without being filmed.

Just now, as I’m writing this piece, they released the name of the final, 49th victim: Stanley Almodovar III, age 23. He was a pharmacy tech described as humble and kind. He hadn’t even started living before he was gunned down by a psycho.

11 members of the Orlando Anarchy, our women’s football team, were there celebrating the end of the season with their friends and significant others. One of the boyfriends was killed. Another woman, a mother and wife, was there celebrating a birthday. Now she’s dead. This isn’t a faceless crime.

We Will Stay United

Over the years, I’ve sat in front of my television and watched as terrorists took the lives of people all over the world. I’ve felt a somewhat detached anger and sorrow for those people who lost so much, but there was always a certain degree of separation. Yesterday, that separation was shattered.

I’ve watched as my city has responded and I’m proud. O-Town is a pretty liberal place. Our culture is diverse and our politics, like the victims in this attack, run from one end of the rainbow to the other. We have die-hard bikers and hookah-smoking hipsters. Families visit Disney and business people conduct corporate retreats.

The one thing that we all share is that this is our home and we’ve come together grandly. There was a desperate need for O-negative and AB-positive blood and people of all races, religions, and sexual persuasions stood in line for 8 hours to donate.

Families had nowhere to stay and hotels gave out free rooms. Restaurants gave free meals and volunteers donated countless hours of time. Business signs removed their ads and ran banners of support. Demonstrators stood on corners with signs declaring that we refuse to be drowned in despair.


We came together in love to fight the bloody results of hate. Our flags are flying at half-mast but we are still Americans; we refuse to buckle under the weight of terrorism.

Gun Control Is NOT the Solution

Sadly, our situation is not the first of its kind; we already have a precedent to follow. People are going to be shocked, then, inevitably, we’re going to try to make sense of the senseless. The enemy seems like smoke, there then gone. How do we fight that?

Whispers about gun control become roars because that’s the only way some people can think of to prevent this from happening again. We look to things that we can control, because it’s human nature in the face of tragedy. That’s happening here already.

People on one side of the fence are screaming about the fact that the murderer, who had been interviewed twice by the FBI, bought his guns legally. Obviously (to them), gun laws need tightened.

People on the other side of the fence (me included) are wondering if things would have been different had even one person in that club been armed. We also keep saying again and again that guns don’t kill people; people kill people.

Chicago has the tightest gun laws in the country, as well as the highest murder rates; how are those gun laws working out for them?

Gun regulation isn’t the answer because the only people who are going to follow the laws aren’t the ones who are going to go out and shoot people anyway. That seems to be a fact that people tend to overlook.

The bottom line is that nobody can stop hate. You can’t fix crazy. No amount of immigration laws or gun laws, or regulations of any sort are going to stop somebody bent on committing heinous acts.

All we can do is be alert and be prepared. We can’t let fear rule our lives but it would be naively stupid to think that something like this isn’t going to happen again because, unfortunately, it will.

I’m glad the police killed the punk. My only regrets are that he killed so many before somebody got him and that his death was so quick.

Orlando has its share of crime, but for the most part, I’ve always felt safe here. I still do; just now I’ll feel a little safer when I’m carrying my 9 mil, because you can bet your bottom dollar that I’ll be on high alert even as I continue to enjoy my life in the land of sandcastles and fairy princesses.

THAT is my right, and nobody is going to take it from me without a fight.

To all the friends and families of the victims of the Orlando shooting, you have my deepest sympathies. To everybody else, be vigilant.

On Sunday, this happened in my town; tomorrow it could happen in yours.


This article has been written by Theresa Crouse for Survivopedia.

5 total views, 5 views today

Rate this article!

[Total: 0    Average: 0/5]

Orlando Massacre: War On America Declared And Already Lost?

Click here to view the original post.

Survivopedia war on america

what if they had a war…and nobody came?” – Old Viet Nam Era Hippy Peace Slogan.

So why are we not fighting back?

Because it took less than a few hours after this horrific attack in Orlando–when the sickening pools of blood on the dance floor were still wet and slippery–for political activists like Geraldine Thompson in Florida to be shamelessly giving news soundbites that again were blaming only the guns, the lack of universal background checks, and the availability of ammo and high cap magazines as the real cause of the Orlando Massacre!

And she went on to say that gun control–instead of a concentrated anti-Islamist state counter attack–will be what she will be talking about with the governor of Florida! Shame on you, Senator Thompson!

The agenda based media was also more interested in figuring out why it “took so long” for the police to breach the area where Omar Mateen was holding the hostages. This instead of asking questions like are we going to have to wait until these radical Muslims detonate a suitcase nuke (about 30 of them are not accounted for anymore and classified as missing from certain world arsenals), and next time kill 50…THOUSAND Americans before making pertinent inquiries of the government like when are we going to have a serious WAR against the ISIS Caliphate in the Middle East?!

The police departments responding in Orlando handled the situation flawlessly in my not so humble professional experience and training. And until some of the Mainstream Media reporters start rushing into harm’s way themselves to save us, they should quit trying to humiliate heroic police work by asking such stupid questions!

My own tactical curiosity is piqued, however, with things like why weren’t there more civilians inside that club carrying concealed? Why was there only a single armed security guard? That club surely could afford a couple more?

Reporters with the mainstream media should be more concerned with better arming the citizen’s early response teams and coordinating additional cooperation with departments in watch patrols in critical target areas. They’d get more than enough volunteers with ex-military or LEO experience to make a serious difference.

Also why wasn’t this Omar Mateen “scrutinized” a little more after the FBI first investigated him for his terrorist affiliations in 2013? Then again in 2014? I mean, Omar Mateen wasn’t just exercising his 1st/A rights talking bad about government injustice like the Malheur Oregon protestors did, but who eventually died or were arrested because of it? Mateen actually was associating with a known ISIS terrorist bomber!

I mean, there are no problems with the FBI keeping continuous tabs on Patriot Militias or with Police State officers immediately disarming people without due process with so-called domestic violence potential assumptions. Or seizing (prohibiting you from possessing) your cash that they merely think has been associated with the crime of drug dealing.

And how about your doctors being able to legally summarily disarm you also without due process if they simply believe you might become violently dangerous? So in as much as all these Extreme Crime Prevention and Public Safety measures swim in the deep sea waters of agenda base misguided anti-Constitutional overreach, shouldn’t serious potential participants in an active shooting War against civilian Americans at least be considered fish in the same ocean?

So why did the FBI apparently screw up with this Mateen Muslim in the same way they did with the Tzarnov brothers in the Boston Bombings? How did this guy slip through the cracks this time with all the money allocated and the availability of super stealth technology for unfettered, unaccountable secret spying on the general populate?

I’ll Tell You Why

Because this regime doesn’t consider association with known enemy of the state criminals for similar criminal interests as bad of a crime as American law-abiding citizens owning guns, and the totalitarian State’s agenda based need to confiscate them.

Make no mistake. The FBI is highly competent at what they do. Their only limitations on case successes are the restrictions and misdirected and highly questionable legal priorities put upon them by the Administration that “owns” them.

Ironically, but insidiously, I guarantee this administration will use this Orlando tragedy to find a way to further restrict regular non terrorist Americans from obtaining guns, but NOT known Muslims who have clear indicators of potential very dangerous radicalization.

The Big Stupid Question

A lot of what we are hearing on the news in response to this attack in terms of proactive solutions to the Orlando attack is “How can we prevent this in the future?”

Amidst the after-shock and confusion and mainstream media crap hyperbole, a few bright voices in a dark political agenda wilderness this morning put for the unabashed truth.

Newt Gingrich had the correct answer. His answer boils down to “Head ‘em off at the pass” (in their own Arab lands) once and for all with some good old fashioned “search and destroy” missions against them. Until they’re ALL GONE. Period!

Noted Fox News foreign terrorism expert Dr. Sebastian Gorka stated that we shouldn’t be shocked. This has been predicted by terrorism experts for years. And it’s going to get worse. Gorka stated that the “lone wolf concept is an intentional administrative obfuscation to keep the people stupid about the fact that ALL these mass killings are really well ‘orchestrated’ by the ISIS state caliphate. There are no lone wolves. They all connect back and are instigated by ISIS.

Video first seen on mauriedee.

This specious redirect is constructed into a format that the Totalitarians can manipulate within the domestic terrorism scam/fraud to use to eventually disarm the People. This regime is not really that concerned with Islamist terrorism as they are with what they consider to be domestic Patriot opposition to their Totalitarian control agenda. Which they will put into the “domestic terrorism” category to eventually neutralize them.

Dr. Zhudi Jasser, an American citizen Muslim of an entirely different Islamic ideology which clearly voices strong opposition to ISIS said this morning that the U.S. “…needs to declare war against and fight radical theocratic Jihadists.”

Why Is This Really Happening?

For all you false flag aficionados you might want to think outside your box on this one.

Why does an agenda based Totalitarian Administration have to plot their own false flag event, when all they have to do is NOT recognize that we have an in progress, not “Un”-declared guerilla war happening on U.S. soil, designed to terrorize and bring down our nation–and loudly announced in advance by clearly identifiable enemies, as a clear, target focused threat?

For Christ Sake, the ISIS Islamist State just also announced officially and proudly today that they are responsible for the Orlando Act of War!

And Obama knew this before his press conference this afternoon that was the expected obligatory leftist agenda based obfuscation of what really happened. Pitifully, but as usual, he still did not identify a radical Islamist Jihadist for what he is.

Obama referred to this Islamic State act of war as simply another “act of terrorism that is yet to be identified”. And he said it even though he had to have been briefed first and foremost that this Islamist soldier Omar Mateen was, indeed, a radically influenced Muslim Jihadist who was shouting Allah au Akbar as he slaughtered innocent civilians, which the Agent in charge in Orlando verified along with other obvious and solid motive indicators.

But, of course, the only specific that the Prez seemed sure of was that it was a “crime of hate”? Obviously a reference to the extreme anti-gay religionist obsession of targeting an LGBT bar.

And also, as usual, he shamelessly had the nerve to take advantage of this tragedy to obscenely put in a plug for his gun confiscation agenda by once again nauseatingly blaming easy availability of firearms as the “real cause” of this act of war on our soil.

He must really think we are all stupid sheeple. Didn’t this Muslim Jihadist pass the background check to get his murder weapon? Which too many times again proves that gun control NEVER works…

I wonder how many hundreds more of innocent American lives will be lost by denying the truth and not declaring war against a foreign invasion, and petitioning Congress for launching an all- out counter attack against the enemy Islamist State Caliphate throughout their lands in the Middle East?

I ask you here honestly, and with sincerity, Mr. President; as an American Combat veteran who served honorably, and will die a Patriot if he must, what do you think this does to my own, and other Vet’s, morale to know that you are trading a few million Muslim votes in November for the potential of allowing the deaths of countless Americans by not declaring war, seriously tightening the immigration system and borders, and bombing the enemy countries until they are no longer and will never again maintain the ability to attack us again?

And you are even allowing hundreds of so-called refugees illegal entry without even the most basic effective vetting when there is verifiable expert assessment that it is guaranteed that there are ISIS infiltrators among them?

You are pulling the same political duplicity for your own party gains as you did with your crony Hillary in Benghazi when closing in on your last election campaign? Sacrificing American lives to win an election. Up until today, I didn’t urge anyone to watch 13 hours. I felt it was too inciting for the average American against our government…perhaps in the wrong way?

But now I’m going to watch it EVERY DAY! And I’m going to keep watching and watching and spreading the word that every American should watch it as much as I can.

Because One Thing is for Sure, America Will Prevail!

Remember that America is NOT Paris, whose immediate government reaction to their attack–amazingly–was to implement even more absolutely way out useless gun control measures against their already heavily disarmed people. So I’ve got more breaking news for the Potus and his minions, which includes a new Declaration of Independence from totalitarian destruction of our beloved country.

We, the REALLY pissed off People of the United States of America, won’t take this kind of rubbish much longer.

Either from the enemy Jihadists, or from our own political leaders who for all practical purposes are apparently aiding and abetting the enemy by default. If our military is not all out actively and intensely destroying the enemy very soon, in a war which has been openly declared on us, then we are already losing that war!

But wait just one freaking minute! The U.S. of A. NEVER loses wars?

Then what the hell in this nutjob world is going on here?

The Final Question

There are questions remaining in the continuing investigation of this Islamist State Declaration of War against the American People in the “Pearl Harbor” of Florida. Most of the answers will be self-evident and the conclusions not that surprising.

Because we’ve been “at War” for 15 god damned years with these psycho Islamist Jihadists in the forms of early Al-Qaeda and current enemy ISIS Caliphate consumed by a death oath against all American and Western culture and its “infidel” citizens.

But tomorrow, when my legislators say: ‘Not YOU again…?’ I will tell them that this time I only have one thing to ask you to find out for us…

Why is Potus committing dereliction of duty, and possibly a treasonous Constitutional infraction, by not doing his sworn job’s primary responsibility by promptly retaliating against this despicable ISIS Act of War against us…

…by immediately acknowledging this “Pearl Harbor” attack on U.S. soil for what it is, which is much more than “domestic terrorism,” and announcing a formal Declaration of War against the entire ISIS/Islamist Caliphate? And then launching a strike force carrier group toward the Gulf?

If the answer to that alone doesn’t create a tsunami of national outrage by “We, The People” to make sure that Hillary doesn’t carry this shameful reluctance to defend our Great Country to a third term…then maybe we should all just surrender, “submit”, and queue up, stripped naked for the “last shower line” at the “Gulags”. Like they did in Germany.


This article has been written by Mahatma Muhjesbude for Survivopedia.







5 total views, 5 views today

Rate this article!

[Total: 0    Average: 0/5]

D-Day, June 6, 1944. What Has 72 Years Done To Us?

Click here to view the original post.

Survivopedia d-day

Every year, some of us remember the importance of June the 6th. That’s the day, 72 years ago, that 73,000 of America’s young men stormed Normandy, France, making up almost half of the 156,000 troops which landed on French soil, to take back Europe from NAZI Germany.

As a country, we lost 2,500 young men that day, casualties of the largest amphibious invasion in history. But those 2,500 soldiers weren’t simply forgotten; they represented each and every American alive on that day.

Although they were fighting to free Europe of the clutches of the tyrannical NAZI regime, they were also fighting for something much more precious to us as Americans… they were fighting for freedom.

Historians have dubbed that generation with the moniker “The Greatest Generation.” When you look at what they accomplished and how the country pulled together to accomplish it, that’s not too surprising.

There has been no other time in our history, when the United States pulled together for a single purpose, like it did in World War II. You really can’t even say that about the Revolutionary War, as there were many who were opposed to it.

But while that war brought our country to new heights of patriotism and accomplishment, it also started us on the road to decline and moral decay. Sadly, one of the things that always accompanies war is a lowering of moral standards. That was no different in the time of the Greatest Generation.

The current moral decline of the United States of America actually started in that time. While it may seem as if the Americans of that day were bigger than life, they felt an urgency caused by the realization that they might die any day. This urgency was responded to by drinking, smoking and extra-marital sex. Many lived for the day, because they weren’t sure if the next day, they would die.

Hollywood had their part in that as well; as always, showing the glamorous side of war. Part of that was including a love interest in all those war movies. Being Hollywood, love became sex; and while they didn’t show it as clearly back then, as they do today; everyone knew how to read the signs.

But even amongst the debauchery of the day, there was much nobility and bravery. Countless people dug down deep within themselves and found the strength to do what they had to do; both overseas fighting the war and here at home keeping the home fires burning. The courage displayed by that generation in facing adversary was something we could all learn from.

Video first seen on Net Stoopid.

Sadly, there seems to be little of that courage left coursing through America’s blood. Our young people don’t have the courage to face someone who is speaking something they don’t like, let alone the bullets of an enemy. Instead, they cry for “safe spaces” where they can be assured that nobody will say anything that might cause them any emotional turmoil. Apparently, forcing someone to think about their beliefs and justify them is too much of an emotional strain for today’s youth.

As a country, we have taken some huge steps backwards since that day, all in the name of “progress.”

Whereas they fought for freedom in that time, today people fight for something free. Where they fought for principle, today people fight for entitlements.

Rather than blacks and whites coming together to defeat a common enemy, today’s blacks are being told that whites are their common enemy and that they should therefore kill the whites.

World War II brought this country together in a way that has never happened before or since. The common goal of defeating the Axis powers gave us national purpose.

Later, national purpose was invested in things like putting a man on the moon and standing strong against the aggression of the Soviet Union. Yet today, we have lost our national purpose. No longer are we pulling together, but rather we are being pulled apart.

I remember asking myself the question, shortly before 9-11, whether the United States could ever pull together, like we did in World War II, to accomplish such a major goal once again. Then, on that fateful day, the Twin Towers came down and the nation pulled together in support of New York City and the War Against Terror.

But sadly, that unity has not lasted; it has fallen apart once again.

In the last seven years, we’ve seen more division in this country than has existed anytime since the Civil War. No longer is the national attention focused on defeating the radical Muslim terrorist enemy, but instead our political leadership is inviting them in to take up residence. We have blacks against whites, poor against rich, women against men and the LGBT community against those who are straight.

Is it fair to blame all this on Barack Obama? Yes, I would have to say it is. While he has not been the only one causing division, he has definitely been the most influential. He has been the most divisive president in the history of the United States, bringing to the forefront each and every phony war he could, to turn one group of Americans against another and destroy what unity we had.

He has also been instrumental in turning the tables on the War on Terror. Where we were actively pursuing radical Muslim terrorism under President Bush, Obama has all but outlawed the use of that term. He refuses to acknowledge that the possibility of Muslim terrorism exists and instead talks about right-wing terrorism, something that is totally fabricated in his mind.

Apparently in Obama’s world view, patriots who are willing to defend their country are more dangerous than radicals who are trying to destroy countries.

Liberalism has destroyed the moral fiber of this country, and they are now on the road to destroying the country itself. The list of things that liberals have demanded of our society, all in the name of some twisted idea of “fairness” could ultimately be out undoing. It is certain that their demands have made life more dangerous for many, as they push to further their agenda.

There is something inherently wrong about causing the majority of society to suffer for a minority. That is especially true when the minority is extremely small and mentally imbalanced.

Yet apparently the only way that the political left can find what they consider to be fair, is to make people suffer. They must make the majority suffer, so that the minority can have what they want; even if what they want is destructive to society as a whole.

Where is Our Country Going?

Could we once again pull together and become the great nation that we once were? Is it possible for another “Greatest Generation” to rise up and set this nation back on track? Can we throw off oppression as we once did and set our course once again by the Constitution?

We are living in a time which demands greatness. It demands people who will stand against injustice committed in the name of fairness. Who will be willing to be ridiculed by the PC police, in order to make a difference. People who care more about integrity, than they care about popularity. Those who have the moral fiber to shout from the rooftops that “This is wrong” and get others to see things as they do.

Our country’s history is filled with such people. The Revolutionary war was fought because of such people. We stormed the Normandy Beaches because of people of like character. Together, we declared “Better dead than red” against the rise of the Soviet Union. We, or rather, those who came before us had that moral fiber; it’s time that we found ours.

Conservatives are still the majority in this country, outnumbering liberals by 3 to 2. But you would never know it by looking at what’s going on in the media or the public square. It is the voice of the liberals that is being heard, not the voice of the “silent majority.”  It is time for that to change.

Unless we rise up and make our voice be heard in the halls of power and the public places across this land, we may soon find that we no longer have a voice. As in Orwell’s 1984, the voice of those who stand against a tyrannical system may very well be silenced.

I don’t know about you, but I won’t go down quietly. The Founding Fathers swore their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to this country; can we do any less? Are we willing to lay down our lives, or only to lay down? Are we willing to give up what fortunes we have, or only a mere pittance? Do we even care about our honor anymore?

If this country is  ever going to be great again, if it is ever going to have another Greatest Generation, it will be because people say “enough is enough” and take a stand.

It won’t start in Washington, but in the grass roots. But the fire in those grass roots will spread and it will eventually get to Washington, if we but fan the flame.


This article has been written by Bill White for Survivopedia.




7 total views, 7 views today

Rate this article!

[Total: 0    Average: 0/5]

How Is This Separation Of Church And State?

Click here to view the original post.

Survivopedia church versus state

The left loves to use the term, “separation of church and state” against Christians.

I never see them using it against any other group, but when it comes to Christians, especially Christians having any input into the government or using their faith to guide their decisions, they’re quick to trot out that phrase.

It doesn’t matter to the liberals that they are misusing the concept of separation of church and state, or even that the phrase doesn’t exist in the Constitution. Few of them have bothered to read the constitution anyway, although they’ll all swear that it’s in there. But in fact, the phrase “separation of church and state” was originally written by Thomas Jefferson and is found in a letter that is part of the Feudalist Papers.

What the Constitution says, as part of the First Amendment, is “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” It looks to me like that doesn’t say anything about Christians not having any say in government or anyone being restricted in using the principles of their faith to make decisions in regards to our nation’s government. If anything, it says the opposite.

Nevertheless, liberals have long used the phrase “separation of church and state” as a lever to manipulate the courts and have laws enacted in their favor; most specifically, the favor of atheists. It is never used in regard to other religions, most especially the Muslim religion, which apparently has a free ticket for whatever they want to commit.

Like anything else in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, there are a number of different ways in which that phrase from the First Amendment can be taken. The traditional meaning is that there can’t be a state-sponsored religion. In addition, that has been the basis for churches having a tax-free status.

Time and time again, atheists have taken government organs to court, for using tax money in some perceived support of religion. Notable examples include the case about the Ten Commandments being in the Supreme Court’s chambers and cases about churches using government-owned facilities for their weekly services. More recently, Obama has used it to prevent military chaplains from ministering to the troops who are supposed to be under their care.

One of the key points that the left uses is that tax dollars should not benefit any religion. Of course, what they mean by that is that tax dollars shouldn’t benefit Christianity. However, those same tax dollars can benefit any of their pet beliefs, regardless of whether they try and hide them as science or whether they are blatant religious observation.

About Common Core Curriculum and Islam

Ever since Obama was elected the first time, he’s been promoting Islam from the pulpit of the presidency. This has accelerated during his second term, with him blatantly supporting Islam and attacking Christianity every chance he gets. A prime example of this is the Common Core Curriculum.

Anyone who believes that Common Core is about educating our children in academics has obviously been drinking too much of Obama’s cool-aid. It would be charitable to say that Common Core is mediocre in presenting basic academic subjects and anyone who has seen any of the rants about Common Core mathematics on the Internet will understand why I say that’s charitable.

But while Common Core is doing such a poor job of educating our kids in the academic subjects they need, it is doing a great job in indoctrinating them in liberal ideology. The authors (and I use that term very loosely) of it have spun everything from the alphabet to history to match the liberal talking points.

One of the major ways they’ve done this is to teach our children about Islam. That’s right, the same people who are saying that it’s against the Constitution to pray in school or even mention the word “God” are urging our children to dress in hijabi and obey to Allah, as part of their “cultural awareness” education.

Clearly, the Obama administration is breaking the First Amendment and trying to use the power of the federal government to further a religion, specifically the religion of Islam. But it goes much farther than our classrooms. The Obama Administration, specifically his State Department, is actively funding the religion of Islam, overseas.

In a recent investigative report, it was revealed that Obama’s State Department has given a whopping 770 million dollars to Muslim countries, specifically for the purpose of repairing mosques. The idea is hidden as a “good-will effort” towards those countries, with the idea of making them more favorably disposed to the U.S.A.

American Church

Of course, that’s assuming that it’s possible to make them more favorably disposed towards us, something which I seriously doubt. You see, even from long before Islam arrived on the scene, part of the Middle Eastern culture has been that they respect strength, and not much else. Much like with the American Indians, strength is honored because of the difficulty of their lives. A man who is not strong is not worth anything, because he cannot survive.

So, when we give them money to placate them, we show ourselves weak, not strong. In other words, Obama’s gifts are having the exact opposite effect of his stated intentions. But of course, his stated intentions and his real intentions probably have nothing to do with each other.

Considering Obama’s history of lying, and his hatred for the United States, I seriously doubt that he is actually trying to make the United States look good to Muslims. Besides, they are bent on world conquest, hating the United States as “the Great Satan” because we are stronger than they are and stand in the way of their conquest.

The Real Story

In reality, what Obama is doing is supporting Islam as a religion. Of course, to do that, you have to support it as a political entity as well.

In my opinion, considering the high number of mosques which are controlled by radical Imams and how Islam is becoming more radicalized every day, by supporting Islam, Obama is also supporting radical Islamic terrorist organizations. Quite possibly, some of that $770 million went directly into the coffers of terrorist organizations.

If so, that’s clearly treason, aiding and abetting the enemy. But even if that isn’t happening, the mere fact of paying money to restore mosques is a clear breach of the Constitution. Why is nobody screaming about this and why is he not being charged with this crime?

The Quran is clear on a number of issues, including loyalty and government. According to it, Muslims may have only one loyalty, to Muhammad and to the Quran. They are not allowed to submit to any other authority, whether spiritual or secular. In other words, radical Muslims do not accept out laws or submit to them, even if they live here in our country. Those radicals who are here, just as those in Europe, are bent on conquest, working to fulfill their prophet’s plan and create a worldwide Islamic caliphate. They are enemies of the United States.

Regardless of what any “moderate” Muslims say, that’s in the Quran. It can’t be eliminated and it can’t just be forgotten. So, there really is no way of saying that providing support to Islam is not providing support to our enemies.

We did not make them our enemies, they chose that of their own free will. Bribing them, by rebuilding their mosques won’t change that. In their minds, their hate is based upon their holy book, so they must maintain it. Failure to do so would be sin in their minds; a sin which they would end up dying for.

So Why Would They Change?

No, rebuilding mosques isn’t an answer and if Obama and Kerry truly think it is, they don’t understand Islam. They are either listening to a lie or they are trying to sell one; but either way, there is a lie that is being propagated. Just like there is the lie about Islam being a religion of peace. Three-quarters of a billion dollars isn’t going to change that.

As best I know, our government has never used tax dollars to rebuilt a church, cathedral or synagogue. To do so would be a clear violation of constitutional principles. So, if that’s the case, why should Obama get away with using tax dollars to rebuild a mosque? I would not be in agreement with the government paying for the restoration of a church, even though I am a Christian. Why should I accept our government paying to restore not only one mosque, but many.

As a Constitutional American, I take the stand that our government should not be supporting any religion, but should treat all of them equally, keeping their hands off. That fits the wording and intent of the Founding Fathers, when they drafted the Constitution. Nothing else is acceptable.

If you want to know how the war on religion could affect you and your family and ways to start preparing and protecting them NOW, click on the banner below.


This article has been written by Bill White for Survivopedia.







7,458 total views, 263 views today

Rate this article!

[Total: 38    Average: 3.3/5]

Killing Your Liberties With Laws

Click here to view the original post.

Survivopedia about killing liberties

Here it is my fellow American Patriots. This is IT! The Big One. This is the unholy fulfillment of what I had prophesied for years.

It is the detonator on the improvised explosive anti-constitutional legislative multiple warhead device that Obama regime had been constructing for years, to eventually achieve ambush style lightning effectiveness with a devastating roadside bombing of the 2nd/Amendment and its free armed citizenry.

Its purpose is to usurp the U.S. Constitutionally guaranteed actionable right of a country founded by the People, for the People, and of the People, and their absolute right to remove an out of control regime by threat of superior citizen’s physical force if necessary.

This is so it will be much easier later on to marginalize the people’s individual and collective power under threat of incarceration until it is severely diminished, in order to then swiftly and permanently abrogate our 2nd Amendment, and then finally, the Constitution itself.

It was introduced in relative stealth and surreptitious format without any news or fanfare into the bloated bowels of our Legislation less than a week ago on May 16 by Chucky ‘Cheese’ Schumer and his co-conspirator anti-constitutionalists Bloomberg, Gillibrand, Murphy, et al.

It is called Senate Bill 2934 or the “Fix Gun Checks Act of 2016”. Notice the clever deceptive wording. Nothing mentioning ‘background’ check words, that would start sparks flying. They knew they’d get immediate blockage if they called it a “Universal Background Check Act” so there is nothing implying more dreaded gun control.

Just the brain programming that it’s nothing more than a badly needed “fix” to make what we already had better. Just a little something to keep people from slipping through the NICS’s cracks during the waiting period and all? Title I of the S.2934 says: “ensuring that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a gun are listed in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System”. Sounds innocuous enough…

Until you read S.2934 closely. Further down and likely missed by quick scan readers, Title II of the bill says “requiring a background check FOR EVERY firearm sale”. That means ALL firearms sales. Commercial AND PRIVATE transactions!

This means Chucky Cheese didn’t really want to pursue this until after the election or right before it if it looked like the totalitarian leftist Party was a shoe-in against Trump. Otherwise he might have risked his seat by showing his dirty anti-2/A colors too obviously in the home stretch. But the way this bill was slipped in, with nary an MSM yip or a yap, is not co-incidental by any stretch.

Most followers of either party will usually simply vote a straight ticket. So there’s a good chance if the candidate wins, the Republicans may lose the House and almost certainly the Senate. So they pushed Schumer to make the move to get the bill moving ahead of time, shorting their bet. They want to be poised to strike to the jugular fast as soon as their POTUS candidate is sworn in to mitigate any opposition from gaining momentum when they drop the Statutory Sledge Hammer down.

Paying the Liberty Hit Man

guns and rustSome of you who at least pay attention somewhat to the world outside of your own special comfort zone, may have recently been shocked at the quickly censored news revelation the other day.

The current government spent over two TRILLION—and that’s not a typo– on bureaucratic administrative mandates, initiatives, orders, rules and procedures last year alone for their staffing and implementation only to establish more control over the population without having to go through Congress for real laws!

Literally thousands of new laws of dubious merit and little pragmatic value were created and put in operation by agency bureaucrats with fully punishable by fines and even jail time if violated, just in the 2nd term of this regime!

According to Law Professor John Baker who says: “…thanks to an overabundance of 4,500 plus federal crimes and 400,000 rules and regulations, it is estimated that the average American actually commits up to three felonies a day, without knowing it!”

And, of course, the Gun Confiscators are falling in full lock step with this anti-Constitutional asset of irresponsible illegal Fiat lawmaking to complete their agenda.

So how many times do I have to say it? As many times as it takes for enough people to get it to make a proactive difference.

Because controlling and disarming the citizenry for eventual Hunger Games style government by keeping permanent punishments restricting gun ownership for crimes even after time, is served and law abiding rehabilitation into society again is accomplished, and it was the greatest oppressive hoax ever perpetrated on the American Free People.

Permanent life-long punishment for even a single isolated criminal mistake in your life is a contraindication of all advanced social evolution. And to this day I still hear intelligent, educated, and concerned persons say frighteningly stupid moronic statements like ”but some people just shouldn’t have guns, right?” WRONG!

That might sound sophomorically acceptable but the reality is something else that almost nobody notices until it’s too late. The statement should be corrected that some people shouldn’t be entertaining the emotional content of doing something very bad in society, and if not contained continue on to commit a crime. And that’s a behavioral issue, not a logistics or supply issue, and has nothing to do with the crime tool implementation.

Unless you are a pathetic moron you by now know that gun control does not work at all. Period. Never did, never will. It NEVER once in all the history of crime prevented a determined criminal from getting one. Because criminals don’t subscribe to any form of government control unless they are physically forced to.

So any gun restriction laws are not only a waste of our valuable time and money, but are of highly suspicious nature in relationship to out of control government untrustworthiness.

Agenda based gun control pseudo-logic additionally opens a Pandora’s Box of potential abuse by authoritarian control in all future existentialism. Which was already in preview with Mayor Bloomberg’s outrageous totalitarian control freak tyranny not too long ago in the Big Apple by attempting a ban on how much soda pop we can drink!

What’s next, banning how many Big Macs we can munch? How much caffeine drugs we can purchase? How about a Copulation Tax if you produce children? Everybody should know by now that they are relentless in their control freakishness? Thinking I’m over the top, are ya?

The Take Down, Choke, and Tap Out of Your Guns

Because if you’re oblivious to this and don’t mind sliding a little down the now well “KY JELLIED” slope, the insidious tertiary mandate in this S.2934 “Fix Things” Bill has an additional little surprise for all you “comfort zoners”.

Buried further down in this testament from hell is in section 103 (a)(36)-(b) in a subordinate clause on “adjudication” of mentally unfit persons who can no longer have firearms, is the definition of who else, besides a judge, can summarily deny your due process rights and determine you unqualified to have a gun under penalty of law, and what they can actually base their criteria on for determining that someone is too “mentally defective” to have a firearm.

Read it, and be very afraid:

{The term ‘adjudicated as a mental defective’ shall–} “include an order by a court, board, commission(?), or ‘other lawful’(??) authority that a person in response to mental incompetency, or marked subnormal intelligence (???), be compelled to receive services—including counseling, medication, or testing, to determine compliance with prescribed medications…”

Wow, I guess that says it all, doesn’t it? Of course the ATF with the form 4473 has been “setting us up” for this a long time now. The fact that one out of every three persons in America are diagnosable with some sort of issue of subnormal emotional content or abnormal psychology doesn’t help. Other countries already require psychological testing to determine if you are qualified to have a gun. This oppressive agenda is salivating at the thought?

Go ahead, pretend it won’t, then be true that when you go to renew your National I.D. Card (2005 Real I.D. Act), face recognition driver’s license, and that a station won’t be set up to test you for your “ability” to legally have a firearm.

Since self-protection is an inalienable right no matter what device or tool or weapon we use, it cannot be violated with a life sentence for isolated incidents of bad social behavior, unless the act or crime itself was so egregious that the perpetrator himself must be permanently removed from society. Which then is automatically exclusive of any other tools/weapons facilitating their violence.

If you exhibit anti-social behavioral problems to the point of actually physically harming others, then YOU should be banned from society for a time deemed appropriate to the public safety solution.

NOT the type of offense laws that Governor Christie just vetoed, which allowed Police to summarily confiscate your firearms if they merely believe that you might be about to commit domestic violence! Even though you didn’t actually commit a crime yet! Shades of “Minority Report” thought control! But why NOT err on the side of caution when it comes to saving human lives?

Well, Virginia…because the danger of a government taking advantage of our misperceptions has been proven time and again throughout history. They are always corrupt and will only get worse, not better. Any perceived notion of gun control efficacy is simply a pipe dream. The danger of the G using this to enslave us far outweighs any specious perception of good.

If you want to really keep guns out of incorrigible lifelong criminals, keep their currently violent out-of- control hands from touching any weapons by keeping sociopaths locked up until there can be little doubt they will not be revolving doored soon into society, way before they are satisfactorily rehabilitated. Not anything else.

And certainly not violating the current law abiding citizens right to protection and privacy, instead.

Get Your Mind Straight Before They Do It for You

There must be a clear understanding concerning this by everybody before things like social criminology reform can ever be achieved.

guns quote

While it’s true that our broken criminal justice system is almost to a point of being completely dysfunctional, we can’t repair a “criminal prison planet” while at the same time having laws that keep creating permanent outcasts from society, resulting in a bizarre caste system of subjugated subcultures.

And before you “over the top trolls” launch your missiles at me, just do some reality research to check out the real reason for the ’68 Gun Control Act, and the sinister motives for Johnson-and even Nixon to set this permanent felony gun possession fraud in motion along with a war on drugs.

Never were any of these so-called gun control laws intended to provide any form of public safety, because technically that’s impossible. And they know it. They laugh at all of us who swallowed that bullshit hook, line, and sinker. But it’s time get a social law revolution going if the execution of our liberty can be postponed, at least, for four years, in November?

Because we must eventually repeal ALL gun control laws with no exceptions and make it illegal to attempt to make them again. This is the only way to stem the rising red tide of oppression without having a civil war bloodbath that nobody will win, assuming it would not be extremely crushed in its nascent production. Starting with the 1934 NFA, The ’68 GCA, and The Brady Bill. Then repeal all these other super expensive enslavement laws.

Think about it. With TWO freaking trillion dollars a year extra no longer wasted on absolutely useless freedom killing laws, we could build an institutional system that can group all severely mentally ill persons from society and actually give them humane rehabilitating care, without making the rest of us subject to becoming political gun ownership prohibited sub-citizens whenever their agenda requires it.

And we’d really have a much safer public society. So how do we counter attack?

Let’s Have a “Jeffersonian Revolution”?

I know that all the Molon-Labe types are already “up in arms” on any intrusion of our private freedoms, and loudly call for defense of our Constitutional values against determined destruction of our Bill of Rights—at least from the comfort and security of their armchairs.

So why, then, are these totalitarians still out flanking free Americans and taking higher ground? Are they not even experiencing a modicum of trepidation at the idea of waking up the sleeping giant bad dog of a million AR-15 toting, locked and loaded, American minute men and women storming the Capital to tar and feathering the traitors out of town?

But this new stealth universal gun registration bill will be the point of no return if it gets passed. Then all they have to do is tweak the administrative other authority laws to bypass Senate and House legislators as planned, to make all kinds of potential revolutionary dissidents a criminal or other such adjudicated unsuitable person to have firearms who then becomes unauthorized for life to have a gun. And voila, target focused mass disarmament and immediate confiscations!

And all your bravado and trash talking shit won’t mean a thing. There’s even a slick remedy in this bill to take care of all you “hold outs” who say to the Confiscation Officers that their guns were lost or stolen. Because if you don’t have a police report to that effect, guess what? You violated the 48-hour reporting rule! Punishable by arrest.

Thomas Jefferson ran for POTUS against the Federalists. Which if you study the history, was a similar problem to what we have between political parties today. He rallied the common folk and won, and they called it The Jeffersonian Revolution.

We need another one now. Just this morning I heard Donald Trump giving speech in North Dakota and astoundingly…he actually said the word “totalitarian” in describing the excessive overreach of government bureaucracy and their out-of-control laws!

I almost became misty eyed with gratitude, hope, and appreciation. But for someone like me that’s not a viable option in response.

Do…or Die?

Instead I’ve already dedicated time out of every day of my life from now until November to help American revolutionary election forces defeat the nowadays Federalists. It really IS that important.

I hope others immediately join our Jeffersonian Revolution in the war on oppression by coming out to vote and getting others to join us. Everything in our lives as we once knew it…is critically at stake. Our beloved visionary framers would be proud. And your progeny will forever be grateful.

But ONLY five months left to save and preserve American freedoms—or suffer total enslavement. Some say this is the most important election in our lives.

While relaxing and enjoying your holiday these days, please try to at least take a solemn minute to consider how much the high cost of American Freedom is worth to you?

And how so many of our best gave some, and how some…gave all… for our Liberty. Then make your decision. Are you really an American Patriot? Or Not?

gun control_620x110

This article has been written by Mahatma Muhjesbude for Survivopedia.






13,442 total views, 264 views today

Rate this article!

[Total: 82    Average: 4.2/5]

Is The End Of Obama’s Reign Truly In Sight?

Click here to view the original post.

Survivopedia Obama s reignEver since Obama took his oath of office and started showing his true colors, a process which can be measured in hours, his presidency has been called “imperial.” This is not to say that he acts like an emperor in any positive way, but that he acts like his word is law, legislating with executive actions and executive orders.

This use of executive orders to circumvent Congress didn’t actually start with Obama; it has been creeping into our government for a number of years.

Many have said that Bush used executive orders in that way to some extent, but it’s truly come to fruition in Obama’s years in office. Obama has made Congress about as useless as an appendix on a colon, with his vetoing of everything Congress does, demanding that they do what he wants, and writing executive orders to circumvent them whenever they don’t do what he wants.

If there is anything that makes Obama dangerous to the country, it’s his firm conviction that everything he does is right. That comes out of his narcissism, but it’s actually a rather common trait for liberals. In their minds, they are smarter than anyone else and everything they do is brilliant.

Of course, as we all know, not everything that liberals do is brilliant and in fact it usually doesn’t work. But that doesn’t change things in their minds. Any liberal initiative that doesn’t work is because conservatives get in the way and block them from doing what they want to. All they need to do is more of the same, and it will work.

Just look at the war on poverty. If we conservatives hadn’t gotten in the way, it would have worked. After all, they have only been able to spend 22 trillion dollars on the poor in the last 50 years, a mere drop in the bucket.

If we had let them do what they wanted and taken the wealth of the rich away from them to give to the poor, then the income gap wouldn’t be anywhere near as big as it is now. There wouldn’t be any less poor people, but there wouldn’t be any rich people to compare them to.

Is This the End?

But let me get back on track here. I was talking about Obama and his scheduled departure from the White House.

I’ve written before about the risk of him declaring martial law, so that he could stay in office. As the days of his reign wind down, I’d have to say that the risk of that happening increases all the time. All it would take is the elections going in a way that he doesn’t like, such as Trump winning, and he’d get his friends in #Black Lives Matter or in the Muslim Brotherhood to stir up trouble, so that he could declare martial law.

This makes it look like there might not be any way of winning this November’s election. Either Hillary wins and we have the equivalent of Obama’s third term in office, or Trump wins and Obama creates his excuse to declare martial law. It doesn’t look promising.

Obama has gone on record, stating that he feels that Trump is not qualified to be president. I find that rather humorous, considering that Obama himself didn’t have very good qualifications for the job, when he was voted in. Granted, he was a politician before running for the presidency, but he hadn’t even completed one full term in the Senate. So, he went from community organizer (read “community rabble-rouser”) to president, with a two-year stint in the Senate in-between.

While I’ve never been a Trump fan, there’s no way that Obama is qualified to rate Trump’s ability to fill the office. I’m sure that the only qualifications that Obama cares about are how well his successor will carry on his legacy. Since Trump is conservative on at least some issues, that disqualifies him in Obama’s book.

But I’ll tell you this, Trump is bound to be better for the country than Hillary, especially for the country’s economy. At least he isn’t a criminal who used their time in office to sell influence to the highest bidder. Nor does he have a personal slush fund, disguised as a charitable foundation. He also cares about our veterans and isn’t likely to say things like “What does it matter” when they get killed, along with one of our ambassadors.

But even if Obama doesn’t declare martial law, it seems clear now that he’s not going to go away. He has publicly stated and it has been confirmed by Valerie Jarrett, that the Obama family intends to stay in Washington, DC, rather than return to their home town of Chicago.

Considering who Obama is and his tendency towards narcissism, that’s disconcerting in and of itself. I really can’t imagine Obama keeping quiet when Trump does something he doesn’t like, as Bush has done so well these last eight years. If anything, Obama will get more media interviews, giving him the opportunity to badmouth Trump and his presidency, than Trump will have.

Life after Leaving Presidency. But Not Really Leaving…

Traditionally, former presidents fade into the woodwork, allowing the new president to do their job, without interference. I can’t see Obama doing that. He is so sure that he is one of the greatest presidents this country has ever had, constantly telling everyone that in his speeches, that I can’t see him keeping quiet. I especially can’t see him keeping out of the media spotlight, if he doesn’t agree with some conservative policy.

There are two more aspects of this that bother me. The first is what he’ll do if Hillary wins the election. Is he setting himself up to be puppet-master? While I am fairly sure that there are people who are pulling his strings, could he actually think that he’s qualified to pull Hillary’s? Or could he have been chosen as puppet master, so that the true puppet masters can remain in the shadows?

It’s clear that Obama thinks that he has a lot of political clout. After all, he throws it around all the time. Could he be so stuck on himself that he doesn’t realize that he will lose that clout the moment he moves out of the White House? Without the ability to do political favors, what clout could he possibly have?

Hillary is not all that brilliant. She didn’t really accomplish anything as a senator, or as the Secretary of State. In fact, I know of nothing she accomplished as Secretary of State, other than to sell her influence and American resources to other countries. Why hasn’t she gone to jail for selling our uranium to the Russians?

Perhaps Hillary is looking forward to Obama’s “advice and guidance” when she is president. That wouldn’t surprise me. But I’ll have to say that she’ll likely get tired of it rather quickly, and tell Obama to go back home. The only thing that will accomplish is cause him to go on television and attack her.

The other thing that concerns me about Obama staying in Washington is something I saw happening as soon as he won the 2008 election. Once he had secured the presidency of the United States of America, he started campaigning to be president of the world. Yes, as a true one-worlder, he apparently believes that he is going to be the first world ruler, once the world is consolidated under United Nations rule.

This is part of why Obama has pushed so strongly against Second Amendment rights. Until the United Nations ban on private ownership of firearms can be implemented here in the U.S., a true one-world government can’t be enforced. Too many Americans are against that and willing to take up arms to defend our country’s sovereignty.

I’ve never believed Obama’s stated reason for wanting to stay in Washington. While most parents would take their children’s schooling into account on a job move, that wouldn’t be their only reason for staying or moving. But he is way too self-centered to make a decision based on his kids. I think he wants to stay in Washington to stay close to the seat of power, nothing more. Talking about his kids just gives him a way to camouflage his true intent.

So, as much as I’m looking forward to seeing the Obama family move out of government housing at 1600 Pennsylvania, I don’t think that’s going to be the last of him. He’s still a relatively young man, much too young to retire. Nor does he have the disposition to fade into the background. He’s enjoyed the limelight too long and he won’t give it up easily. With his many friends in the media and his great ability to use the race card, he will make sure that his voice is heard; and sadly, there are plenty who will listen.

So it’s not time to say good-bye to Obama, as much as we’d all like. The community organizer will still be organizing the community. Who knows, maybe he’ll be the next leader of Black Lives Matter, CAIR or some other anti-American group.


This article has been written by Bill White for Survivopedia.





4 total views, 4 views today

Rate this article!

[Total: 0    Average: 0/5]

“Et tu, Brutus?” Is Your Church An NSA Spy?

Click here to view the original post.

SVP church NSA

I reached a sad point in life a few years ago where not much really shocks me anymore. And being a religious historian provided more knowledge and insight into understanding of the darker side of organized religion than most of the average flock or even their ministry has. So even the resurgence of abominable historic atrocities in the name of God was not that surprising to me either.

But here is something really bothers me to a point where I’m losing sleep over it. This is something way, way off the charts, even when it comes to the questionable idiosyncrasies of religionism, and it’s counterpart, government authoritarianism.

It’s something so woefully evil that everybody, regardless of your particular faith, philosophy, or absence thereof, should take this situation into serious perspective for the future of our survival as a free nation.

Our Police State USA has now reached new devastating heights of radical intrusion into our personal privacy. They are now violating your right to practice your own religion without interference and using our faith based belief systems against us as a tool to eliminate Constitutional Law!

The Church of “Latter Day Totalitarianism”

In some ways I expected this. It’s no conspiracy theory that we already know that the FBI and the DHS has paid informants or actual undercover agents in virtually every significant mosque in the country spying on the membership. Not just the known outspoken radicalized groups, which should be investigated if there is serious evidence for probably cause, but ALL mosques are now infiltrated by arbitrary government surveillance. This is blatantly unconstitutional because not all Muslims are terrorist psychos.

Unfortunately it’s not against the law for police to dress and pose as a priest or minister, doctor, or anyone else to gain the confidence of someone you are trying to gain information from. Apparently even the entrapment laws have been compromised. And FBI and police agencies are now giving specific community watch “classes” on how to carefully spy on your neighbors, friends, and family members!

We know that recently the slope got slicker and all government employees got memos to report any discussions or attitudes of animosity toward the government and even other strange emotional behavior to their supervisors immediately. Now this isn’t specifically limited to radical Islamist behavior or speech, but it includes and emphasizes all anti-government speech!

There’s even a G sponsored public media push to change everybody into a flock of stool pigeons called “if you see something, say something”. Really? Merely seeing something or saying something stupid doesn’t constitute probable cause to have swat teams flash banging your kids into blindness and deafness for the rest of their lives?

You can’t even have a criminal conspiracy charge unless there is a “furtherance of physical contribution” to any plans. But apparently the authorities somehow now think it is?

Emboldened by their apparent success in abridging free thought and speech by the lack of public or organizational outcry, the regime put their balls to the wall and then actually attempted to make climate change deniers susceptible to some kind of criminal punishment!

While it’s bad enough Hillary now exhibits no circumspection in her campaign battle cry to crush the NRA’s attempt to exercise their right to promote firearms, and sinister stump promises to eliminate certain forms of “bad speech” against others–it’s an easy bet as to which bad speech will be number one on her speech shit list—we now have…

The Scourging of Church Privacy

How about the government now violating your right to practice your faith in the sanctity and security of your own church?!

In a NorthJersey.com news article (check the reference list below), a joint FBI/DHS task force is currently actively enlisting teams of clergy, educators, and health care providers to proactively spy on their constituents.

Not just as an atter of normal citizen responsibility as, for instance, to report to police any obvious acts or threats of potential terrorist criminal activity, but to particularly target those persons not committing any criminal acts or threats or intent, but merely exercising their rights to free speech exhibiting associated anti-government/establishment emotional or mental stress. Which includes a whole lot of us, by the way (which also happens to be setting up the foundation for an entirely different future gun confiscation agenda, as well).

These spy operations will be called SRC (Shared Responsibility Community) Teams. Some aggressive police state communities are also now using something called CER (Community Engagement Round Tables) with confidential training on how to spy on folks and some churches are now using facial recognition surveillance equipment, ostensibly for security but nevertheless linking in to the NSA’s massive data collection base.

There’s even an organization registered as Churchix which provides consulting for churches who wish to get involved.


This amounts to nothing less than establishing local organization based snitch teams consisting of your most trusted associates and mentors disguised as “preventive maintenance teams” to report directly to the FBI/DHS.

Essentially bypassing the 5th and 4th amendment due process requirements and making private protected conversation available to the government without your consent to be used against you for their insidious agendas. And as always, speciously justified under the fraudulent notion of ‘public’ safety and ‘extreme crime prevention’.

Between all that and the already well established automatic voluntary information interrogation of your private info to the NSA by Facebook and other social media venues, this is really the absolute end of your privacy rights, folks!

The politically correct equivocation is that this is not just for Islamists, but also for U.S. based “domestic extremist groups”. Translation: Patriot militia groups, sovereign libertarians, “molon labe” types, and eventually, any anti-government verbal dissent or opposition.

Unholy Bedfellows

It is not widely known or universally published that historically the church (and quite a few other sectarian religious organizations) never had qualms about resorting to bribery, intimidation, and even torture and murder to enforce “the laws and will of God”.

Spying to control the flock was a deeply rooted part of the church’s operation. The Jesuits were always the Church’s equivalent to the CIA. And as bad as all this government spying on the flock is, the government couldn’t hold a novena candle to the church’s proprietary tradition of Confession. The church’s “intelligence” system doesn’t need to spend all that tax money on cloud storage of everything you say, buy, read, and do.

The local parish pastor or local church minister knows much more about everybody than the government. Because the sinful information is willingly confessed to the priests by the flock members in little rooms in the back of the church called confessionals after which the now forgiven sinners gratefully even sometimes donate money to the unholy practice.

Local non Catholic Christian churches garnish the flock’s trust withwitnessing at gatherings after sermons, and then private office counsel services by their ministers for the faithful, often with intimate revealing conversations often taking place that should be protected under client privilege law, but really isn’t under these new Police State rules.

Is this latest privacy intrusion by authorities’ the precursor of a nascent Government-Vatican power elite merger? After all, They both share the same gun control agenda?

They’re both going broke, and if economic doom soothsayers are correct the G will have to begin selling off some of the land out west they stole over the years from the ranchers to China for some cash flow, and the church might have to sell some of that gold and art they traded from the Nazis for helping them get new id’s and set up in South American and elsewhere.

So in true totalitarian ingenuity, it’s only logical and deviously clever for the G to take advantage not only of the liberty and privacy weakness along with the gullibility of organized religion, but also of their highly developed proven control methodology over their flocks.

Why NOT initiate a community Police State program where your own church clergy are working with and for the Government to spy on your personal life? Totalitarianism would work even better as a “religionist police state”. The best of both totalitarian worlds. And this shameless immoral, unethical, and unconstitutional treason on both sides… is what Jesus died for?

The Kiss of “Jude-Ass”

My immediate reaction was “wait just one Holy Cow gall dang minute! Isn’t this direct recruitment of the church as a government intelligence subcontractor a blatant violation of the 1st Amendment Separation Clause? Isn’t setting up any kind of government relationship to further government control over the people determined in some Constitutional case law as a direct assault on the 1st Amendment separation law?”

So many times I’ve said it before but…Where’s ACLU on THIS?! Maybe they’re too busy with the ‘Big Stinky Potty’ debate, Gay marriage, or some such other bullshit nonsense?

And, why is there such a noticeable suspicious absence of concern from the church and Christian leadership on this? Or more importantly, where’s the outrage and marching, and condemnation by the rank and file Christian community on this? What is this strange “church mouse” silence in the holy vestibules of our houses of prayer?

Maybe they are too afraid of losing the Big Daddy G knee bounce of not having to pay church property taxes freebie? Or losing that non-profit corp but big business money making tax break status they get for being a church?

Do they have more fear of the regime, than they have fear of God? Could it be the Lord’s way of teaching us a lesson or a warning to let us know that we should never drink the poisonous potion of Government and Faith based religions working together against the people? Mixing politics and spiritualism can ultimately destroy us all, like it did all throughout history? Which is why the Founder’s created the 1st Amendment.

Is this a sign from God? A manifestation of a foretold prophesy of hell fire and brimstone punishment for trying to making deals with the devil and having sinful dreams of theocratic power lust?

guns and god

Let the Good Old End Times Begin!

Lately I’m finding myself glancing more up at the heavens.

I’m watching for Jesus to gloriously come gliding down from the sky through the chem-trails, with His Malificent, I mean Magnificent winged angels behind him slinging their AR-15’s…Locked and loaded.

But as a refugee from a Seminary and person of the cloth myself, I had a spiritual dream that I better get up off my potato chip ass, and start prepping for his second coming– because now I’m certain that the end is near — by calling my representative and asking him about this.

No, wait, by demanding that he finds out some answers to the Constitutional validity of all this, and then email the ACLU and some others. And then go out and pick up a couple thousand more rounds.

Because like everyone else, maybe Christians are simply too busy caught up with wasting valuable time on their obsessive compulsive anti-LGBT crusade side of the toilet seat holy wars? And, of course, THAT’s exactly what the G likes to see instead of concentrating on more important things in life like the destruction of their faith from within.

And they wonder why overall church interest is in decline these days, especially with young people?

Maybe the Pope should skip the social media twitter twatting for sheep recruiting and get right to the bare essentials and do a Holy Smokin’ twerkin’ rock video with Miley? Call it “The Last Crucifixion”… of our liberties!


This article has been written by Mahatma Muhjesbude for Survivopedia.




2 total views, 2 views today

Rate this article!

[Total: 0    Average: 0/5]

Drafting Women To The Army?

Click here to view the original post.

Women Army BIG_1

Trigger warning: If any liberals happen to stumble in here and read this, I warn you, you will be offended and call me every name in the book. I’m coming against your sacred cows here and you’ll be convinced that I’m a male chauvinist pig and a Neanderthal to boot.

Under President Obama, the US military has change drastically. Originally established to protect our country from foreign enemies, the current liberal administration has been working overtime to change the role of the five branches of the military from war fighting and defense, to becoming a combination social experiment and an official Peace Corps.

Of course, this goes hand-in-hand with Obama’s lack of guts, at least when it comes to dealing with our enemies. He seems to have plenty of moxie when it comes to berating his political enemies and the American public in general.

But when it comes to confronting our enemies, his most common move is to bow down to them. Then he comes back home and brags about the “great victory” he’s had.

But we’re not talking about Obama’s lack of guts today, we’re talking about what he’s doing to the military. Specifically, what he’s doing about making it a social experiment.

It seems that every liberal idea is being pushed on our military forces, at the same time that they are being denied the funds and resources they need to train for and complete their basic mission of protecting the country.

A large part of this has been in forcing the military to give preference to illegal aliens, Muslims and transgenders.

Another group which has gained a huge favorable standing in the military is women. Since the time of World War II, the military has slowly been allowing women a larger and larger role in the military, kicking and screaming in protest all the way. Recently, the last barrier was breached by women’s libbers, in the name of equality. Now, women are allowed to occupy all military positions, including all combat positions.

While that may be the law and it may be military regulation, I’m not convinced that it’s a good idea. There are two basic problems with women in a the military in general and combat units in particular.

The first is the risk of abuse for the women themselves. Placing women in a traditionally all-male environment opens them up to attack. While I can’t and won’t condone rape, men who are trained for aggressiveness, as is necessary for combat operations, may not treat women the way they deserve to be treated.

Video first seen on Greg Hengler.

The other problem is even more fundamental, if that’s possible. That is that by and large women are not as physically strong as men.

In my opinion, while there are exceptions to this, by and large women don’t have the muscle mass that men do, not even women who are weight lifters.

This affects their ability to complete their role in combat positions. As those positions were created with men in mind, everything about them, from the weight of the backpacks soldiers carry to the size of the weapons they use, is based on male anatomy.

It will take years before the need for equipment designed for women is fully realized, that equipment is developed and it is issued to those who need it.

In the mean time, many physical standards have been lowered to allow women to compete in what has previously been an all-male world. I don’t have the specifics, and they vary by branch of service and military occupational specialty (MOS), but in many cases, the standards by which women are graded is different than those for their male counterparts. Since they have less physical strength, they aren’t being expected to do as much.

While that may sound “fair” and “non-discriminatory” to those on the left, it’s actually giving favoritism to women. But then, most of the measures the left undertakes to make things “fair” actually give preferential treatment to whichever group they say is being discriminated against.

In tests run by the military, units which contain women have failed to perform at the same levels as those which are all-male. What this means is that in the name of being “fair” to women in the military and allowing them into the combat arms, the military is putting every man who serves with those women, as well as the women themselves, at greater risk.

How is that fair?

As per usual in the liberal world, “fair” means taking something away from one person, to give it to another. But in this case, the something that they are taking away could very well be someone’s life. That will never be admitted and it will never be stated in any official report, but if a combat unit is less effective with women in it, then it only stands to reason that said unit will see a greater number of casualties.

What’s Next?

But now, the insanity is going a step further. In a recent vote on an amendment to the Defense Policy Bill, a House Committee narrowly passed a measure to require that women register for the draft.

While there are still a number of steps for this bill to pass, before it becomes law, this step is the first critical one along that road. If the bill that it is connected to continues moving forward successfully, as it must, we may well see women registering for the draft in the near future.

Before I go any farther, let me say that the military draft has not been in operation since 1973. Since then, our country’s military ranks have been filled by volunteers. But registration for the draft was restarted under President Carter’s administration.

So requiring women to register for the draft doesn’t mean that they will be drafted anytime in the near future. But if there’s one thing true about the government, it’s that if anything can be turned to bad, it will be. If the draft is expanded to include women, then there will come a day when women are drafted against their free will, just as men have been in the past.

Regardless of what liberals, feminists and all the other activists who are pushing for this say, there are many basic differences between men and women; more so than what plumbing fixtures we use in the bathroom. Amongst these differences is that women aren’t born with the aggressive violent nature that men are.

When women attack, I guess their first weapon of choice is words, not fists, knives or guns. While women will take up arms in the defense of their children, it is against their nature to take up arms for other means. Yet according to the left, there is no difference between men and women. I guess they need to go back and take high school biology over again. They obviously didn’t pass it the first time.

Yes, there are women who can function in the combat arms. I have no doubt of that. Some women have more of the masculine traits than others do. That’s objective reality. But that doesn’t mean that all women can do so. There are men who have trouble functioning in war, what makes anyone think that women will be able to do so?


Women's-Land-Army-1917While there are many jobs in the military which women can perform quite well, that doesn’t mean that they can perform well in combat; and even if some can, that doesn’t mean that all can.

Nor does a peacetime test truly determine how well women will operate in combat.

Once again, some women would function well, but I seriously doubt that the majority of women would. Drafting women into the military to fill the ranks of the infantry could be disastrous.

I can’t imagine my wife or my daughters in uniform, let alone in a combat unit. While all three know how to shoot and my wife even has a concealed carry license, that doesn’t make her a soldier. If she ever had to draw her gun to protect herself, I’m quite sure she’d be terrified. Hopefully the sight of her with the gun in her hand will cause the bad guys to run off, because I’m not sure she would remember to pull the trigger.

But there’s a much deeper problem with women in the combat arms. Historically, men have gone off to war, while women have kept the home fires burning. There’s a reason for that; that’s because women are more naturally geared towards nurturing children than men are. Men go to war, because they have been given that aggressive/violent nature in order to protect their families.

So if women go off to war, who’s going to take care of the children? Even if they put regulations in place, preventing both parents from being shipped off to war, what’s to say that a national emergency won’t force some future president to countermand that regulation?

Should that happen, we might see a future generation of Americans who largely grow up as orphans. Enough studies have been done, which show the importance of both parents to a child’s upbringing, that we can be sure that such an event would be devastating to the country at large. Even if we were to win such a war, we would lose so much, as to quite possibly negate the effect of that win.


This article has been written by Bill White for Survivopedia.





5 total views, 5 views today

Rate this article!

[Total: 0    Average: 0/5]

Just Whose Bathroom Is It?

Click here to view the original post.


With all that’s going on in the world today, you’d think that liberals could find something important to scream about. The world is full of real problems; some of which are actually liberal issues.

But the vast majority of what we hear coming out of the political left today is screaming over made-up issues. They manufacture a story, based on some imagined slight and then use it to try and change the world. Isn’t that what #BlackLIvesMatter is? Or how about the $15 minimum wage?

While I’m sure there must be some liberal issues that have at least some basis in reality, they are becoming more and more uncommon. I can see where a concern about the poor is a real social issue, even if the liberal solution to that problem doesn’t work.

I can even understand being concerned about the environment, even though I can’t see it destroying people’s lives and livelihood, without having a practical replacement for coal. Solar isn’t a replacement; the technology hasn’t developed to a point where it is sustainable.

But more and more, what I’m seeing come out of the liberal left isn’t a real concern about real issues, but a desire to scream about fancied slights and the hurt feelings of a small number of people. Liberalism has become, to a large part, about forcing the will of the minority upon the majority of the population.

Another way of putting that is that liberals are all about the tail wagging the dog. But this dog is a freak; it has too many tails. And it seems that the smaller a particular group of people is, the bigger the tail and the harder it wags.

Take the recent blowup over transgender rights, for example. This is a very small group of people, best estimated at being less than 0.3% of our total population. Yet, since Bruce Jenner first came out and said, “Call me Cait” they’ve been ruling the roost, as far as liberal issues are concerned.

Let me clarify what a transgender is, before we go any farther. A person who is considered transgender is one who identifies as the opposite sex. That doesn’t necessarily mean that they have had a sex change operation, just that they identify themselves that way. Only about 800 to 1,000 of transgenders actually have sex change operations a year. That means in the last 50 years, since the surgery has become generally available, only about 5% of the transgender community has physically changed their sex.

The rest of them may have undertaken hormone therapy, allowing biological males to grow breasts and biological females to become more masculine in their appearance, or simply be cross-dressers. The same term is used for one who is a cross-dresser as one who has been surgically altered to become to all appearances the opposite sex.

So, many transsexuals still have the genitals they were born with, and so is Bruce Jenner even he announced to the world that he was now a woman. Many more are in the same situation, living life as a woman, while still biologically being a man.

The Sticky Situation

This creates a sticky situation for the individual and society in general and has become the fuel for the latest liberal blowup.

What are they blowing up about? About allowing these individuals into the opposite sex’s bathrooms. According to the left, one should be able to choose their bathroom and locker room simply based upon how they feel on any one day. But since these people are confused about who they are anyway, this could actually lead to them changing back and forth from day to day.

But the big issue is what this liberal hypocrisy is doing to the rest of the country. According to the liberal narrative, failing to allow men who identify as women into women’s bathrooms is discrimination against them.

Apparently, according to liberal “standards” it is discriminatory because they are a minority, nothing more. It doesn’t matter if what they want makes sense or not, the fact that they are a minority, means that this particular tail has a right to wag the national dog.

Video first seen on Fox Business

That means forgetting about the rights and safety of women and girls, half our population. It means ignoring the plight of the 25% or more of women and girls who have been sexually abused sometime in their life. It means putting them at risk of more abuse, simply to satisfy the desires, not needs, of a small percentage of people.

To think that these people’s rights trump half the population’s rights is absurd. Yet that is the stand the left is taking. Worse, their supposed solution to the problem opens the door to all sorts of abuse.

What’s to keep men who merely want to be peeping toms from using this giant loophole that the left has created, to go into girl’s bathrooms and locker rooms?

But even if the left was somehow able to create a situation where only “true” transgenders would be able to access the women’s restroom, that still wouldn’t protect women. As I mentioned earlier, 95% of them still have male genitals, and not all of them are homosexual. So, even though these people identify as women, they may very well still want to have sex with women, rather than fulfilling the role of women in the sexual union. So that means that women are even at risk from transsexuals.

Let me take that a step further. The sight of a naked man can be shocking to a women who has been sexually abused. So, while women’s bathrooms have semi-private stalls, where women can’t see each other without really trying, the common area is open for all. How would it affect a young rape victim to come out of a bathroom stall and encounter a naked or semi-naked transgender?

Or what about a locker room? When this issue first blew up, it was about teen transgenders wanting to use the girls locker rooms and showers in high schools. Those are common, shared showers. What is going to protect the girls in there from the potential trauma of seeing the transgenders naked?

The left has opened the door for endless abuse. Yet perhaps they don’t see it that way. After all, the women’s lib movement has been trying to convince women for decades that sexual promiscuity is the way to go.

Their narrative has been that women should experience a wide range of sexual partners and enjoy themselves. They are totally ignoring the fact that women react differently to sexual relations than men do, and are trying to turn women into men, emotionally speaking.

Of course, none of this would be an issue if the left were willing to recognize reality, rather than trying to see everything through their ideology. The very idea that there are more than two sexes is absurd. Yet this is an absurdity that the left is claiming as true.

Today, liberals claim there are at least six sexes, even though biologically there are only two.

The thing is, these “other sexes” have always existed, but throughout history they have been seen as aberrations. Anyone who identified as being of the opposite sex of being sexually attracted to their own gender was considered strange; to have problems, even to being mentally unbalanced. Yet suddenly they are considered the norm and we, the normal people are considered to be the aberrations.

I guess from a “progressive” viewpoint, which means progress into moral decay, that makes sense. But the truth of the matter is that there are only two biological sexes. From where I stand, anyone who does not self-identify with their body has a problem. That’s hugely different than saying that society has a problem for not accepting them as they are.

Of course, this is just one more example of liberal hypocrisy, stating that we should accept these people as they are, while refusing to accept the majority of the population as they are. If they were truly after equality and respect for all people, they wouldn’t constantly insult those of us who simply state that we don’t agree with them. But no, to the liberal mind, disagreement with their “politically correct” viewpoint is hate and we must be castigated as “haters.”

What Should We Do?

There is a simple solution to this bathroom problem, one that was proposed by the very high school where this issue all became so public. That’s to give these people their own bathroom.

But somehow, the left calls that discrimination. I guess that’s just more of their Orwellian doublespeak, as it’s actually giving them special treatment. By definition, that’s the opposite of discrimination.

So the left will continue to complain. Bruce Springsteen and others can cancel their concerts, businesses can choose not to do business with states which don’t support the right of transgenders to sexually abuse real women and the media can continue to vilify those who oppose the liberal agenda.

But when all is said and done, men are men and women are women, and if you’re unsure which one someone is, all you have to do is make them drop their pants.

As for me, I will protect my wife and daughters. If that means that I stand guard at the bathroom door, when they have to use public facilities, so be it. I won’t go in the bathroom, as some suggest, but I won’t let anyone in, who I think is a man.

If others don’t like it, that’s too bad. Protecting my wife and daughters trumps their feelings any day.


This article has been written by Bill White for Survivopedia.





3 total views, 3 views today

Rate this article!

[Total: 0    Average: 0/5]

6 Ways To Defeat Facial Recognition Cameras

Click here to view the original post.

Survivopedia facial recognitionWould you like the ability to control when your image is or is not captured by facial recognition software?

Many Americans feel abuse of this technology routinely violates either the God-given or constitutional rights of US citizens.

Facial recognition software enables the image of a subject to be identified by assigning values for the relative proportions of aspects of the subject’s face, and then comparing to databases of values for the faces of individuals whose identity is known, such as databases of passports, military ID’s, driver’s licenses, law enforcement databases, year books, school records and so on.

Newer technologies employ three-dimensional information about the shape of a face and skin texture analysis. This information can be misused to violate rights such as freedom of assembly, freedom of movement and, some believe, can constitute unlawful search and seizure or other rights violations.

Rights and property predate law. Law was created in order to protect rights and property, but is now all too often used to legally plunder them.

Professor Alessandro Acquisti conducted a series of experiments at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) which identified strangers, identified their personal information and, in some cases, even social security numbers and credit reports. The experiments were both on-line and off-line and used only photos, social media and resources available to end users.

He demonstrated the ability at the BlackHat security conference in Las Vegas … five years ago in 2011!

Think this technology is only available to the government and highly paid private investigators? Unfortunately, it’s attainable by pretty much anyone who knows how to read and has the will and a smartphone. CMU even developed an app that overlays personal information on an image of the person’s face.

I don’t think the fact that facial recognition software and social media increase privacy risks is a new idea to most people, but I think that the seriousness of their personal exposure often is. People tell me all the time that they don’t like to think about privacy, and global surveys bear out the fact that people tend to ignore known cybersecurity risks the world over.

Does your own normalcy bias extend to social media?

Is privacy a factor when you choose smartphone apps?

Do you manage your on-line data footprint?

How easy would it be to identify you using facial recognition?

I’m not talking about the government, police or tech nerds wearing products like Google Glass here. I’m talking about anybody with the will and a smartphone being able to not only identify you, but access your personal or sensitive information.

I’m sure most of you do not lay awake nights worrying about whether it is possible to identify you through facial recognition, but could you successfully avoid facial recognition if you determined you had a need to do so?

Many preppers find it useful to consider “what if” scenarios involving grid-down, WROL (Without Rule of Law) scenarios in the theoretical vacuum of a technology-free world. Placing theoretical boundaries on survival scenarios is fine for recreational daydreaming, but less effective as an aid to serious preparation. With the sheer number of cameras in circulation, some will likely still be working in the majority of scenarios.

A reversible hat, two or more hats of different colors and designs may enable you to quickly change your appearance enough to escape detection by someone with a verbal description of you.

Hats, long-sleeved shirts, hoodies, reversible jackets, sunglasses, umbrellas, newspapers and gloves are all tools that aid in masking physical characteristics, enabling you to stand out less if you have to travel through, as area where you may be perceived as an outsider or wish to remain anonymous, on or off camera.

  1. Camera Finders

Cameras can sometimes be detected and avoided if you see them before they see you, or if you know where they are ahead of time. Then they can be neutralized with something as simple as a disguise, a tilt of the head or placement of an opaque object between you and the camera you wish to avoid.

wegaOne of the easiest ways to detect cameras is to use a camera finder.

Camera finders would be more correctly called reflection or lens finders because they use light reflected off camera lenses to find hidden cameras.

These devices typically have a lens or filter that the operator looks through to sweep an area for cameras while the device projects light, which is reflected back by camera lenses and highlighted when the operator looks through the camera finder’s lens or filter which matches the color of light.

Some devices employ magnified lenses and can aid in the detection of cameras at 6′-30′ distance. Some operate in the NIR range so you don’t have to darken the room in order for the device to be effective.

Alternatively, you could use a wireless camera finder, but they only find wireless cameras that are transmitting. You could use a glint finder, but they are really designed to find a camera with a flash by illuminating the retro-reflective material in the flash element, but they can sometimes aid in finding a lens.

Or you could try a glint finder app. They attempt to employ your smartphone LED as a glint finder, but I yet to see one that I would describe as effective.


  • Compact.
  • Helps you find cameras to up your situational awareness, improve your security and better avoid them.
  • Works on cameras whether they are on or not.
  • A simple version of this tools can be improvised out of materials you probably have laying around the house or could buy at a Walmart if you enjoy the thought of hastening the US economy along its charted course. Not one of your many skills? Pull up an Instructable or “How To” article on-line.


  • Won’t find a camera if it is hidden behind a reflective surface like a one-way mirror, so you should inspect any reflective surfaces to make sure they are one-way and don’t have any pinholes.
  • Only identifies cameras as opposed to “tricking” facial recognition software.
  • The process of sweeping for cameras will seem strange under most circumstances if done in public.
  • Today, cameras have lenses, but innovators are working hard on lens-less camera designs that would not be able to be detected by this technology.
  • Quality varies.
  1. Clothing and Accessories with NIR LEDs

These products use bright NIR LEDs to overload the light sensors on a digital cameras resulting in unusable images.

According to Kit Eaton at FastCompany, if you wear clothing or accessories that protect your privacy, you are “cartoonishly paranoid.” But manufacturers do not seem to be bothered by liberal media naysayers and are making clothing and accessories with features like NIR LEDs to defeat surveillance and facial recognition cameras.

gogglesThe first product I saw was a pair of eyeglasses designed by professors Isao Echizen and Seiichi Gohshi of Kogakuin University. They sported an array of 11 NIR LEDs in front of the face to blind digital cameras. Now there are baseball caps, hoods and even a burqa.


  • Some are not overtly visible to the naked eye.
  • Can be integrated into clothing and accessories.
  • Can be a DIY project.


  • Very obvious on camera that you are using the technology.
  • It hides your face as opposed to “tricking” the camera that you are someone else.
  • Writers might call you names.
  1. Retro-reflective Clothing and Accessories

Wearing clothing that has even a couple of inches of surface area that is retro-reflective makes it trivially easy for anyone with a flashlight or night vision with an IR illuminator to find you in the dark, but it can also blind cameras in much the same way that NIR LEDs do.

androidJust make sure the material is near your face. Retro-reflective eyeglass frames and hoodies with retro-reflective trim are two effective options.

slidehoodieCertain materials like BlackMagic by 3M do not reflect visible light, but do reflect NIR light.


  • Not necessarily overtly visible to the naked eye.
  • Good for night signaling in an emergency.
  • Good for roadside safety.


  • Users stand out to searchlights at night.
  • Very obvious on camera that you are using the technology.
  • It hides your face as opposed to “tricking” the camera that you are someone else.
  1. URME Prosthetic Mask

This high quality prosthetic mask of the face of privacy activist Leo Selvaggio is not your typical Halloween mask.

The name is pronounced “U-R-Me” and I believe the mask started on Indiegogo and may still be available on ThatsMyFace.com. The mask fools Facebook’s facial recognition software and are sold at cost because Selvaggio believes that everyone has the right to privacy.

selvaggioThis mask is so high quality that the chances of someone calling you on it on the street are pretty slim as long as nothing looks out of place with the rest of your appearance and you don’t have to speak to them. But a facial recognition camera is not going to notice that your lips are not moving.


  • Convenient.
  • Quick change.
  • High quality.


  • Expensive at $400.
  • “Why are you wearing a mask?”
  • If someone stops you, and you speak, they will probably notice that your lips aren’t moving.
  • Some software may eventually filter out this “face” unless masks of many more faces are made.
  1. Hair & Makeup

By styling hair and wearing makeup in certain patterns, facial recognition can be fooled.

makeupAdam Harvey devoted his master’s thesis to fooling facial recognition and arrived at the makeup patterns in the image. He says that they work by throwing off the symmetry that the software recognizes as a human face.

If you are going to apply camouflage makeup, why not incorporate a pattern that will fool facial recognition cameras?


  • Inexpensive.
  • Probably not going to motivate someone to call the police and report you.
  • DIY.


  • May not work 100% of the time.
  • “Why are you dressed like that?“
  • Not quick or convenient to change your appearance.
  1. Balaclava, Sunglasses & Hat

I always have one or more hats, some quality sunglasses and a balaclava in my EDC bag and use this method to protect my identity in photos I post to social media or when editors, radio shows or Expo’s want a head shot.

cacheOne of my favorites is a no-drip, fire and flash-resistant flesh tone balaclava of DryMax material, but I have others I wear in cold weather or for specific purposes. I like the Shemaughlava by 782 Gear too and always have a large 100% cotton handkerchief or shemagh handy.

The same tools can help protect you from exposure, protect your eyes or can help protect your identity if you have to do something you’re not proud of in a world full of cameras.

When things go sideways and the lights go out, I find comfort in reaching for low tech tools to solve the problems at hand and hats and balaclavas are just that.

If you use this method, be sure to cover as much of your face as possible. Object recognition does not use the covered portions of your face and some software can identify faces with as little as 30%-50% of the face unobstructed.


  • Easy to explain why you carry it.
  • Low tech.
  • Multi-use.
  • Inexpensive.
  • Practical.


  • Hides you as opposed to “tricking” the camera.
  • Will not work with thermal imaging unless you use materials designed to do so such as multi-spectral camouflage.
Whether facial recognition is of the high-tech or low-tech variety, some survivors will be identified with the aid of camera technology, hunted down, tried and punished for crimes…not necessarily in that order, and even if the “crime” was simply being of the wrong political affiliation, race, ethnicity or nationality. This happened in and after the Balkans wars in the 1990’s. So prepare and beware!


This article has been written by Cache Valley Prepper for Survivopedia.

1 total views, 1 views today

Rate this article!

[Total: 0    Average: 0/5]

What Is The Progressive-Liberal Left Really Up To?

Click here to view the original post.

progressive liberals

Maybe it’s just me, but I’ve become more and more suspicious of liberals, as time goes on.

I don’t really think I’m cynical, but I see little amongst the Democrat party that I can trust. It seems that they’ve turned their back on every American value I ever knew of, twisting them into something unrecognizable.

What’s funny about this, is that they talk about upholding American values. But the values that they talk about aren’t the ones that this country was founded upon.

This was a very conservative country in the beginning, formed mostly by Christians, who supported Biblical values and the Judeo-Christian ethic. Yet according to the left, the values this country was founded upon are socialist ones.

Of course, a large part of this is the fact that what they are calling socialism really isn’t socialism. They seem to think that everything that benefits the common man is automatically socialism; yet some of those things were established by the greatest capitalists this country has ever known.

True socialism, the kind where the government owns everything and distributes to all equally (except the elite) is something that seems to be hidden from even them.

Actually, both Jamestown and Plymouth experimented with socialism, holding all supplies in common and allowing each to take as they needed. In both cases, those experiments failed miserably. In fact, in both cases, the respective communities all but starved to death, before they abandoned their socialist experiments, replacing them with individual ownership and people’s earnings (or their harvest) being determined by their own hard work.

Once those changes were made, both communities prospered. Such was the birth of our “capitalistic” society, something actually totally new in the Earth. While not yet called capitalism, this was the beginning of what eventually became known as capitalism.

Considering that perfect socialism was a failure, both in Christian and secular communities, it’s amazing that the left wants to go back there. But then, progressive liberals aren’t all that keen on history, preferring to rewrite it to match their ideology, rather than learn its lessons. So, as they say, those who don’t learn the mistakes of history are destined to repeat them.

Supposedly, the reason why the left is so interested in the poor, is pure altruism. But if that’s true, why do liberals give so little out of their own pockets to help those poor?


Study after study has proven that conservatives give more to non-profit organizations than liberals do. While some of those non-profit organizations are churches, they still do more to help the poor. Besides, the vast majority of liberal giving is to activist organizations, not to those that actually do something to make things better.

Basically, the left’s apparent goal in altruism is to take away what the conservatives earn and give it to others. While this causes some problems for the wealthy on the left having to pay higher taxes, those liberals have no problem hiring lawyers to help them cheat on their taxes. That’s apparently okay; it’s only when a conservative does that, that it’s wrong.

But I have to ask, with liberals giving so little out of their own pockets to help the poor, what are they really after? I can’t believe that most liberals are really all that concerned about the poor. If they were, then they’d do something themselves to help, not scream and holler that “someone” should.

Of course, many of those loud voices on the left are people who are hoping to receive some benefit personally form the government’s largess of tax dollars. I know quite a few of these. They complain how unfair things are all the time, and how the government should give them more.

Apparently, according to them, the government has an unlimited supply of money to spend on “entitlement programs.” Besides, if they don’t then all that Washington has to do is tax the wealthy and businesses more; after all, they have more than “their fair share.”

But then there are the wealthy liberals. Theoretically, at least, they aren’t going to gain anything by the government giving to the poor. Oh, I suppose that it will help them with their feeling of superiority, knowing that their complaining had something to do with someone else getting some help. But that’s nowhere near the good feeling they’d get from actually helping that poor person themselves.

Actually, I think the answer to this question is rather obvious. We find it well written in the same history that the liberals hate to read. Simply put, every government or every political party in at least the last hundred years, who showed obvious concern for the poor, like the Democrats pretend to, does so to gain their vote; nothing more.

But look at the types of governments and political leaders who have publicly proclaimed their support of the poor. You’ll find such winners as the NAZI party of Germany, the Soviet party of Russia, Fidel Castro, Chairman Mao, and a host of other mass murderers. In other words, you’ll find the worst of the worst. These are the people that the Democrat party is affiliating themselves with.

If you think about it, showing concern for the poor and using tax dollars to help them is a very cheap way to buy votes. While it costs the taxpayer a lot, the person getting the votes doesn’t have to pay any more than for advertising. So, even though they didn’t give a single dollar out of their pocket to help the poor, they convince the poor that they are concerned about them. The poor, being who they are, naturally vote for these politicians.

Why is that important? Because historically there have always been more poor people than rich people. That means that in a democracy, the poor can outvote the rich. That may be why the Democrats are so big on calling our country a democracy, even though it isn’t. It’s a constitutional republic.

So it’s all a power game; one that the current crop of socialists, who call themselves Democrats or progressive-liberals play well.

But Why?

Other than just gaining power for power’s sake, what are they really up to?

The power alone is enough, but that’s not all there is. Democrats use power to control people’s lives; yours and mine, anyone’s lives they can. They push for the passage of laws and regulations that slowly take our freedom away, enslaving us to a system of government that has become too big, too top heavy and too burdensome for the people of these United States.

But that’s not all. These socialists, these so-called Democrats, are really after a bigger fish. It seems that they are all part of a global scheme to bring about a one-world government. Why is that important? Because it gives the “elite” control over everything. It allows them to put everyone else down and put themselves up.

You know, there are some humorous aspects to this. First of all, the very people who are trying to distance themselves from the masses and push the masses down, are the same who are constantly complaining about “inequality.” But we’re not hearing them right. We’re thinking that they’re talking about inequality in our national economy, but they’re not. They’re talking about inequality on a global scale. They won’t be happy until they bring the United States and Europe down to the level of the third-world countries.

Obama actually stated this as a goal when he was running for office. He kept talking about inequality and the need to take from the 1 percent to give to the 99 percent. But Obama is a globalist. According to his definition, pretty much all of America is part of the 1 percent. He wants to bring us all down; all of us, that is, except the elite.

There is no more selfish and self-centered viewpoint in this world, than the socialism declared by these wealthy liberals. They want socialism for everyone else, but not for themselves. Those Hollywood actors and actresses who are constantly talking about how unfair the current system is, aren’t giving up their mansions and multi-million dollar movie contracts to make things more fair. No, they’re talking about you and I giving up things, while they keep what they have.

The same goes for liberal politicians. Most of them arrived in Washington flat broke from their campaigns. But if you look at their financial statements now, they’re millionaires. There are more Democrat millionaires in Congress than Republican ones, yet those same liberals didn’t arrive in Congress wealthy. Nor does their Congressional salary give them the ability to amass millions.

Talk about hypocrisy. I don’t care if you’re talking about Hollywood celebrities, recording artists, business owners or politicians. They’re all the same. They’re all saying the same thing; and they’re all doing the same thing too; making themselves rich, while trying to find ways to steal from the middle class.

Socialism has always been a failure and it always will be. Until there are perfect people, socialism can’t work. But it’s a great tool for the elite to use, so that they can control the masses.

That’s what it’s all about. These people want power and they want it for power’s sake. They are so egoistic that they are convinced that they can run our lives better for us, than we can ourselves. But of course, they want to run our lives for their benefits, not our own.

gun control_620x110

This article has been written by Bill White for Survivopedia.





2 total views, 2 views today

Rate this article!

[Total: 0    Average: 0/5]

Starvation by Regulation: Farming Bans And Clever Work-Arounds

Click here to view the original post.

SVP farming ban

It used to be your right to openly grow a garden or have livestock in your yard if you so desired, but the laws are now so strict that, for many of us, growing our own food when living an urban life is nearly impossible.

The government has slowly made it illegal to be self-sufficient all in the name of public and personal health and safety.

In fact, if things were to go south today, many of us wouldn’t be able to feed ourselves with fresh food because the laws today forbid it. However, as any experienced prepper will tell you, there are work-arounds if you’re willing to look for them. 

Read this article to find out more about a few anti-gardening and farming laws and how to get around them.

Watering Your Plants

Again, “for the good of the community”, cities often limit the use of water for gardening or watering your lawn, especially in summer, and this is due to limited water supplies. Some people are fortunate enough to have an old well on their property that allows them to circumvent the restriction but for most people, defying the ordinance means facing a fine if caught. This requirement is hard to face when trying to grow your own food.


Use grey water, or catch rain water if you are allowed to. Grey water is water that you use in your house that doesn’t contain any type of bodily waste or hazardous material. The two easiest ways to use this grey water on a small scale are to save your warm-up water and recycle your wash water.

We waste literally hundreds of gallons of water per year waiting for it to get hot for showers or washing dishes. That water is perfectly clean and running it down the drain is part of the reason the restrictions are in place to begin with. Catch it in buckets and use it to water your garden. Washing machine water can be re-routed and used to water trees and larger plants, too. There are some rules that you need to follow to use this water safely, though.

Rain water can easily be caught in barrels, then used to water plants, if rainwater usage is legal in your state. Don’t let it sit for too long though, because it can grow stagnant and attract unwanted bugs such as mosquitoes.

Yard Regulations

gardenMost cities have regulations about how you can keep your yard.

Gone are the days of you being the king (or queen) of your castle; you have to keep your yard looking a certain way so that it maintains “curb appeal”.

In other words, it doesn’t matter if you own the place, you can’t grow squash if your city thinks it’s ugly.

Homeowner’s Associations are even worse; they have to follow city laws but can also make stricter regulations that can quite literally get you evicted from your own house if you don’t follow them.

Of course, this is partially your own fault if you bought the property after these rules were in place, but communities often come under the rule of homeowner’s associations after people are already living there.

In this case, you’re going to have to be smarter than they are. Fortunately, that usually won’t be too hard.


The easiest ways to get around these laws are to grow privacy hedges or put up a privacy fence, at least in the back yard.

You need to be careful here, because many cities require that you provide open access to water mains; thus your front yard can’t be fenced in.

Another good work-around is to use raised beds or vertical gardens; they’re attractive and you can plant edible ornamentals in them to give them even more curbside appeal.

Compost Piles

Now, I understand that compost piles can be a bit visually off-putting, but then again, so can your chubby neighbor while he’s mowing his lawn with no shirt on. Unfortunately, there’s no law against that, though there probably should be. There are often laws against composting, though.

One of the primary reasons composting is banned in many places is because of the odor. Properly tended, a compost pile shouldn’t smell like anything other than dirt unless you’re composting manure in it. If your compost pile smells, it’s likely not heating up enough for the organic material to break down. It could also be that you’re adding the wrong things to your pile.

Even if it’s legal, many towns have regulations about the size of compost piles or regulations that require a certain distance between your compost pile and your neighbor’s house or property line. That makes it difficult for many “townies” to have one due to the size of their lot. In numerous communities, outdoor compost piles are illegal, no matter how small it is or where you put it.


You can, of course, go before city or community councils and make a movement to fight the regulation, and you may win. You also have the option to have a smaller compost bin inside, often under your sink. This is a great option to cultivate fertilizer for your flower beds or raised gardens. It also gives you experience on a small scale so that if SHTF, you’ll already know your stuff.

Livestock Laws

Keeping livestock, even something as small as chickens, is often prohibited within city limits. There’s not really a good work-around for this other than to connect with local farms that may be willing to let you keep some animals on their land for the cost of feed. Co-ops are also an option as they offer the opportunity to get a variety of vegetables, and often meats, on a regular basis.

You probably won’t be able to raise a calf in your back yard, but if you really want chickens, you may be able to get away with a few using a privacy fence. You’ll have to keep the coops extremely clean so that they don’t smell and offend the neighbors to the point that they complain to authorities.

Urban Farming Laws

This is kind of a catch-all description of the way that government restricts farming and gardening. Most cities, and counties, are zoned in a manner that restricts what can happen on particular parcels of land in specific areas.

The entire city (or county) is divided into zones, including farming, commercial, and residential zones. Depending upon your zone, you’re restricted to, and from certain activities. For example, in a residential zone, you likely won’t be allowed to operate a business.

These zoning laws seriously affect people who want to farm. Fortunately, many cities are now revising these laws and relaxing what types of gardening and farming activities are allowed, but there’s still a long way, and thousands of cities to go before you’re allowed to openly garden or farm in a zone that doesn’t permit it.

Most of the work-arounds described above apply to this problem, but you may still be subject to fines and could be ordered to destroy your gardens or get rid of your animals. The most pro-active thing that you can do is to start a movement toward acceptance of urban gardening in your community. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.


The fact is, gardening and prepping is becoming much more main-stream than it was even 5 years ago. Some people garden as a means of knowing exactly what they’re putting in their bodies and others, like us, have gardens that produce food to feed us now, and in case of emergency.

Because of this shift from covert to main-steam, urban farming laws are changing and you have the ability to help facilitate that change in your area. This doesn’t mean that you have to let your neighbors know about the cellar or the bunker that you have hidden out back, but you can give things a nudge in the right direction by gathering with like-minded people to get the laws changed.

If that fails, continue as you’ve been doing and just be smart enough to find the loopholes and work-arounds that are there if you’re determined enough to find them. There’s no government agency planning to rescue you in the middle of chaos or giving you and your family the food that you need to survive. The only thing they really plan about you is starvation by regulation.


This article has been written by Theresa Crouse for Survivopedia.


1 total views, 1 views today

Rate this article!

[Total: 0    Average: 0/5]

Would Taxes Survive a SHTF Event?

Click here to view the original post.

shtf taxes

As I look at the various disaster scenarios that people are preparing for, I see some common themes come forth. One of the most common I see is that the federal government will disappear in any major, nationwide catastrophe.

It almost seems to be wishful thinking, as if people are hoping that a serious enough disaster will occur so that we have to go back to the Constitution and start over, building a new government to go with our reborn nation.

While there is a certain attractiveness in the idea of getting rid of our bloated federal government and its myriad regulations, I don’t have a whole lot of hope in that happening. In fact, I’d have to say that I’ve got some bad news in that regard. The government would go on, regardless of what happens to the rest of us.

Governments are parasites and like any other parasite, they’ll allow their host to die, while ensuring that they themselves survive. Our government is so firmly entrenched, with well over two million federal government employees on the public payroll, there is little chance that they will all just go away, let alone the almost 22 million total government employees in our country, when you take into consideration, local, state and county employees too.

The fact of the matter is, we need our government, even though we may not need everything it does. The basic government functions are critical to us surviving as a nation and provide services that we all need to have, in order to live and work together. Granted, there are many government organizations which do nothing more than create more and more regulations, destroying businesses and making life difficult for us all, but they aren’t the whole government. There are actual useful functions that the government fulfills.

Even in the recent crashes of national economies, we haven’t seen any governments close their doors. Greece, Cyprus and Argentina governments all continued working, even while large portions of their populations were out of work, losing their homes and having trouble putting food on the table.

What to Expect?

With the world’s governments becoming more and more liberal, and being driven to become more liberal by organizations like the Bilderberg Group, we can expect the prevailing liberal attitude that governments create jobs, not businesses to continue. Even though there is no proof to back up that claim, the idea of large central governments is central to the progressive liberal ideology and the one-world government they want to create.

This means that any future calamities, especially financial collapses of countries monetary systems, may lead to a number of austerity measures levied upon the population of those countries, but it won’t lead to any reduction of government. If anything, it will lead to an increase in government spending, which means an increase in taxes.

There are only three ways in which governments can receive money to operate on.

  • The first and most common is taxes. From time immemorial, kings and princes levied taxes on their peasants, so that they could build their castles and fight their wars. Modern governments have merely made their taxing of the common folk, who they still look at as peasants, more sophisticated and the waste of that tax money more prolific.
  • The second way that governments receive money is to borrow it. In a very real sense, the world is owned by a handful of bankers, chief amongst which is the Rothschild family, the world’s only trillionairs. These bankers own the majority of the world’s Federal Reserve banks, producing money which they loan to governments and individuals. They own the world in that everyone ultimately borrows from them, having to pay that money back with interest.
  • Finally, governments can receive money by creating it out of thin air. That’s actually the whole purpose of the Federal Reserve. By eliminating the gold and/or silver standard for money and replacing it with a Federal Reserve, governments give themselves the ability to create money from nothing. This is a large part of how our government has made up for the budgetary shortfall, as well as prop up the stock market, preventing it from crashing.

Quantitative easing, the technical term for creating money out of thin air, is actually a rather elaborate means of stealing from the people. Every time the government releases more money into the economy, it reduces the value of all existing money a minuscule amount. But the cumulative effect of that is a reduction of the money’s value to the point that in 100 years (1912 to 2012) the value of the dollar was reduced 98%.

So with these three methods as being the only ways that our government can receive revenue, there’s absolutely no reason to believe that they will stop collecting taxes, when and if a SHTF event were to happen. In fact, even a TEOTWAWKI event would be unable to stop the collection of taxes.

That’s not to say that it will always be easy for the government to collect those taxes, but if there is one place where governments are willing to do the hard things, it’s in collecting taxes. They will find a way.

It’s clear from the examples of recent history, that the government would continue to collect taxes through a financial collapse. In fact, it’s clear that taxes would skyrocket in such a case, as well as the government literally stealing money out of people’s bank accounts. Other governments have done it and there’s really no reason to think that our government is any more honest than any of them are.

The one situation which could cause some serious problems for the government, as far as tax collection is concerned, would be the loss of the electrical grid. Actually, loss of the electric grid by an EMP would be even worse. The vast majority of our nation’s wealth, including personal wealth, doesn’t exist in printed money or even gold bars; it only exists on a computer’s memory.

Unless the banking system and the government have a much better backup system than I believe they do, with computers and records that are immune to an EMP, such an event would destroy the vast majority of the nation’s wealth. The only money which would still exist is that which is printed, a small fraction of our total cumulative national wealth.

It would be difficult to collect taxes in such a case, as the records needed for collecting them would disappear, along with everything else. But that’s not to say that the government would forego collecting taxes. They’d collect them, even if it meant sending IRS agents door-to-door collecting whatever they could.

If anything, taxes would become more draconian under such a system than they are now. IRS agents would insist on payment in cash and if the people didn’t have cash, they would take whatever they had, selling it for cash. People could easily lose their homes, their businesses and their very means of survival under such a system; and there would be little to no recourse that they could use to regain what the government takes from them.

So, to answer the question I posed in the title of this article, yes, taxes would survive a SHTF event. Even in cases where not much else would survive, we could count on taxes surviving. As the old saying goes, “There’s two things you can be sure of in this life, death and taxes.”

A few people might manage to escape the attention of the IRS agents in such a case. Specifically, those who managed to escape to a prepared survival retreat would be hidden from the many eyes of the IRS… at least for a while. But you can be sure that even those people would be found eventually and the IRS would seek to extract their pound of flesh, with interest.

new EMP01

This article has been written by Bill White for Survivopedia.

3 total views, 3 views today

Rate this article!

[Total: 0    Average: 0/5]

5 Ways Anti-Gunners Hamper Women’s Rights To Bear Arms

Click here to view the original post.

big women guns

In the brainwashed minds of anti-gunners, women sit around like Sleeping Beauty and only wake up when some charming, rich prince gives them a kiss. But in our real world, women are routinely raped, robbed, murdered, beaten, and tortured because they cannot defend themselves against criminals and terrorists.

To make matters even worse, gun grabbers and gun control advocates want to enforce a poisonous doctrine that will leave women demoralized and worse off than expected if a major social collapse occurs.

Have a look at how gun grabbing advocates routinely use social pressure to bully and intimidate women into believing that self-defense and personal safety are not as important as “the higher civic good”.

Birth Control and Abortion are Touted in Place of Self Defense

It is no secret that anti gunners routinely seek to brainwash women into believing that birth control and abortions will solve all their problems. If a woman using birth control is raped, why should she worry about defending herself since her risk of getting pregnant is lower? And, if “the pill” fails, rape doesn’t really matter because she can just go get an abortion.

In the meantime, any woman that uses birth control or has an abortion becomes controlled by nanny state paid doctors instead of welcoming and responsibly wielding the creative powers that are a woman’s God given right.

To the anti-gunners, a woman is little more than an animal best left to the mercy of criminals, terrorists, and rioters because a woman that can defend herself with a gun is a danger to their socially destructive and demeaning agenda.

Even as I write this, women (and men) are being given misleading and dangerous information about situations that are best handled with a gun. For example, a number of videos recently issued about how to handle a shootout invite people to remain impotent instead admit that the only way to stop a criminal or terrorist with a gun is to shoot them before they have a chance to hurt others.

As every prepper and survivor oriented person knows, if we work as a team and accept each person’s right to self-defense with a gun, we would not have these mass killings.

Core Curriculum Sex Ed Redefines Abuse

Core Curriculum and other “progressive” education programs over the years aim to brainwash young women into thinking they are “liberated” because they can have sex with any male they want. Once a young girl or woman adopts such an irresponsible ideology, it is much less likely she will even realize she has been raped, and therefore she will never even consider that she, and other women need unfettered access to guns.

In fact, these days Core Curriculum sex ed teaches young women that abusive relationships are “ok” because they can “deepen” the emotional bond between the couple. In this paradigm, a young girl that would instinctively say “no”, file criminal charges, take a self-defense class, or get a gun will simply go on in a depressed state instead of actively seek to survive and thrive regardless of what is going on in the world.

On the other hand, it is very obvious that a woman who seeks to own a gun and knows how to use it will never follow, let alone be intimidated by a sexist agenda that is as harmful now as it will be in a social collapse scenario.

Anti-gunners Stack the Deck Against Women

nail polishDid you know anti gunners routinely tell women that if they are attacked, all they have to do is blow a rape whistle and pee on the aggressor as an “act of deterrence”? I kid you not.

In reality, Sleeping Beauty doesn’t have a half hour or more for police or other assistance to arrive because the average crime happens in less than 10 minutes.

Clearly, the anti-gunner’s fairy tale based agenda makes it easier than ever for criminals to succeed, and therefore encourages them to take advantage of any and every opportunity that they can get to harm women.

Needless to say, no matter whether an EMP causes a social collapse, a nuclear strike, or a major financial collapse because of currency manipulation, women without guns will be at a severe disadvantage.

The more laws there are to increase the cost of guns or make it harder to get them, the larger the number of women affected by this problem. Never forget that large numbers of men have owned guns for centuries, however women have a long way to go to catch up.

Anti-Gunners Use Laws to Make Sure Poor Women Wind up Dead Instead of Armed with Guns

Anti-gunners have been known to suggest that women are too weak to have guns. That statement alone can be easily enough debunked by every woman in militaries, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies throughout the world.

Beyond that, historically speaking it is a well-known fact that some of the fiercest and most powerful warriors are women. Aside from being the social pillars of a society, it is also said that no culture or society can be called dead until the women have been conquered.

As self-evident as it may be that women are more than strong enough to carry and use guns effectively and safely, there is another huge, sexist, and completely demoralizing tone implied by this aspect of anti-gunner irrationalism.

Along with bringing us Common Core sex ed, most anti-gunners also believe in Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. Now regardless of whether or not you believe we all came from a pack of monkeys that evolved across time, the Theory of Evolution also maintains that only the fittest have the right and privilege to pass on their genes to the next generation.

From that perspective, there can be no doubt, in my opinion; when an anti-gunner says women are too weak to use guns without permission of the government; gun grabbers are suggesting that women of all color should just drop dead. In this way, the evolution of our species can be carried on only through hand-picked elite women who just happen to be protected around the clock by guns paid for by our tax dollar!

In the meantime, thousands impoverished black and Hispanic women living in Section 8 housing are raped, murdered and robbed because they are not allowed to have guns.

Women are Lied to About the Hidden Power of Guns to Shape Society

Today, many anti-gunners run around saying that guns are the only object we have that is used almost exclusively to take life or injure others.

Consider that when someone is texting while driving, high on drugs, drunk, insane, or whatever, an armed person aware of the situation can shoot out the erratic driver’s automobile tires before they drive that vehicle into a crowd and kill or injure dozens of people.

In a society where motor vehicles are the greatest lethal weapon to us and our planet, it is a true shame that guns are not seen as a viable answer to pedestrian hit and runs and other vehicular murders. In fact, anyone that is a victim of a vehicle pedestrian encounter, and their families should sue anti-gunners because the victims did not have a gun on hand to protect themselves from the vehicle.

Beyond this, anti-gunners don’t want women to know that every single woman regardless of color, sexual orientation or creed can use guns to save lives and alter the path of society in order to slow down or even prevent a complete collapse. This includes situations where people wearing suicide bomb vests murder and injure hundreds of innocent people because no one can get to them and stop them in time.

Given that a bullet travels at around 2,500 feet per second, rest assured that an armed woman can, in fact, stop ISIS and other terrorists in their tracks and in real time.

What Can We Do About This Problem?

According to a number of polls, the Republican party and agenda has been consistently labeled as being against the best interests of women. However, when you stop and look at the facts, you soon come to realize that the worst sexists in our nation are little old white men hiding under the pant suits of little old white women that act as the puppet mouth pieces for anti-gun legislation.

When a poor woman of any color is told that she can only defend herself against rape, murder, mugging, or terrorists by peeing on an attacker, there is something grossly wrong with what we define for and against a woman’s best interest.

In the upcoming election, it is our duty to send anti-gunners the message that it is time to accept a woman’s God given right, and her Constitutional right to self-defense against criminals and terrorists using any gun that she chooses.

Unless you speak up and demand government do your will, there will continue to be exploitation, injustice, and an increased risk that our society will be ripped out from under us. When you allow others to dictate how you choose to defend yourself, and control when, where, and how you come to own or use a gun, then you become prey to everyone that wants to take something from you.

As with the founding fathers of the United States, pro-gun advocates would rather see you defend yourself than wind up dead because laws driven by what appear to be closet sexists aim to prevent you from having the best tools available for self-defense.

In an extension of that belief, when a nation is filled with strong people able to take care of themselves, the entire nation benefits and becomes a true model of the sum being stronger than the whole. Even in a situation where a gun fight is lost by the “good guys”, at least they, and those around them know that they still had a chance to win instead of die begging for their lives from immoral and corrupt people that only want to kill and maim.

Let’s make America better than she was yesterday and make gun rights the ultimate and absolute litmus test for who gets voted into office in November 2016.


This article has been written by Carmela Tyrell for Survivopedia.




8 total views, 7 views today

Rate this article!

[Total: 0    Average: 0/5]

Merrick Garland For Scalia’s Place In Supreme Court?

Click here to view the original post.

big scalia garland

Ever since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court, there’s been a political hot potato being thrown around Washington.

Democrats have seen this as an excellent opportunity to get rid of one of the great defenders of conservatism and replace him with a liberal pick, changing the makeup of the highest court in the land from tilting slightly to the left, to tilting heavily to the right.

Together with the left-leaning media, Obama and liberal lawmakers have been exerting all the pressure they can on the Senate to take quick action on this and fill the vacancy. According to the law, the president nominates new justices, but he cannot appoint them. They must be approved by the senate before they can take office.

This is probably the clearest example of the huge loss that the Democrat party suffered in the 2014 midterm elections.

Before that time, the Democrat-controlled Senate, under Harry Reid’s leadership, was able to do pretty much as they pleased. They even instituted the “nuclear option” reducing the requirement for a supermajority (2/3 of the voting members) for judicial appointments to a simple majority (51%).

But now, Democrats have lost that control, even though they try to pretend that they still have it. Reid and the White House have continually tried to dictate to the Republican-controlled Senate, as well as the lower house of Congress. But this time, they’ve encountered resistance.

Senator Mitch McConnell is the Senate Majority Leader and as such he essentially runs the Senate. He has publicly stated on several occasions that the Senate will not confirm any of Obama’s lame duck Supreme Court nominations, or even have committee hearings, the first part of the process. So far, he’s held his ground and even as late as today has said that he will continue to hold his ground on this issue.

This is not an unprecedented position that McConnell is taking. It’s not uncommon for the Senate to deny confirmation hearings for appointments nominated in the last year of a president’s term in office. But it’s not unheard of to confirm those who have been appointed in the last year either.

The funny thing here (if we can find anything to laugh about in this situation), is that some of the very same Democrat Senators who were standing strong against any appointments during Bush’s last year in office, are the same ones who are coming out the strongest to say that the Republican-controlled Senate has a responsibility to not only have the confirmation hearings promptly, but to out-and-out approve whoever the President nominates.

It’s amazing how the shoe feels differently when it is on the other foot, as well as how short the memory of politicians can be. Clearly, those who are changing their tune are doing so for personal gain, or at least for the benefit of their own political party. They don’t care about what’s right or wrong, or even what’s best for the country. They are married to an ideal and they are pushing for that ideal to go forward, at whatever cost.

Video first seen on CNN.

As far as I’m concerned, Mitch McConnell is correct in waiting until after the elections to hold any confirmation hearings.

But that isn’t without some risk either. Democrats, and their media lapdogs are going to make as much hay out of the delays as they can. Past precedent will be ignored and the Republicans will be made out to be the bad guys… like always.

Of course, there is an easy solution to this; all McConnell has to do is go ahead with the confirmation hearings, putting a safeguard in place. That safeguard is an agreement between the Republicans in the Senate that no nominee from Obama will be acceptable to them.

Were the parties reversed in this situation, that solution would work. The Democrats are well-versed in marching in lockstep, with everyone following the party line. But Republicans don’t do that so well. There are actually many factions within the Republican party, unlike the Democrats. On one hand, that means that Republican lawmakers think for themselves; but on the other hand, it means that it is hard to get agreement, when needed.

A Tough Choice to Make

The candidate that Obama has selected to replace judge Scalia doesn’t make that easy either. Merrick Garland is probably the most conservative liberal that we could ever expect to see Obama nominate. For that matter, we can extend that to Hillary too. As a more centrist liberal, he has received votes from Republicans before, helping to secure the bench he currently holds.

For a liberal, Garland is an almost acceptable choice, from a Republican point of view, and in other years, he would probably receive the nod from the Republican-controlled Senate. But this is the last year of Obama’s presidency, so the Republicans have a legitimate opportunity to wait.

The biggest point against Garland is that he is in favor of gun control. Should he receive approval and join the Supreme Court, we can be sure that liberals will take the opportunity to shower the Supreme Court with gun control cases, trying to pass through the judicial branch, what they couldn’t pass through legislation. While this probably wouldn’t include a full repeal of our Second Amendment rights, it would most likely result in some new limitations.

Considering how hard Obama has tried to limit our rights to own firearms and how he has used every trick his extensive legal team can muster to take that right away from specific groups of people, it seems likely that he would not have nominated Garland, if he had any doubt about the judge’s stance on gun control.

The other big issue that would probably make or break Garland in Obama’s eyes, is his stance on abortion. Surprisingly, nobody seems to know the judge’s opinion on the matter, even after serving as a judge for 19 years. It seems that he never tried a case involving abortion and doesn’t talk about cases that he is not presiding over. Not even his staff knows his stance on abortion.

As for other issues, Garland comes across as a moderate. However, even that may not be all that great, especially when you compare his record to that of Scalia, who was a staunch conservative. So, it’s hard to say which side he would come down on, for any particular issue.

However, there is one other major area where the judge has presided over enough cases to provide clear guidance on his stance; that’s on cases involving environmental regulations. Obama has been using the EPA extensively to push his agenda, in many cases, ignoring existing law or stretching it to the extreme. It appears that Garland would back Obama’s position in this area, rather than giving the subject a fair trial.

All-in-all, this nomination is a definite hot potato. If the Senate doesn’t confirm Garland, Obama will just nominate someone else; probably someone who wouldn’t even be as acceptable as this choice is. However, if they do confirm the nomination, then we end up with a liberal supermajority in the Supreme Court; something that could last for years.

Then there’s the possibility of the Democrats winning in November. It’s quite possible that Obama made the selection he did, knowing that Garland was more palatable to Republicans than just about anyone else he could choose. If they turn him down, they can be sure that anyone Hillary or Bernie will choose, won’t be as moderate, but will in all likely be extremely liberal. Unless they can maintain control of the Senate and win the presidency, Republicans stand a chance of losing, no matter what happens.

Video first seen on David Packman Show.

As I and many others have said before, the country is at a tipping point. We have become more polarized over the years, with the rift between conservatism and liberalism growing wider by the year. A major loss in this election could drive a stake through the heart of conservative politics, effectively putting an end to it.

Oh, it won’t totally go away. There are still too many conservatives in the country to make it go away altogether. But neither party is currently supporting conservative ideals. Should the Democrats win the presidency and take control of the Senate, the conservative voice would become nothing more than just that… a voice.

More than anything, the conservative loss would happen in the Supreme Court. As I’ve previously mentioned, there are several justices on the court, who are old enough that they might die at any time. There’s no way that a Democrat president will nominate a conservative to the court, so unless the Senate is willing to keep rejecting nominee after nominee, leaving seats on the court vacant, they will eventually have to approve someone. Who that someone will be, is the question.

Of course, if the Democrats manage to take control of the Senate back, then they will win. It won’t matter if we have a Republican president or a Democrat one; the Democrats will call the shots. The only true chance that conservatives have is for the Republicans to retain control of both houses of Congress, while voting in a Republican president.

But I’ve got to say, even that isn’t much of a chance for conservatism in our country.

Survivopedia Darkest Days

This article has been written by Bill White for Survivopedia.



3 total views, 3 views today

Rate this article!

[Total: 0    Average: 0/5]

Apple’s Fight To Bar The Back Door

Click here to view the original post.

Apple FBIA few weeks ago, there was an interesting and far-reaching development in the San Bernardino terrorist investigation. The FBI went to Apple and asked them for help in retrieving data from the iPhone of one of the terrorists.

That phone, which is owned by the employer, is suspected of having information about contacts, which might lead the FBI to find other terrorists and stop further terrorist action. Needless to say, it’s obvious why the FBI is interested in having access to that information.

Apparently, Apple has cooperated with the FBI up to a point. They provided information which had been backed up to the cloud. Under current law, they are required to do that, if presented with a court order. So far, so good.

But the FBI wasn’t satisfied with that. They wanted Apple to give them access directly to the phone. It seems that an employee of the San Bernardino County reset the password for the phone’s iCloud account, perhaps following normal procedures for their organization. This meant that the phone could no longer perform backups to the cloud. So, Apple can’t access any new information, because it is not on their cloud.

This is where things started getting sticky. Apple’s products apparently have some pretty robust security features, including some complex encryption software. As part of this, if anyone tries to input the password ten times and fails, it scrubs the memory. With today’s memory, that takes less than a second.

By building this feature in to the phone’s security, Apple has succeeded in eliminating the most common method of breaking a password, known as “brute force”. Without it, the NSA or even the FBI’s own computer techs, could connect the phone to a computer, which would keep trying passwords until it encountered the right one. While a time consuming process, computers streamline it considerably.

So the FBI went back to Apple and asked them to create a special version of their operating system, which would allow them to circumnavigate the existing security in the phone and access the data. Score one point for the FBI as being the bad guys (loud obnoxious buzzer going off).

Apple’s CEO, Tim Cook, had a simple answer for the FBI, “No.” Score one point for Apple as the good guys (clanging bell going off). The two are currently in litigation, as Apple fights to protect the privacy of all their customers. Score another point for Apple (more clanging bells).

So what’s the real issue here? Basically the FBI is asking Apple to create what’s known in the computer world (especially amongst hackers) a back door into their software. Such back doors allow those in the know to access the device’s memory, bypassing all the security measures in place. As such, they are a hacker’s dream, as well as that of government agents.

Apple claims, and I have no reason to disbelieve them, that there is no such back door in the Apple iOS operating system and that they never will create it. I guess that makes 3 points for Apple (I’m getting tired of those bells). Their stated reason? The security of their customers. Even though the FBI claims that they will never use that software again, but only use it for this one case, Apple doesn’t believe them (buzzer time again, the FBI is down 2).

Now, c’mon; does anyone believe the government would never use such a tool again, if they are granted it? I sure don’t. Government is constantly asking for things for the best of reasons and with the best of intentions. But it doesn’t stay that way. Before long, what was meant for good is turned to nefarious uses by our government.

Just look at the Patriot Act and other laws which Congress enacted during Bush’s presidency. While they were written for the specific act of combating terrorism and state so, Obama’s administration is using them against anyone on the right who stands against them. By redefining who is a terrorist, they are taking a law meant for good and turning it to bad. That’s how they are managing to charge the ranchers who protested in Oregon and those who supported Clive Bundy with terrorism.

Since the government has the ability and authority to define who is a terrorist and what criteria make one a terrorist, they can twist laws intended to be used against terrorists, to be used against anyone they want. That puts all of us at risk.

The information on someone’s cell phone is private and should stay that way. For that matter, the information on their tablet, their laptop, their desktop computer and in their e-mail accounts should remain private too. The only information that should be public should be what the individual decides to make public. But the government doesn’t see it that way. They regularly grab our data in the name of national security.

The argument from the left is always that if you don’t have anything to hide, you shouldn’t mind the government looking at your data. Really? Just recently a teacher lost her job, because she had sent some nude pictures of herself to her husband. A student got their hands on those pictures and she was fired. She hadn’t done anything wrong; I’m sure most women would rather have their husbands looking at pictures of them naked, rather than another woman. But because someone else did something wrong with her pictures, she is being punished.

There’s a very good reason why private data should remain private and it doesn’t have anything to do with people breaking the law. That is that our private lives contain things that should not become public knowledge. Regardless of how that student gained access to the teacher’s pictures, he had no right to do so. Those were her private pictures on her private phone. What the student did was technically hacking, even if it was social hacking, rather than software hacking.

The battle that Apple is fighting is one to protect our privacy… what little bit of it we have left. The government has been encroaching on our privacy for years, in an ever-increasing way, and there’s no question that they are continuing to do so. This “request” by the FBI is nothing more than one more battle in the government’s war to strip us of all privacy.

Edward Snowden made it clear that government agents can’t be trusted with our data. Nor can businesses for that matter. Both are constantly data mining, trying to find out about us and building files on us. But while businesses only do this in order to sell us products, the government is doing it in order to control us. Of the two, the government is clearly more dangerous.

I thank Apple for taking a stand for our freedom and for protecting our privacy. They are doing the right thing, even though it is hard and even though it will see them in court, defending themselves and all of us, from government encroachment.

You know, the really crazy thing about all this is that I really doubt that the FBI needs the software that they’re asking for. I’m sure that there are ways that they can get into an iPhone and access the data. The NSA is the world’s foremost encryption and decryption agency in the world. They regularly crack security systems which I imagine are more robust than Apple’s. Maybe they don’t have a back door to use, but they must be able to crack it. Even if they can’t they could always take out the memory chip and read it directly.

Data security is a big issue in our modern day lives. It’s not just important to companies and governments, but to individuals as well. Can you imagine being that teacher and seeing your own pictures being shared around the school? How embarrassing! And then to be treated like a criminal, even though she hadn’t done anything wrong.

Our lives aren’t meant to be that much of an open book. Even those who live in the public eye need privacy. We all need the ability to disappear from public scrutiny and just be ourselves, with people that we can trust. That’s what privacy is for. If the FBI wins their case and forces Apple to produce a back door for their software, then they will steal that privacy from literally millions of people. That’s not right.

It is time for We the People to start standing up to our government and making our voices heard. We are so accustomed to being ignored, that most of us have stopped talking. But that has to change. Our government will never do the things we want, unless we repeat it over and over again. We need to write our representatives and tell them what we want. We need to write letters to the editors. We need to take a stand and go out in public to do so. Otherwise, they will continue along the road they are traveling, ignoring us.

Maybe our elected officials will be dense and slow to listen, but if we persevere, they will eventually hear us. They might try to dissuade us or to ignore us, but they can only do that for so long. Eventually, if we stand our ground and keep saying the same thing, they will have to hear. If not, we still hold the power of the vote.


This article has been written by Bill White for Survivopedia.



3 total views, 3 views today

Rate this article!

[Total: 0    Average: 0/5]

The Sad Untimely Death Of Chief Justice Scalia

Click here to view the original post.

Chief Justice ScaliaThe death of Chief Justice Scalia on February the 13th marks the end of an era in American law. For the last 30 years, Scalia has been the main conservative bulwark, protecting the original meaning of the Constitution as ferociously as a mother bear protecting her young. Scalia’s opinions and dissents will be studied by lawyers and trial judges for decades to come.

But his death has left the country in a quandary, surrounded by controversy. As can be expected, cries of “conspiracy” and “foul play” have been raised by his death. This is not without reason, considering that found dead, lying on top of an unmussed bed, with a pillow over his head. Adding fuel to the fire, the judge who pronounced him dead was a Democrat, who decided an autopsy was not necessary.

To me, his position demands an autopsy, unless he were to die in a hospital somewhere, under the care of a physician. But to the judge who made the decision, there was no reason for an autopsy, especially considering that there was no sign of wrongdoing. A pillow over his head apparently isn’t a sign.

While the decision reached is legal, it’s still fishy. It’s especially fishy when you take into consideration the number of suspicious deaths there have been on Obama’s watch. Everyone who could even be an embarrassment to Obama has mysteriously died, including just about anyone who knew anything about his childhood, people who have opposed his extreme liberal politics and even Seal Team 6.

But, at least for now, anyone who committed any wrongdoing in Scalia’s death is going to get away with it. Other evidence will have to come forth, before enough of an outcry can be raised to warrant Congress launching an investigation. Were they to do so now, it would look like nothing more than a witch hunt.

However, the bigger issue here isn’t how Scalia died, but what that means for the country. For the last several years, the Supreme Court has been fairly well balanced between liberals and conservatives. Many say that it has been a 5/4 split, favoring conservatives. But if you look at the voting record of the various chief justices, it’s really more like a 4/1/4 split. With one justice who has been more of a moderate than a conservative, siding with the liberals in many cases.

We see this clearly in the Obamacare case. If there had been a true 5/4 split in the Supreme Court, Obamacare would have been adjured unconstitutional. But the swing vote went to the liberal side and Obama won that case. The same thing happened with the case on same sex marriages. So, while Obama hasn’t won everything he wanted from the Supreme Court, he has had some major victories.

But now things are likely to change. The most liberal president in the history of our country is poised to nominate the next Supreme Court Justice. Does anyone want to bet that he’ll pick a conservative? No, I seriously doubt that he’ll even pick a moderate. I am sure he’ll pick the most liberal justice he can find. One that will continue Obama’s work of fundamentally transforming America.

If he manages to appoint a liberal Supreme Court Justice to the bench, it will turn the Supreme Court’s makeup to 5/1/3 with five liberal justices on the court and only three conservatives. Even if the lone moderate were to side with the conservatives, they would have no chance of winning. Every case would come out in favor of liberals, pushing this country more and more down the path of progressive liberalism (otherwise spelled socialism).

This means that the death of Justice Scalia could spell the end of the United States as we know it. Federal judges are appointed for life, so there would be no recall election. The only way the court could ever change would be if the next president was a staunch conservative and had the opportunity to replace two liberal justices with conservatives. While there’s a chance of that happening, it is by no means guaranteed.

So, What’s Really the Big Deal about This?

So what if the liberals get their way on things? Right? Wrong! This isn’t about whether or not we get socialized medicine or whether the constitution allows someone to marry their dog. It’s about whether the Constitution itself even survives.

There is a very basic disagreement between liberals and conservatives about the Constitution itself and how the Supreme Court is supposed to interpret it. Conservatives hold that the Constitution is not only the founding document of our country, but it is unchangeable, except by properly executed amendments. But liberals see the Constitution as a living document, which can be changed by every generation to match their ideas.

This means that a strongly liberal Supreme Court would be actively working to change the Constitution. Although they couldn’t make amendments to it (that has to be done by Congress), they could change it in their interpretation of case law and the judgments they handed down.

This is basically what happened in the same sex marriage case. The Constitution doesn’t say anything about marriage at all. In this, the Founding Fathers left marriage either in the hands of the several states or, considering that this nation was founded as a Christian nation, probably in the hands of the church. Yet, the Supreme Court ruled that gays and lesbians had a “Constitutional Right” to marry.

Anyone who has any understanding of the law and of the Constitution can see that the Supreme Court had no right to make the judgment they did. They shouldn’t have even accepted the case for judgment, as it didn’t have anything to do with Constitutional law. But they did, and by their judgment they extended the Constitution into an area that it isn’t written to address. Essentially, they changed the Constitution.

By the way, even that judgment shouldn’t have forced the states to allow same sex marriages, because there was no law passed allowing same sex marriage. Their actions should have kicked the issue to Congress, so that they could pass a law. But in today’s twisted system, their judgment became law.

So, the thing to do is to block Obama’s appointment. There is ample precedent for that and Mitch McConnel, the Senate Majority Leader, has vowed to do just that. If anyone can block it, he’s the one in the position to do so. All he has to do is not allow the confirmation vote to go before the Senate. But McConnel hasn’t been good at standing up to Obama in the past. He’s basically caved to everything that Obama has demanded. So, there’s no real guarantee that he’ll stand his ground this time.

Democrats are already screaming that the Republican controlled Senate “do their job” and approve whoever Obama sends to them. This is not surprising, as they have been screaming for Republicans to rubber stamp everything Obama has wanted for the last seven years. Why should they change now?

But the same Democrats blocked President Bush from appointing a Supreme Court Justice during his last year in office. So, they are clearly hypocritical in their demands. Of course, they say that this situation “is different” because Bush wasn’t doing the will of the people, whereas Obama is. Apparently, Democrats define “the people” to mean anyone who agrees with them. I wonder what that makes the rest of us.

Blocking Obama’s nomination is risky, politically speaking. Democrats, and their lapdog media will make it appear that the Republicans are being obstructionists by not approving Obama’s nominee. That could cost Republicans votes for Senate seats in the November elections. If enough seats are lost, control of the Senate would revert back to the Democrats.

Now, here’s the thing. The new Senate will be sworn in about 20 days prior to the president. That means that they could push through a vote of approval in that time. Harry Reid already exercised the “nuclear option” changing confirmation votes to simple majority (51%) rather than super-majority (66%), as well as eliminating the possibility of filibuster. While Supreme Court approvals were specifically left out of that change, it wouldn’t take much to vote to allow it. Then, a Democrat controlled Senate could confirm the appointment, before Obama left office.

The other possibility is that Obama could make a recess appointment, as he did in his first year in office. The Constitution allows for recess appointments, although they are only until the next time the Senate goes into recess. So, any appointment Obama made like this would be only temporary. The only way to prevent that, is to not have any Senate recesses until the new president is sworn in.

Here again, we have to count on the strength of Mitch McConnell. There is a Senate recess scheduled and he’s the one who would have to cancel it. That’s the only way that he could prevent Obama from using a recess appointment to fill the vacant seat.

Friends, the country is quite literally at risk. Conservatives need a number of things to go right, or the Constitution will become irrelevant. We need the Senate to stay in session, Mitch McConnel to block the vote on any nomination by Obama, a true conservative president to be voted in to replace Obama and the Republicans to retain control of both houses of Congress. That’s a lot. It can’t happen if you and I don’t do our part. We’ve got to get the vote out, or the liberals will win.

It seems that each election cycle has become more and more critical. Well, this is the most critical election our country has ever faced. As the country has become more and more polarized, the risk that we face is greater and greater. If we don’t stand together and block the actions of the liberals, we will lose. Worse than that, our children will lose. The country we turn over to them won’t be the one we inherited from our parents.


This article has been written by Bill White for Survivopedia.





10 total views, 10 views today

Rate this article!

[Total: 1    Average: 5/5]

The Dictator Versus Our Civil Rights

Click here to view the original post.

Obama gun controlA couple of weeks ago, I wrote that Obama was going after our rights to bear arms as outlined in the Second Amendment of the Constitution. Well, the New Year was here, and as almost his very first act of business on arriving back in Washington, Obama issued a new set of executive orders, doing just that.

Obama has stated that his goal for his last official year in office, is to do something about gun control. If that’s the case, then the actions he took on January 5th are only the opening salvo against our 2nd A rights. We must realize and constantly remember, that the left’s way of doing things is the same as eating an elephant… one bite at a time.

That explains why Obama’s new executive orders seem so benign. In fact, they look like a paper tiger. In some cases, what he’s ordering merely seems to be a repeat of what’s already in the law, while in others it seems like he’s actually doing something positive. After all, spending money on improving mental health services, in order to find and help potential mass murders, actually seems to agree with what many conservatives have been calling for.

Likewise, putting pressure on states to provide more complete information to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which was originally a NRA initiative, makes sense too.

Obama’s announcement of his illegal measures was nothing more than one more opportunity for the liar in chief to lecture the American public on his exaggerated liberal talking points. Rather than make any useful statement, he spread a series of lies and half-truths, some of which were immediately caught and refuted by the liberal media.

Considering the liberal media is as anti-gun as Obama himself is, their catching his lies about gun violence is really something. Yet that is exactly what they did. Some even challenged him, which is extremely rare for the liberal media to do.

Even so, suspicions run high about anything Obama does, and this is no exception. There is very good reason why we are all suspicious of Obama, and that is that what he says and what he does are not the same thing. If there is a way to use the executive orders he just released to hurt the rights of American citizens, then we can be sure that he will do so.

While Obama’s stated goal is to make our communities safe, we have to realize that his saying so is merely like the magician’s gloved hand, intended to distract people, while he does something else. So too with these measures. If he was truly concerned about the safety of our communities, he would stop going out of his way to make them more dangerous. Just in the last year, he’s personally made things more dangerous by:

  • Releasing 6,000 convicted criminals from prison
  • Releasing known terrorists from Guatanamo Bay, so that they could return to terrorism
  • Allowed tens of thousands of Muslim immigrants into the United States, without vetting them
  • Appointed Muslims with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood to sensitive positions in the DHS
  • Supported #Black Lives Matter, including their calls to kill police
  • Refused to use the term “Islamic terrorist,” but insists on calling their attacks “workplace violence”
  • Removed known terrorist groups from the terrorist watch list
  • Allowed known terrorists to cross the Mexican border into the United States
  • Allowed thousands of juvenile gang members, ranging from 16 to 18 years of age into the country

There are more, but just this sampling shows how little Obama cares about our nation being a safe place for us to live. Were he truly concerned about public safety, he would take action to protect the American people, not to make our lives more dangerous.

Does a Great Nation Need to Follow Others’ Example?

In the midst of all these things, making our lives more dangerous, Obama talks about the need to make our country more like Australia and take honest law-abiding citizens’ guns away from them. It’s clear that public safety is not his concern, but rather his progressive liberal agenda and his stated desire to destroy the country and therefore fulfill the dreams of his father.

So, while the executive orders that Obama signed may seem benign, we have to put ourselves into the convoluted thinking of a progressive liberal mind, in order to truly understand them. I don’t claim to have that ability, but as I look at them, a few things stand out to me.

As usual, the measures that Obama is taking will do nothing to prevent criminals from getting their hands on guns, regardless of what he says. Nor will it do anything to prevent mass shootings. The perpetrators of those shootings acquire their guns legally and criminals do not buy guns at gun shows, they buy them on the streets. So, on one hand we can call everything that Obama did with this latest act of anti-gun rhetoric nothing more than a circus show, except for one thing… he truly hates guns. There has to be a more nefarious purpose.

First of all, Obama has talked about closing the “gun show loophole.” I’ve been to a number of gun shows and even purchased guns at them. This loophole that he refers to is purely a thing of liberal fantasy. Anyone who has ever tried to buy a gun at a gun show knows that you have to jump through the same hoops at gun shows, that you do when buying a gun in a gun store. Perhaps that’s because the majority of the sellers at gun shows are gun store owners.

The only way you can buy a gun at a gun show, without a background check, is to buy it privately. While most gun shows are frowning on it now, you can rent a table at a gun show as a private citizen and sell some of your personal gun collection. The law allows it, just as it allows you to sell a gun to a friend or family member.

According to Obama’s new executive orders, anyone who sells guns “regularly” is going to be required to have a federal firearms license (FFL) and perform background checks. But that’s already the law. So what’s new? When asked by a reporter what the threshold was for requiring the FFL, Obama said there is no minimum. Is he planning on making people get a FFL to sell one gun from their private collection in a private sale?

That possibility has been a concern of gun-rights activists for some time. The reason is that the only way such a law could be upheld is to institute a nationwide gun registry database. Historically, that’s the necessary step before confiscation, so there’s a real danger in allowing the creation of that database.

Obama also railed against the ability to buy guns online, without a background check. This part was probably nothing more than grandstanding, as that’s illegal. Currently, firearms purchased online require the same level of scrutiny as firearms bought in a brick and mortar store. The buyer has to fill out the applicable paperwork and the seller has to call the NICS for a background check. If the firearm is to be shipped across state lines, it must be delivered to a FFL holder (gun store) for the completion of the paperwork and NICS background check.

There were two places where Obama added money to government department budgets, in order to improve gun-related services. While that is illegal for him to do, without congressional approval, everything else he did was illegal too, so we’ll set that aside for the moment. The two areas are to increase the NICS and to hire 50,000 more mental health workers.

Improving the NICS is a worthwhile endeavor. The current system has holes in it, specifically holes that allow people with mental illness to slip through. Not all states properly inform the NICS about those who have been adjured to be able to handle firearms safely. That might help catch people like Adam Lanza, before they go on a killing spree. But, once again, I have to wonder if that’s all it’s about.

I especially wonder when I couple that with the hiring of 50,000 additional mental health workers. What is the true reason for that? The obvious answer is to help find people who are not mentally capable of handling the responsibility of owning firearms. But how are they defining that?

As it stands right now, the Veteran’s Administration has been paying doctors to certify that individual veterans aren’t emotionally stable enough to own firearms. There is no hearing about this and the vet isn’t given the opportunity to defend themselves. All it takes is a doctor’s signature on a form. This atrocity is about to be extended, doing the same to the elderly who are receiving Social Security. Except in their case, the criteria isn’t PTSD, but rather the inability to handle their own finances.

The way the executive order is written, these people are unable to own firearms because they have been deemed to be mentally incompetent or unstable. Since when does the inability to write a check make someone mentally incompetent or emotionally unstable? If there’s anyone in the country who needs a firearm, it’s the elderly. All too often, criminals prey upon them, because of their inability to defend themselves. Firearms at least give them a fighting chance.

This is some of that “one bite at a time” creep that I was talking about before. First they went after the veterans and now they’re going after the elderly; who is next? What fringe group is Obama going to pick out next, in order to marginalize them and take away their Second Amendment rights?

If we add together the actions against senior citizens, the increase in mental health workers and the increase in NICS workers, we can arrive at a troubling conclusion. Perhaps Obama’s next step is to require mental health screening of gun owners. They do that in Australia and he’s been holding their gun laws up as an example. Perhaps these 50,000 health care workers aren’t going to look for the Adam Lanzas in our midst, but iThe Distead look for a means to certify gun owners as unfit to own firearms.

The fifth edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (say that five times fast) is so extensive, that it’s all but guaranteed that every person in the world has some sort of mental disorder. Psychiatrists and psychologists have been working overtime to define conditions that can be called mental disorder. Part of this is for their moment of fame and part is that they truly believe that we all have something wrong with us (except them, of course).

One of the many mental disorders listed there is “Oppositional Defiant Disorder.” In other words, if you disagree with massive government taking control of your life, you have a mental disorder. Another is “climate change denial disorder.” Between those two alone, pretty much any true conservative could easily be adjudged to have a mental disorder. If they do that, bye-bye guns.

Is that going to happen? Once again, I don’t know. But the precedence is being built, even as we speak. We must always remember that Obama’s goal, as well as the entire progressive liberal left, is to take our guns away, so that they can have total control. They will use every means they can, and create those means if they don’t exist.

One final point; this is just January. At the end of last year, Obama clearly stated that his goal for 2015 was gun control. It is quite possible that he started early, so that he could do several rounds of executive orders, each one encroaching more and more on our rights.

If that’s the case, we have much more coming our way. Keep your eyes open.


This article has been written by Bill White for Survivopedia.









3 total views, 3 views today

Rate this article!

[Total: 0    Average: 0/5]

Death Sentence For The 2nd Amendment

Click here to view the original post.

2nd AmendmentAs most of us know by now, the 2nd Amendment is all that stands between freedom and all out totalitarianism. It is the backbone of all other freedoms and rights, in a world gone raving mad with domination over others. That’s why the visionary Framers made it an absolutely unqualified, uncontrollable, ‘Shall Not Be Infringed’ for ANY reason, guaranteed individual right, period!

I saved this article for after the holidays so as not to depress anyone too much more than we already are with this out of control regime while we all were trying to enjoy what little we have left of their precious American Constitutional guarantee of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But something happened.

We all just heard on the news that ‘he’s’ at it again with despotic fiat attempts at circumventing the Constitution, like some king, or supreme theocratic ruler, or marxist dictator, or whatever he thinks he is.

This time it’s his New Year’s resolution finally getting his illegal private citizen background check (gun sale registration) for future confiscation scam going again, with a little salt in the wounds of Freedom by also making everyone on a No Fly List forbidden from having a gun, if he can sneak that in through the ’back door’ of his administrative fiats.

Never mind that the No Fly List is also constitutionally illegal, literally throwing all Bill of Rights guarantees of due process right out the third floor window! And that so many people are on it who don’t belong on it but have no recourse but to hire a lawyer spending months and years fighting it without any guarantee of getting off the list–including even a few high ranking Government officials-that it amounts to nothing less than old fashioned Gestapo tricks to eliminate your ’opposition’?

The No Fly List (part two of the ‘control all personal free movement’ agenda along with part one, the illegal I.D. card requirement in the form of the 2005 ‘Real I.D. Act’) is a genuine abusive decree because the decisions about who gets on the list are done in secret by some hack State Dept bureaucrat based only on subjective determinations with NO clearly delineated legal criteria, other than a dubious belief of potential terrorist connections! Beat THAT, Adolph, Stalin, Mao, and the rest of you old boy JV team! ACLU, where the hell are YOU!

And as long as POTUS is getting away with all this albeit with much media consternation and question, he is still laughing and holding hands with the executioner all the way to the people’s rights gallows. Only Rand Paul stood up to the task and recently introduced a Senate Bill to preclude such ‘presidential’ executive orders without Congressional approval anytime they are in conflict with Constitutional reference.

Unfortunately a case of too little too late. Fat chance it does any good now because of how long the procedure and final voting takes. Meanwhile the noose on the neck of the 2nd/A is tightening. They get away with it because our reps let them. And WE let our reps get away with letting Obama do it!

How Bad Is It?

It’s worse than bad. The tipping point of tyranny has finally fallen over into the hands of the enemy camp. Totalitarian gun grabbers are now winning strongly. Free American patriots are losing miserably. This President and his anti-Constitutional ‘think tank’ must have been staying up long nights guzzling oceans of taxpayer funded black coffee to have a plan ready to seize upon current agenda advantageous circumstances.

Amazingly they’ve even somehow garnished enough funding for this De Facto background check gun registration decree to hire hundreds of new FBI and BATFE agents to facilitate and manage this latest criminal act against the people’s privacy rights to own a gun while they cut back on Social Security benefits and still haven’t adequately brought the VA up to much needed financial improvements for disabled combat vets!

What Triggered This Bold Attack by Obama on the 2nd/A?

Obama became tactically emboldened with new polls in the recent months including a Pew Poll report indicating that over half the population would agree to expanded background checks (aka gun registration) for private citizen sales if it helped reduce ‘bad’ people from getting guns. Which eventually includes the interpretation of ’bad’ people and the attendant Fiat laws to potentially include almost each and every one of us who disagree with the regime.

This doesn’t really mean that most people agree with anti-Constitutional gun control, it simply reflects that totalitarian mind control strategies have worked better than expected under this regime. And that far too many Americans have succumbed to the bait and switch and hook of the mythical nanny state comfort zone. Which is nothing less than falling victim to the most insidiously evil plot to eventually enslave an entire nation of people ever devised by a modern government. The Great Gun Control Hoax!

In association with the regime’s agenda, and while nobody seemed to care or pay attention to any level of statutory tyranny proliferation on the state levels, the totalitarian Cosa Nostra wasted no time during Obama’s reign consolidating their forces in a pincer maneuver with New York in the East and California in the West– which on New Year’s day put statewide background check registration into law including special police units to enforce compliance in house to house sweeps if necessary, already situated in designation!

And the disease is spreading as totalitarian billionaires are donating inexhaustible funds to ensure totalitarian legislatures get in at state levels to continue expanding anti-gun laws throughout the country replicating those New York and California.

At least 18 or more states now have similar laws, and the estimate is that if this agenda continues, over half the United States will have draconian anti-2nd/A laws by the year’s end! And this doesn’t include the many Federal level anti-2nd/A death blow bills currently waiting for nothing else but another totalitarian regime POTUS and Congress to be voted in power next year!

The Real Reason for the Treason

The POTUS, his regime, and their misled minions, actually have no confusion about this. They all know the stupidity of their vacuous arguments for gun control. They are fully aware that ‘Shall Not Be Infringed’ clearly means no gun control restrictions or laws whatsoever, of any kind.

They know that restrictions or bans on material items can never solve a problem that is fundamentally an aberration of the human behavior mechanism which manifests itself in harmful social actions. They know gun control has never and will never stop gun violence or criminals from getting weapons.

They know the 1934 NFA and 1968 GCA and all other gun control efforts are, and always were, anti-Constitutional. President Johnson rattlesnaked this law through while most people were still snoozing from trying to wake up from Viet Nam. This same law would never pass again today.

Every day more TOTALITARIANS are coming full blast out of the closet and are no longer even defending their ‘rationale’ for gun control with specious notions of good public safety intentions.

They actually will now admit they want to exercise absolute control over people with too much freedom on their hands, and too many guns in those hands. Especially when the sheeple population explosion gets too large for the ’controllers’ to manage every time they need to be fleeced for necessary government profit margins. So they don’t want their government backed paramilitary police to have to face angry people–particularly the ‘Molon Labe’ types– who have the idea that they really need their silly freedoms shouting ‘Give Me Liberty, or Give Me Death’ while holding millions of AR-15’s!

So killing the Constitution is not even denied any more. The truth is that the totalitarians fully understand completely what it takes to facilitate a Marxist/Fascist agenda, which is a complete erasure of the 2nd/Amendment by any means possible. Which means spreading lies, and providing whatever public bribery they can facilitate for their minions–followed by the complete functional disarmament of the population to emasculate any future form of public protest, popular resistance, civil disobedience from becoming a formidable physical revolution against the regime.

Sadly, too many of ‘We, The People’ still don’t get that or believe it. Even though they slap us in the face with it every chance they get.

Regan quote

Any Hope for a Miracle from… God?

The tyrant in Hunger Games said profoundly that “hope is stronger than fear” when talking about oppressing the people. But he forgot to mention that hopes are easily crushed and bypassed in active physical movements, because as Einstein said, “nothing happens until something moves”.

We can hope all we want. But that doesn’t get things done to change anything. And it is the devout responsibility of each of us as American citizens to protect our precious liberties.

The sad irony is that that human nature in Americans always causes them to default to try to then do a reverse ‘back door’ approach to the problem to counter the G’s initiatory back door attack.

They’ll say things like I’ll just hide my stuff or hurry up and buy more of what I need privately before the mandate goes into effect, or get beer ballsy in their delusions of revolutions by saying Molan Labe as if it remained a viable solution. When all that does is make it easier to profile potential dissidents with the latest government NSA spying expansion (oh, you didn’t know about that either?) so they wind up just buying more weapons for government storm troopers to confiscate when they come knocking.

Unfortunately we can no longer wait until the last minute. The new ’majority’ of so called democratic Americans are turn coat Tories who welcome the totalitarian nanny state and will gladly succumb to the leftist agenda and vote according to their master’s commands.

Remember, the original revolutionary patriots also amounted to less than the majority in America at that time. But we won our liberty and justice by getting off our asses and organizing and spreading the word. Part of that is spreading the ’serious’ word to our Representatives who are our employees.

Let’s do something this week by contacting our Reps and asking a simple question like “so…Ms./Mr. Representative, what are you going to do for a living after your term ends, if you let this regime get away with this illegal gun registration mandate?”

And then ask them “why hasn’t anyone introduced a bill to repeal the 1034 NFA Act and the 68 GCA for starters? You didn’t waste time getting a repeal going for the AHC act because the insurance lobbies were so nice to you? So let’s get with it on the most important illegal law Repeal in our lifetimes. If you like that nice taxpayer provided office and bennies from your Constituency?”

Otherwise, if the FBI folds to the power and influence of the current regime, and ‘can’t determine any indictable evidence’ and Hillary is the candidate, and the RINOs in the GOP can’t get their unification act together and totally support the outsider front runners, then it’s over for our 2nd/A. No exchanges, no refunds.

I know Trump and Cruz vow to use their executive order power to delete all gun control measures as soon as they get their fingers on the POTUS White House Pen set. But that ain’t in stone yet. Remember Romney? Nobody thought he could lose. Remember also that the House and Senate are also in the race, and like State G reps, the totalitarian billionaires are also funding the Leftist U.S. Reps.

The house only needs a dozen or so to shift the balance and the Senate only needs a net Democratic gain of 5 senators to end the life of all liberties, if Hillary is elected. ALL your guns that are now universal background check registered will also be subject to universal confiscations based on ‘public safety’ as ‘administratively’ determined necessary. This will be often and swift.

And the laughing leftist totalitarians will never look back.


This article has been written by Mahatma Muhjesbude for Survivopedia.



13 total views, 13 views today

Rate this article!

[Total: 0    Average: 0/5]

Time To Push Back At Political Correctness

Click here to view the original post.

political correctnessOver the last couple of years, we’ve seen a definite rise in political correctness. Not only are they now trying to control our speech with it, but the left is using this insidious method to literally control society.

There is no question that political correctness reached a new high in 2015, even going so far as to ban the Confederate battle flag and remove historic monuments from many southern states.

The whole concept of political correctness is insidious. It’s one of the left’s many tools that they use to control the right, trying to force us to conform to their will. In that, it’s no different than Muslims trying to force others to live under Sharia Law or Communists forcing people to bow to the state. It’s all about control and using fear to control people.

We have to understand that fear is the mechanism that is used to implement political correctness. We who are controlled by it are afraid of being labeled racist, sexist or any other “ist” that the left comes up with. It’s as if those words were true badges of dishonor and that we would be permanently branded with them, much like the woman in “The Scarlet Letter.”

Well, I think we could all learn a lesson from Hester Prynne, the protagonist of The Scarlet Letter. She didn’t hide her letter, but wore it boldly, like a soldier wearing a medal. She was proud of who she was and if others didn’t like it, that was their problem.

While I don’t agree with adultery, I do agree with standing up for who you are. Fortunately, more and more conservatives are getting fed up with political correctness and finally taking a stand against it, regardless of the consequences. I’m not just talking about politicians either; everyday people are taking a stand as well, even when they know it’s going to cost them.

The thing is, if we don’t take a stand against political correctness, the liberals are going to get their way and succeed in controlling us. They will do it with nothing more than nasty words and name calling. In other words, we will be allowing them to control us with their immaturity.

How many times have you seen it? A liberal and a conservative are discussing an issue and the liberal runs out of arguments. That’s not too hard, as all they have are their emotional talking points. Once they run out, they resort to name calling, generally using the term “racist” but if that doesn’t apply then any of a number of other names that they have readily memorized in their arsenal.

But political correctness goes far beyond name calling. In a sense, we can call the movement #BlackLivesMatter a political correctness movement. They have decided on a particular narrative and are using violence to silence anyone who disagrees with it. Actually, they’re even using violence against those who haven’t disagreed with it, but simply haven’t yet agreed with their stance forcibly enough. In this, they are intimidating people, especially politicians, into supporting their cause.

The LGBT community is doing the same. Although they represent only about two percent of the population, they are controlling much of the political agenda of this country. In some ways, they’ve succeeded in eliminating the First Amendment rights of the rest of the country, simply by calling everything that is said against them a hate crime. By invoking those magic words, they’ve turned ordinary law-abiding citizens into criminals, complete with criminal penalty.

Or what about the law suits which the LGBT community has succeeded in bringing against businesses who refuse to serve them, specifically those who refuse to serve their weddings? For most of my life, businesses had the right to refuse service to anyone. The only exception was to that was critical services, such as utilities or medical services. But today, Christian businesses who refuse to support their weddings are charged with hate crimes and fined out of business by the government. The worst part of that is that they purposely seek out those businesses, just so that they can attack them.

Every leftist special interest group is taking part in political correctness these days. They are the purveyors of this insidious system and the creators of its rules. All any of them have to do is get the media to agree with their definition, and the new politically correct term is used or the new politically incorrect term is flagged for abusing anyone who uses it.

It is the media, more than anyone else, who controls the whole political correctness machine. As agents of the leftist agenda, they are the promoters and purveyors of leftist ideology. News stories are selected and even changed to match the talking points of the left, taking every opportunity to villainize anyone who doesn’t toe the line.

The Long Way to Nobody’s Freedom

I have to say that this system has grown through the years. When I was a young man, we had something called Freedom of Speech. If others were offended by what was said, they had a right to respond, or in extreme circumstances, take a swing at the speaker. Political correctness seeks to suppress those rights, with the ultimate goal of eliminating them.

We must understand that this is the ultimate goal of political correctness. The elitist left can’t eliminate our Constitutional Rights, no matter how much they want to. So, they have to use other means, specifically social pressure.

Eric Holder referred to this in the context of eliminating our Second Amendment right to bear arms, but that’s not the only place where the left is using it. They are specifically attacking our rights of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion, both guaranteed under the First Amendment.

This is why it is so important that we take a stand against political correctness. We need to point out its hypocrisy wherever we see it. We also need to be willing to be labeled as a racist or any other type of “ist” the PC police want to use. If we allow fear to rule us, we will end up losing our rights.

Fortunately, mainstream America is getting fed up with this and the silent majority is taking a stand. Many are finding their voices and speaking out against this insidious insanity. Conservative actors, singers, politicians and businessmen are using their pulpit to make their voice heard. In doing so, they are making our voice heard as well.

We need to add our voice to this. It’s great that Donald Trump, Charles Daniels and Chuck Norris take a stand; but we can’t allow them to stand alone. We too must take our stand, declaring that this country was established on freedom and that the PC police have no Constitutionally authorized authority to take that freedom away from us. If we don’t, they will keep pushing until we lose that freedom.

Video first seen on Fox News

Perhaps this is one of the greatest things to come out of the 2016 elections. Trump started it, with his politically incorrect statements, which resonated with so many. He gave voice to what many were thinking and is wealthy enough that he doesn’t care whether people like what he says or not. The thing is, lots of people like what he is saying, even some on the other side of the aisle.

It isn’t Trumps wealth alone that makes it possible for him to be politically incorrect so successfully. If it were, then the Koch Brothers would get away with it too. Yet they are villainized regularly by the political left. No, Trump has something more going for him; he knows how to work with the media.

Trump has been accused more than once of being a showman and of turning the elections into a circus. The thing is, in doing just that, he’s kept the media’s eye on him, allowing him to speak his mind so effectively. While the PC police have screamed “Foul” at every statement he’s made, the American people, especially those on the right, have stood with him and have done so in ever increasing numbers.

Regardless of who ends up winning the 2016 presidential elections, we need to continue taking a stand against political correctness. The Germans didn’t do that in the 1930s, due to fear of the NAZI Brown shirts. That cost them their nation. Well, guess what? We’re facing the very same thing today.

Maybe the current crop of PC police doesn’t wear brown shirts and maybe they’re not spouting off the same slogans, but they’re using the same methods. They are intimidating anyone who disagrees with them, sometimes with words, and when that doesn’t work, with violence.

The point is, the results will be the same. We either stand up to the PC police or they will take control. Then, the country will become the socialist “paradise” that they want and any of us who try to take a stand will be silently carted off to a labor camp somewhere. If that’s not what you want, it’s time to take a stand.


This article has been written by Bill White for Survivopedia.

8 total views, 8 views today

Rate this article!

[Total: 0    Average: 0/5]

What To Expect In 2016

Click here to view the original post.

big 2016

This year has been an interesting one, to say the least. While I can’t say that I like much of what has happened since January, there has been little time for boredom this year. Between terrorist attacks and the Black Lives Matter movement, there has been enough unrest and violence to keep anyone awake. Nor does it look like any of that is likely to end.

Regardless of the numbers coming out of Washington, the nation is not doing better. We all know that the government is cooking the books, putting out false data. But the reality and the numbers don’t match. Unemployment is higher than ever, as indicated by the workforce participation rate, and prices are going up all over, defying the “official” inflation rate.

There is little chance that things are going to get better during Obama’s last year in office. He is studiously ignoring reality, so he doesn’t even understand how things really are.

Like the academian that he pretends to be, all he sees is his theories, then he commands the government to make the data match what he sees. Someone operating like that can’t turn things around for the better, even if they had some idea of what to do.

What Our Friends Foresee for 2016

Jeff Anderson – Modern Combat and Survival

jeff“This last year there was plenty of bad news to go around, which seems likely to affect survivalists even more in the months to come. These include, as they always seem to, increased infringement on your constitutional rights… but also some dangers you may not have considered.

Prediction #1: The “Other” Terrorism – It’s no longer a surprise that our privacy is being violated each and every day by NSA, DHS, and other alphabet agencies of the government. But now that we’ve seen Jihad-style terrorism on American soil in San Bernardino, there will be that much more justification — in the eyes of those in government — for increased spying initiatives on our citizens. This will, as always, be done to make us “safe.”  The real target? Well, in their own words… “homegrown domestic terrorists” whose profile basically reads like an casting call for an episode of “Doomsday Preppers”.  (Maintain OPSEC my friends.)

Prediction #2:  Increased Gun-Control Measures – The same high-profile shootings that have our politicians screaming for more and deeper surveillance also have those politicians’ grubby paws out to grab our guns – possibly through unconstitutional executive orders. Look for a lot more attempts to restrict the rights of law-abiding Americans to buy firearms, and expect outright bans of “assault” style weapons.

Prediction #3:  Pandemic “Red Flags” – It’s hard to admit it, but even the CDC and World Health Organization are saying we’re long overdue for another pandemic. The Ebola scare last year faded quickly from the news. Any prepared citizen, though, should remember how quickly we started to come apart when we thought Ebola could be in our schools or in our apartment buildings.

You don’t have to be Nostradamus to see these three threats — invasion of privacy, gun control, and pandemic scares — coming in 2016. We had best be ready for them.”

Todd Sepulveda – Prepper Website

Todd-EtM“When I started Prepper Website, I really felt that I was being led into preparedness after a time of prayer, you can read my story here.

As I prepare for 2016, I feel that prepping my spiritual life is more important than ever.  I will stock up and prepare in every way possible, but I want to make sure that my relationship with the Lord is most definitely prepared.

As a result, I’m focusing more on my prayer time and  reading and studying God’s Word.  I’m also focusing on building relationships with other Christians, and if they happen to be Christian Preppers, that is a big plus!  This focus has led me to use one of my prepper sites as a point of contact for Christians who want to link up.  On my site, www.prepperchurch.com, you can find Christian Preppers in your state or if you can’t find one, you can easily setup to start one!

One Scripture that was very important in moving into preparedness is Amos 3:7, “Indeed, the Lord God does nothing without revealing His counsel to His servants the prophets.”  God always told His people what He was up to, sometimes they listened, and sometimes they didn’t.  He gives you the choice.

There is so much craziness in the world that it is very easy to become discouraged and depressed, waiting for the poop to hit the fan and wondering what it might look like for you and your loved ones.  But if you are prepped spiritually, this end, is not the end!  I wish you the best from Prepper Website!”

Elise Xavier – More Than Just Surviving

elise“What are we preparing for in 2016? We’re preparing for as much as possible, concentrating primarily on not the big, but the small, more likely events.

Power outages, natural disasters, health problems, and the potential of job loss – these are the things I see as the most likely events to take place in the lives of preppers in 2016, and so these are the emergency situations I encourage other preppers to make sure they’re as prepared for as they can be in the upcoming year.

You can’t prep to survive everything, so you should make sure you have your priorities straight in prepping for the most likely events to take place first.”

What Do We Expect in 2016?

So, the next year is going to be a hard one. We can expect many things to happen. Unfortunately, they will not be things for the better. We’re going to have to wait for a conservative president to get into office, for things to truly turn around. The question is, will we get one?

As I look down the road before us, these are the things I see happening. These aren’t prophecies, as I’m not a seventh son, born under a seventh son. Nor do I have a crystal ball to use. But I can look at what’s going on in the world and see trends. All I can give you is where I see those trends going.

Terrorist Attacks

ISIS has made it clear that they intend to take the war to us. The recent attack in San Bernardino was the opening salvo of their war on our soil. We can expect more to follow, as they try to wear us down and force us to submit to their will.

There is no way that ISIS can beat the United States in a conventional war, that’s why they are forced to resort to terrorism. Their goal isn’t to destroy our military might, but simply to sew enough fear and discord in our society, that we capitulate to them. That way, they’ll end up with what they want, rule over the world.

Of course, there’s a major miscalculation in that strategy. While I’m sure that liberals would be quick to surrender, thinking that they were doing the noble thing, conservatives won’t. If things get to that point, we’re going to see warfare in our streets. While there are many who might think that to be good, we have to remember that our government will side with the Muslims, as long as Obama is in office.

Increased Racial Tension

I firmly believe that the racial tension which we are experiencing in our country today has been intentionally manufactured by Obama in an effort to bring about racial civil war. If he truly cared about Blacks, there would be no way that he would be allowing the things to happen which are happening. Racial civil war would be disastrous for the Black community, as they are so greatly outnumbered by Whites who own guns.

Every opportunity, Obama and his surrogate, Sharpton, push the race buttons, creating anger and lawlessness. Then, his Department of Justice refuses to prosecute, instead looking for excuses to bring hate crime charges against those who say or do anything against Muslims or Blacks.

Obama has already given himself the right to declare martial law at any time he so chooses. He could use racial civil war or terrorism as a legitimate excuse to do that, consolidating power in his hands and turning the United States into a dictatorship. I would not be surprised to learn that the whole reason he has been pushing the racial unrest rhetoric is for this very reason.

Obama Ignores Congress, Pushing Gun Control and Climate Change

We’ve already seen how Obama intends to spend the rest of his reign, ignoring Congress and pushing his pet issues. The GOP led Congress can’t do anything, because they can’t get a supermajority to override his veto. As long as he has that, he will get his way.

Of course, Harry Reid is telling Congress that they need to cooperate with the Democrat minority. This is no different than the message he’s been pushing ever since Obama got into office. As far as the Democrat leadership is concerned, there’s only one opinion, theirs. Obama dictates it and they accept it. The problem, in their eyes, is that there are Republicans who won’t obey their marching orders.

Obama’s Bid for a Third Term

Obama has already hinted at wanting to serve a third term, citing his excellent track record as a president. He’s so delusional that he thinks he is the best president this country has ever had. Of course, when you’re getting to dictate statistics and your minions cook the books to match them, it just confirms that delusion.

I think the big thing we’re going to see this year will be a push for a third term. Democrats have already talked about repealing the 22rd amendment of the Constitution. We can expect a true push for this in 2016, but I think it will fail.

That leaves Obama the option of remaining in office by executive fiat. That’s something I wouldn’t put past him. With the military leadership gutted, it’s doubtful that there is anyone in a position of authority who can and will stand up to him. His hand-picked generals will capitulate, even if they complain about what he’s doing in private.

Of course, all he has to do to make that legitimate is declare martial law. Once he does that, he can suspend the Constitution, dismiss Congress and put the elections “on hold” until things get better. Of course, he’s the one who has to decide when things are “better” so that won’t ever happen.

This could lead to civil war. That’s hard to predict, because civil war would require enough people getting mad at the same time, that they would be willing to risk their lives taking action. Without the ability to communicate such plans, without the government knowing, it’s hard to gather the necessary momentum to make civil war break out. But if Obama pushes too fast, it could happen.

The Economy Getting Worse

There’s no question that the U.S. economy is going to continue getting worse. We’ve been on a downward slide for several years, and nothing is being done to make it better. In fact, several things are being done to make it worse, especially by forcing major corporations to move overseas.

There is absolutely no incentive for business in this country today. Corporate taxes are some of the highest in the world. Unless a corporation is receiving government stimulus or tax breaks, they can’t afford to continue operations. Smaller companies, who don’t have the money to buy government officials, don’t stand a chance.

The massive number of regulations that Obama’s administration is putting out are making it harder and harder for businesses to succeed. His war on coal is going to cost millions of jobs. Likewise many of his other initiatives. If the $15 minimum wage goes through, you can be sure that it will cost many more jobs. Liberal models of economics don’t take reality into account; they are pure theory, based on nothing more than good wishes.

The Elections

Right now, I feel that the 2016 presidential elections are hanging in the balance. If Trump or Cruz wins the nomination for the Republican Party, the Republicans have a good chance of winning. But the establishment GOP is against either of them winning. They want a fully brokered convention, so that they can take the nomination away from the will of the people and give it to some RINO that they want.

This would be disastrous. Trump and Carson have already said that they’d run as independents. I’m not sure if Cruz would, but it really doesn’t matter. If there is any independent conservative running, it will divide the conservative vote and the Republicans will lose. That means that Hillary or Bernie will win the presidency and be able to take the country farther down the slippery slope to socialism.

Either Democrat candidate will continue with what Obama has been doing. If anything, they will push harder to take more money in taxes, give away more goodies to their base and steal our rights.

We can expect that the country will suffer even more and may not even survive. A wrong outcome from these elections or Obama staying in office by hook or by crook, could lead to the ultimate demise of the United States of America.


This article has been written Bill White and Brenda Walsh for Survivopedia.



30 total views, 12 views today

Rate this article!

[Total: 0    Average: 0/5]

Obama’s Attacks On Our Second Amendment Rights

Click here to view the original post.

Obama gun controlIn the wake of the San Bernardino terrorist attack, Obama is once again on the warpath against our right to bear arms. Since he can’t get Congress or the people to do what he wants, he has decided to go it alone, resorting to executive action to get what he wants.

Along with his right-hand woman (who happens to be Iranian by birth), he’s drafting new orders to tighten the noose a little bit more on gun owners.

Rumor has it that this semi-secret action is focused on closing the supposed gun show loophole in the laws which require background checks for gun purchases.

This fictitious hole has been talked about by gun control advocates for quite a while. But anyone who has ever tried to buy a firearm at a gun show knows better. The sellers at gun shows are professional firearm dealers. As such, they are required by law to call the NCIC (National Crime Information Center) for a background check and they do.

So, what is this upcoming executive order actually going to do? It’s going to make it impossible for individuals to sell firearms privately, without a background check. That’s right, private gun transfers are going to require calling the NCIC, before any firearms can be sold or even given as a gift. That probably means that this background check will even be required for guns which are passed on as part of one’s inheritance.

So, what real difference is this going to make? None. The only way that the government can police background checks is to create a national database of gun ownership; in other words, establish gun registration. Of course, this action could be nothing more than a step towards making that happen.

Federal Firearm Registration

Currently, it’s illegal for the federal government to keep any records on firearm ownership, with the exception of Class III firearms, suppressors, short-barreled rifles and a few other rare categories of collectors firearms. But that doesn’t mean that the government is faithfully obeying that law, does it? They could be obeying the law just as well as felons obey the law about not buying firearms.

I have seen some evidence that makes me think that the government is actually tracking firearm purchases. It is not conclusive, but it is enough to make me suspicious. Allow me to explain.

All firearm transactions, other than private sales, must be carried out by a licensed firearm dealer. This includes shipping firearms across state lines, even if you are shipping it to yourself in another state. These dealers are all licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF).

The dealer uses a federal form to verify the buyer’s right to buy a firearm and to record their call to NCIC, verifying that the individual doesn’t have any history of crime or isn’t under an indictment. That form is kept in the dealer’s files, logged in a register and assigned a local tracking number, merely for reference. If the police want to find out who a firearm was sold to, they contact the dealer, asking for a copy of the applicable record.

So far, so good; no federal register. In order to ensure that the dealers are doing their paperwork and keeping their records, they are audited yearly by agents of ATF. That seems like a reasonable precaution. But nobody, including the dealer, is allowed to witness one of these audits. They are done behind closed doors, meaning that the ATF agents could do anything.

A friend of mine, who happens to be a firearm dealer, was sent a memo and spreadsheet from ATF some time back, asking for information about all their AR-15 sales over a specific period of time. The spreadsheet included the name and address of the various customers and the dealer was to put in their local tracking number for that record. There’s just one thing… the spreadsheet already had that number, in another column.

This raises some serious questions; specifically, how did ATF know who had bought AR-15 rifles from this dealer and how did they know the tracking numbers for those records? The only way they could have known was to have copied the store’s records during an audit. Nobody else had access to that information.

So, is there a federal gun register? Legally, I’d have to say no. But it appears that there is one that is being kept by ATF, it’s just being kept secret. That means that if the government wanted to confiscate guns, they’d at least have a starting place to look.

Obama gun control

Then There’s Australia

Lately, liberal politicians have been holding up Australia as an example for the United States to emulate. In 1996, Australia passed sweeping firearms legislation, outlawing all semi-automatic and automatic firearms. People who owned these firearms were to turn them in through a massive nationwide firearms buyback program. About 60,000 weapons were confiscated and their owners paid the fair market value.

All this was in reaction to a mass shooting; you know, the type that Obama says doesn’t happen in other countries. This particular incident claimed the lives of 35 innocent people shocking the nation and setting up the opportunity to pass that law.

One would expect that such a law, being held up for emulation, would have had sweeping effects on murders and violent crime in Australia. After all, why hold it up as an example, if one can’t point to results? The problem is, to get the results, liberals have to be very careful about what figures they point to. Otherwise, it’s not so good.

Liberals state that Australia’s gun-related homicide rate and suicide rate have plummeted 30% since the enactment of that law. You know something, they’re right.

But what they don’t tell us is that the total homicide rate in the United States dropped by a similar amount, in the same period of time. Not only that, but the U.S. rate is total homicides and the Australian is just gun-related. If you add in homicide by other means, the Australian rate has dropped less than the U.S. one… oops.

The other thing one would expect is that the number of mass killings would have dropped. While it is true, the number of mass shootings has dropped to a total of five in the 19 years since the enactment of that law, the total number of mass killings has been 12.

It seems that the criminals just found other ways of killing, most specifically, arson. Oh, and, the total number of mass killings in Australia in the 19 years before enacting that law were… you guessed it, 12. Doesn’t look like it changed a thing.

Murder is murder and it will happen with or without guns. Liberals act as if outlawing guns will eliminate the guns themselves. If that’s the case, then why has France managed to confiscate 3,000 fully-automatic AR-15 rifles from three mosques in one week? Those are totally illegal in France, yet the Muslim community in France had enough to outfit a couple of battalions of infantry.

On the same day that the Sandy Hook massacre happened, a Chinese man entered into China’s equivalent of an elementary school and killed 32 children with a knife. He outdid Adam Lanza by a long shot, and did so with an inferior weapon.

The fact of the matter is that violence is part of the human condition. As much as any of us would like it to go away, it’s not going to. Eliminating violence would require changing human nature, eliminating our free will, curtailing emotions (especially anger) and controlling the thoughts of people. Perhaps that’s what Obama and his liberal cronies are really after.

The fact that 130 people were killed recently in France shows how fruitless gun control laws really are. The only way anyone can own a firearm in France is to apply for a permit to own each and every hunting rifle they want, individually. Along with the application, the individual must pass a psychological evaluation, which then must be repeated every year. Failure of the evaluation eliminates your right to own any firearms you own.

Yet, the criminals managed to get their hands on firearms, as criminals always do. Unless every firearm on the face of the earth were destroyed or the laws of physics changed, criminals will always get guns. It’s up to us, the honest law-abiding people of our country, to protect ourselves from them.

The New York Times recently published an article  about how killers obtained weapons illegally in countries that have strict gun laws. This appeared in a Page 1 editorial, something that the New York Times hasn’t done in 100 years. Little did they realize it, but they essentially said, “the gun control debate is over, and the gun owners won.”

The things they talk about as challenges are the reasons that the liberals will never get their way. Gun control doesn’t stop crime. There are constitutional challenges to regulating guns and determined killers still find weapons. Those reasons make it impossible to enact the kinds of gun control laws that liberals want.

Perhaps they will eventually realize this; but I doubt it. Liberals live in an ideal world, like college professors sitting around a table, debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. While they don’t believe in angels, they do believe in the debate. So, they’ll continue to argue, sure that they are right, simply because of who they are.


This article has been written by Bill White for Survivopedia.





7 total views, 7 views today

Rate this article!

[Total: 0    Average: 0/5]

San Bernardino: Why Gun Control Laws Don’t Work

Click here to view the original post.

Gun lawsI hate to say it, but mass shootings are becoming much more common than any of us would like. It doesn’t seem like there’s going to be any reduction in them either; especially with radical jihadists being allowed into the country by every means possible. The war is becoming real and it’s happening in our streets, in our office buildings and in our schools.

While each event is individual in its execution, the events surrounding them are becoming as predictable as a grade B movie. While not all are, Muslims predictably carry many of them out, although the administration and the media won’t admit it.

Many of them predictably happen in gun-free zones. The left predictably blames conservatives, especially the NRA, and Obama predictably calls for more gun control. The same story plays over and over again; while Obama and the PC police prevent the truth from coming out and the real issues from being dealt with.

The San Bernardino Shooting Follows the Script

The latest shooting on December 2nd, in San Bernardino follows the script, with its own special twists thrown in. I remember that I first heard about it through a Facebook posting on “breaking news” from one of the news outlets I follow.

At the time, which was less than an hour after the event happened, little was known. But that didn’t prevent liberal reporters from already jumping to conclusions. I must admit, I jumped to my own as well, thinking that the perpetrators were probably Muslims.

Any time an event like this happens, details are sketchy at the beginning. It takes time for the police to figure out what happened and for the true story to be told. That’s why liberals have to act so quickly. They have to get their version of the story embedded in the minds of the sheeple before the truth comes out. Otherwise, they won’t get to spin it the way they want.

So, along with that very first report I heard about how the mainstream media was saying that the event was carried out by right-wing extremists and blaming the NRA for blocking gun control measures. There were even a series of tweets following that same vein and castigating law-abiding citizens who supported the 2nd Amendment, just for opposing gun control.

San Bernardino Tweet

Well, now that more time has passed, we have a better idea of what happened. The first bit of truth that came out was the name of one of the perpetrators. It turns out that he was Syed Farook, an American citizen, who traveled to Saudi Arabia to marry his wife, who he met online. He was apparently accompanied by his wife, as well as his brother. The husband and wife were killed, when they tried to fight it out with the police.

According to Sayd’s father, he was a devout Muslim, attested to by the fact that he traveled to Saudi Arabia to marry and has recently grown out his beard, as all devout Muslim men are supposed to. Co-workers knew he was a Muslim, but were surprised that he would take such action, believing him to be a “moderate” Muslim.

The attack was a Christmas party, being held in the offices of San Bernardino’s Public Health Department, where Sayd worked as a health inspector. Co-workers said he was quiet at the party and left early. But he didn’t stay away, returning with his accomplices to rain death and destruction on the party.

Sayd and his co-conspirators showed up well prepared for their grim task, wearing tactical clothing and sporting AR-15 rifles. The way they were equipped shows that this was not a spur-of-the-moment attack.

About the only thing that might have been spontaneous was the time and place. It would have taken time to gather the necessary equipment, especially the AR-15s, which are illegal for sale in California. Sayd and his accomplices had obviously been planning such an event.

The Gun Laws Didn’t Work

This one shooting shows the futility of the progressive liberal stance on gun control. California has already enacted everything on their “common sense” wish list, yet these killers were still able to get the weapons they wanted and carry out their murderous deed. Specifically, California has laws on the books for everything on the left’s gun-control “wish list.”

  • Universal background checks
  • Magazine limits
  • Bans on standard “assault rifles”

Fourteen of Sayd’s co-workers died and another 17 are wounded, proving that those gun control measures don’t work. Yet the left doesn’t see it that way. They are still screaming out for those laws to be adopted nation-wide, regardless of their effectiveness.

You see, to the left, the law has little to do with reality. It’s all about doing something to make them feel good. If people are poor, pass laws giving them more freebees from the government. If pollution exists, create new regulations that reduce emissions. If people are getting killed enact more gun laws. It doesn’t matter if any of those laws actually do any good, they’ll feel better, because they’ve “done something” about the problem.

That’s why they villianize gun owners and the NRA. We stand in the way of them going through the motions of making themselves feel good. They don’t care about the dead; they just care about salving what little conscience they have. If that hurts others, they’ll just blame the conservatives.

As we all know, guns aren’t the problem. The very same day that the Sandy Hook shooting happened (if it really happened), a man in China entered a school and killed more children with a knife than were supposedly killed at Sandy Hook. People killed one another before guns existed and they will continue to kill one another long after guns have been replaced by something else.

A few days before this shooting, there was another, in which a mentally unstable, middle-aged white man killed a number of people. Since he hid out in a Planned Parenthood office and shot from there, the left has been talking about how he was a conservative terrorist, who was attacking Planned Parenthood. But he didn’t turn his gun on one single person in that Planned Parenthood office, he merely shot from there.

Even though that man had a history of mental illness, nobody is paying attention to that. Mental illness doesn’t match the narrative they want, so they won’t talk about it.

A few days before that, there was a mass shooting where a young black man wounded and injured several people. But that one doesn’t match the narrative either. So, while it was a serious shooting, the media isn’t bothering to cover it. Then there are the dozens of shootings that happen in Chicago every weekend, but those are mainly black-on-black crime, so they aren’t reported.

It is clear that the media is cherry-picking which shootings they will cover. They only talk about the ones that they can spin to fit their narrative. Each time, they salivate at the possibility that it really was a right-wing supremist nut job that did the shooting, so that they can justify themselves in blaming all gun violence on those of us on the right. But it just doesn’t happen.

As Texas Senator and Presidential Candidate Ted Cruz recently stated, violent crimes are mostly propagated by liberals, more specifically, by Democrats. They keep feeding the killing machine, creating gun-free zones, trying to take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens and pampering the criminals.

Video first seen on Fox News

As crazy as it seems, these people actually think that taking guns out of the hands of the innocent is going to reduce crime. Oh, it might eliminate the occasional accidental shooting, I’ll give them that. It might even eliminate the tragic results of a drunken fight, when some fool goes into a bar with a gun (usually illegal, even if you have a concealed carry permit). But that’s not what I’m talking about. They actually think that taking guns out of the hands of the honest people will convince the criminals to give up theirs.

Senator Feinstein actually said that on the floor of the Senate. She said that once honest people give up their guns, criminals will do so as well, calling that “human nature.” Obviously, the Senator has no idea of what human nature really is. A lion won’t give up its teeth if the antelope give up their horns and a criminal won’t give up their guns if the rest of us give up ours.

Actually, I think what these liberals want is to repeal the physical laws that allow firearms to work. That’s about the only way that you’re going to get guns out of the hands of the criminals. But as Cain proved, about six thousand years ago, you don’t need a gun to kill your brother.

Murder is bound up in the heart of man, just like adultery, stealing, lying and anything else you can call evil. Unless and until we can get rid of that, we will need our guns. As long as there is a way for criminals to get their hands on guns, criminals will use them. No law will stop them, just like no law ever written has stopped them from committing any other crime.

Of course, if their true goal is to make us subservient, gun control makes sense. Likewise, if they are trying to help the jihadists, by taking away our ability to defend ourselves. In that regard, gun control can be seen as treason, as it truly aids and abets our enemies, allowing them to conquer the American culture and force us to convert to Islam.

I think I’ll keep mine, no matter what they say.



This article has been written by Bill White for Survivopedia.




5 total views, 5 views today

Rate this article!

[Total: 0    Average: 0/5]

What Really Caused The California Terrorist Massacre?

Click here to view the original post.

big SBIt is painfully evident that the Leftist malevolent MSM is already equivocating this obvious prima-facie Islamic terrorist attack by disclaiming it as terrorism, absent any corresponding motives but not entirely ruling it out yet.

Yeah, sure; until the authorities can whitewash it like they did the recent Colorado Planned Parenthood terrorist shooting by claiming they don’t know the exact motive even though the shooter specifically mentioned abortion baby parts, and was associated with an organized group of Christian extremists that has claimed responsibility for a number of killings.

Rev Robert Jeffress, an ardent proprietary theocratic religionist seeming to be more preoccupied with moralist equivalency comparative ratios among religionist evildoing, was just on Fox News and, as always, sidetracked the most important issue in his brainwashed defensive mode. He was more worried about defending the sidebar issue of prayer when the New York Daily News headline saying “God Won’t fix this”–referring to their leftist anti-2nd/A need for more gun control–appeared.

The truth is that the Obama administration does not want to offend the Muslim religionists and too many of the rest of the religionists in this country are more concerned with God, than they are with security of their country.

This San Bernardino terrorist duo were Muslims who recently visited Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and had the characteristic Islamic State beheading garb, tactical uniforms, vests, and the Islamic State caliphate has already applauded the massacre on line. Not to mention when the police hit their apartment, it resembled an Iraqi IED bomb factory and had enough munitions to supply several other future terror attack missions such as this one.

Ironically, the typically tepid denouncement of this California terror attack by the Muslim CAIR organization and the hard to believe relative of the shooter, who claims sincere mystification as to his brother committing this atrocity and the lack o a motive either, was apparently disputed by a Muslim woman who stated on Fox that she supports proactive efforts to weed out and condemn radical Islam as it offends non violent Muslims in America as much as anyone else. Of course, she is in the minority of American Muslims who are reluctant to admit any Muslim support of radical jihadism, even though most are secretly in support of it.

Yet, amazingly, at this writing, with all the self incriminating condemning collective preponderance of evidence, the government and its agents had still not concluded that these murderous terrorists were Islamist sleeper cell members.

Yes, I know how that sounds. It’s like saying, hey, look, you people are so stupid that we can make any laws we want to control you even if means subverting Constitution of the United States! You don’t really think we give a shit about your safety, do you? Hahahah? Nah, no way these were Islamist terrorists. This was just another example of “workplace violence” the POTUS is so convinced about and wants us all to believe as well.

Insult to Injury

The rock salt thrown on our emotional wounds was that the AG’s statement concerning this act of war on ’We, The People’, did not say anything of American recognition of being in danger of radical Islamist attacks! And, the POTUS himself could not restrain himself in his San Bernardino comment today when he said they can’t say it was terrorism (and he’ll never say “Islamist terrorism” even when it is) because they just “don’t know that” yet and it still “could be workplace violence”.

Our own government officials are lying to us and trying to re-direct, obfuscate, and marginalize the true reality for their own political agenda. And we just sit there and suck it all up, like infants on a pacifier.

Not being able to say the term “radical Islam” to keep in the good non-offensive graces of Muslims to garnish the large Islamic voting block that supports his socialist party regime is one thing. But to also spit on our graves by being more concerned with his gun control agenda, and trying to disarm us so we can’t defend ourselves adequately, amounts to an insidious attitude that simply can’t be tolerated by true American Patriots. The POTUS, of all people, should be more concerned that our 2nd/A “Shall Not Be Infringed” so that We, The People, can have the advantage to protect ourselves when police are not around.

I often go hot when some nitwit leftist sheeps say something so insanely stupid like “more gun control would have stopped these terrorist attacks”. Would more gun registration in the form of universal background checks have stopped this California massacre? California has limited capacity magazine laws. Did that stop these shooters from having large capacity ones?

These murderers could pass any background check! They bought their guns legally on government 4473 registration forms. “Legal” just means that your purchases are registered for future confiscation, NOT for crime prevention! And registration is never for your personal safety. When that finally dawns on people, they usually have a couple too many afterwards at happy hour to assuage how stupid they feel.

Then I go super after burner when some morally debased LL who is suffering from an EMP brain circuitry blow out says something like, “Well, if any gun control law saves just one life, then it’s well worth it.” I then ask them, “Really…What about all the lives gun control doesn’t save? If just one Paris concert fan had a concealed hi-cap pistol, how many of the 130 murdered victims might have lived? If just one person at the San Bernardino Christmas party had a Glock 17 with 19 rounds of high power ammo under his jacket, and opened up on the shooters?”

Just the act of interrupting the methodical slaughter with directional suppressive firepower could have made all the difference in the world, even if the terrorists weren’t immediately killed. If I’d been there, and I wasn’t killed in the first couple seconds because of the element of surprise, I guarantee I would have jumped up and speed flanked them while blasting a dozen or more rounds on them without hitting bystanders and also drawing their fire off their targets. And because I never miss, I guarantee they’d at least be “temporarily” disrupted from firing. But just in case I only wounded them, I’d quickly put a couple more rounds each in the openings of their face masks.


Rand Paul had a refreshingly pragmatic solution which I had already pointed out right after the Paris attacks last month. Rand Paul, unfortunately, is unlikely to be the GOP nominee, but it’s my opinion that nevertheless has the best solutions and ideas for immediate implementation. And he is at least more proactive of any other politician by putting forth a new bill to restrict and or seriously qualify access to our country from other known terrorist countries, which we all should force our Reps to support.

Unless you are a complete air head and remain under ball and chain, or you are a leftist agenda based power elite social parasite, you have nothing to prevent you from understanding and knowing for a fact that gun restrictions and control and even all out confiscation does not work anywhere, let alone in a libertarian free society. And any violation of our precious 2nd Amendment is anti-constitutional, anti-American, and it is intentionally placing the American people in serious danger!

So you don’t waste valuable time we don’t have left and resources we can’t afford to eliminate an inanimate tool, you instead eliminate the potential deleterious behavior of the human losers that is intent upon performing the unsocial act itself.

And of course I’ve never seen Hillary so popeyed jubilant and evil grinning frenzied in her sound bite press response to the San Bernardino terrorist cell atrocity about her renewed determination to disarm the American free citizens with more illegal law restrictions, and by launching a counterattack on the gun lobby and 2/A protectors!

It is a difficult concept for someone like me to deal with. The convoluted absurdity of justice and security forced upon us by the leftist regime and its MSM propaganda mind control Hillary Pac group to actually want to disarm the free American people while we are all under direct assault by murderous sleeper cells, who care less about any gun control laws because they simply don’t subscribe to them, is something I lose a lot of sleep over. And so should you.

It can’t be sane to agree with a POTUS and this tyrant regimes solution that protecting us from murderous religionist Jihadists is to prevent us from protecting ourselves by violating our 2/A liberties and disarming us. When he should be making it less restrictive for Citizens to have firearms! Starting with lifting restrictions on locations like “Easier to Kill Us Here” zones aka “gun free” zones.

So You Really Want to Know Who Is to Blame?

Of course a major part of the fault goes to the POTUS and his cohorts and totalitarian policies which are definitely a large part of the problem, and not a real time solution. And sadly, this amounts to clear prosecutable violations of national and private security.

They’ve done everything from outright denial of clearly identifiable Jihadist attacks, to bullshitting us with the non effective illusion of dismantlement at the source of the IS and other anti-Western middle East Islamist terrorist groups who have declared war on us, to the complete lack of enforcement of sufficient border protection and immigration checks, to preclude the ridiculously easy access to our country by hard core enemies of our nation.

And then lying to our faces about it because they think we are all too stupid to know the difference. It always bothers me that the government refers to a “war on terrorism” without being able to say who the terrorists are. Rudi Juliano just said on national TV that “anybody who thinks this is NOT terrorism has no business being in law enforcement, and…is simply a moron”.

I have to go one better. Anyone who thinks we must destroy the 2nd Amendment by universal registration background checks for future confiscation efforts for absolutely no pragmatic or viable public safety rational, except this regime’s purposeful agenda to disarm the free American populate for future totalitarian milking of the sheeple, deserves to be arrested and charged with treason. For the betrayal of our citizens right to safety and violating the Constitution of the United States which they swore to uphold.


At the very least, the entire voting population regardless of their political party affiliation, ethnicity, race or religious preference, should recognize the greatest threat to our private freedoms and security that this current regime represents and use our voting voice and power to put a stop to this egregious tyranny and disregard for our national security this coming election.

Because ultimately, the American People are the cause of our own government failure and our own national endangerment. We, the People, are still in charge of and accountable for our own political destiny.

Because our trust had been taken advantage of by our past governments and corrupt representatives and worthless politicians and crony administrations, we must all come together to prevent this totalitarian juggernaut from further trespassing on our Bill of Rights for their own agenda based power greed, once and for all, as our framers provided for us to do.

We must unite and remove this astoundingly dangerous current government beast and at least get in office non-professional agenda based politicians like one of the so-called outsiders to start a much needed organizational reform type of revolution for 2016.

Otherwise we have no one to blame in the end…but ourselves.


This article has been written by Mahatma Muhjesbude for Survivopedia.






22 total views, 22 views today

Rate this article!

[Total: 1    Average: 5/5]

Racism? Where Is This Coming From?

Click here to view the original post.

BIG racism

I don’t know about you, but after so many years of hearing cries of “racism” every time I’ve turned around, I’m burnt out. It no longer means anything to me. Perhaps that’s because the people who are using that word are constantly morphing the meaning of it, until it no longer means what it once did.

I have to say, I was raised to condemn racism in all forms. While I grew up mostly around whites, there were always a sprinkling of other ethnic groups in my life. I always treated them like anyone else and many became friends at one time or another.

Even now, over 50 years old, I still spend a lot of time with people of other ethnic backgrounds. My wife and I enjoy encountering them and learning about their cultures. Actually, I live in an area where I’m considered the minority, with over 80 percent of our local population being Hispanic.

This has never bothered me. I don’t look over my shoulder any more here than I would in an all white area. I don’t think that there is anything wrong with the Mexicans or Hispanics I deal with on a regular basis. I have friends who trace their ancestry back to Mexico and some who came from there themselves. While there aren’t many blacks or Afro-Americans in my area, one of my best friends is one.

At the same time, I recognize that there are cultural differences to contend with. Mexicans eat different foods than the average American family does. While we all love Mexican food once in a while, Americans don’t eat rice, beans and tortillas with every meal.

Actually, the cultural differences we have are hidden strengths. If our society ever grows up to the point where we can accept differences, without either discriminating against people who are different, trying to force them to change, or hearing liberals scream “racist” every time we notice a difference, we might be able to take advantages of those differences. I’ve done this in my own life, learning about hospitality from Mexicans, who are much better at it than we white folk are.

In my opinion, I’m inter-racial enough. One of my daughters is married to a man of Mexican descent and another is all but engaged to another man of Mexican descent. Both are great young men and I’m glad to have them as part of the family (even though one isn’t officially part yet). We spent Thanksgiving with that one’s parents, and had a wonderful time with them.

Yet, to the real racists, the fact that I’m a white American male makes me automatically a racist.

It doesn’t matter what I say and do, I’m still a racist… at least in their eyes.

But is that actually true? In my opinion, for what it’s worth, no. There is some lingering racism in this country, as well as some discrimination. We still have our Archie Bunkers, although they have become much rarer than they used to be. To say any group of people is automatically racist, just for existing, is as racist as saying that some other group is a lower category of being, just because of their skin color. It is separating people by race and declaring that one is better than the other, simply because of their race. Bull-pucky!

I was a small child when Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his immortal “I Have a Dream” speech. That was a great moment in American history and one that needed to happen. Unlike the current crop of race-baiters who pretend to lead the black community, King was a man of God, who believed in true equality. He has done more for racial equality and human rights than probably any other single person who has lived in the last century. There were others; but in my opinion, he stands head and shoulders above them.

As I look around from the outside, I see that minorities, especially blacks, have made great strides in the last 50 years. We have Afro-Americans in every field and profession, all the way up to the presidency. Yet to those who are determined to maintain anger against real or imagined white supremacy, it’s as if not one step forward has been made.

Is there more to be done? Absolutely! Blacks and Hispanics still make up a disappropriate part of our prison population, if you look only at demographic data. However, that’s not racism or even discrimination, nor is it because whites get some sort of free ride in the court system; that’s because there’s a higher percentage of young men of those two cultures who practice crime as a profession and hobby, than there are whites.

Where Is This Coming From?

The question must be asked, “Why are there more Blacks and Hispanics in the prisons, than there are whites? Why are there more young men from these ethnic backgrounds who turn to crime, than there are amongst whites?” The answer can be found in a combination of poverty and culture. Poverty, because many of those who end up in prison come from financially disadvantaged areas and culture, because those who live in those areas ridicule anyone who tries to do well in school and give themselves a chance to get ahead.

So, it’s not the white man who’s holding down these other ethnic groups and forcing them into a life of crime, but their friends and neighbors. The same friends and neighbors who are screaming about how much the white man is a racist and how much the white man is discriminating against them.

Of course, when you start with the presumption that whites are racist, then it’s easy to blame them for everything. That’s a whole lot easier than facing the reality of your friends, neighbors and ethnic group. Facing the fact that you and those around you are responsible for your problems means that you might have to change something in your life. It’s much easier to accept the role of victim and say that it’s someone else’s fault.

The whole thing of white privilege is another way of blaming others for your faults. Do the vast majority of blacks and Hispanics have a harder time making it ahead in life? Absolutely! But that’s not due to white privilege, unless you can say that not growing up in a neighborhood that ridicules those who try and get ahead is a privilege. If that’s the case, I plead guilty, even though I was poor as a child, as well as living through periods of poverty as an adult. At least my fellow students didn’t humiliate me for studying.

But, once again, crying “white privilege” is another way of pawning one’s own responsibility off on others. If one can convince themselves that whites get those privileges, they can go right back to that victimization game, denying that they have any responsibility for their own lives.

Where I live, the population is 87% Hispanic, basically first through third generation Mexicans. Many of them are poor, as the county I live in is one of the poorest in Texas. Between the combination of poverty and race, any young man or young woman of Mexican descent who graduates high school can get a full, free-ride scholarship at the local university, pretty much regardless of their grades. Yet, a full 75% of them drop out of college their first semester. That’s tragic in my eyes.

My kids didn’t have that advantage. Because they are white, they had to work their way through college, depending on their hard work and student loans to get them through. Yes, they did get some government aid, because we were poor. But because of the color of their skin, their “advantage” was that they couldn’t get as much aid as others. Tell me, who’s being discriminated against here?

But I’m not bitter about what happened to my children, nor are they. We realize that getting ahead in life requires hard work and sacrifice. I’ve done that and so have they. So today, even though we live in an area where we are the minority, they are all successful. Is that really white privilege?

Racism is ugly. It doesn’t matter if it’s whites against blacks, blacks against whites, or blacks against other blacks; it’s ugly. As far as I’m concerned, it shouldn’t have any place in society. But screaming “Racism!” all the time isn’t the answer. That isn’t going to get rid of anything. All it’s going to do and all it has done is to widen the divide that exists between people of different ethnic backgrounds.

There is only one race, that’s the human race. I don’t care if you are black, white, green, purple or blue, you are part of that race. You may come from a different ethnic background than I do, but on the inside, you’re still red. We all have the same blood flowing through our bodies.

We all have the same organs in the same places. We are all humans alike, part of this great global family. When we all finally realize that, maybe we can stop pointing fingers and screaming and start helping each other out.

This article has been written by Bill White for Survivopedia.

7 total views, 7 views today

Rate this article!

[Total: 0    Average: 0/5]

Shoot Or Don’t Shoot? This Is The Question

Click here to view the original post.

shootMotor vehicles and distracted driving claim thousands of lives more per year than guns, but only guns have media bias against them, have millions of dollars aimed at their “removal from society”, and are considered by law to be “lethal force” devices just by virtue of shooting them. 

Do you know when it’s legal to draw a weapon and shoot at someone? You as a gun owner have a very large responsibility when you are carrying a concealed or open carry firearm.

If you do not know the laws about drawing and firing a firearm, you could end up in jail because you thought you were doing the right thing; when in reality you broke the law. In some cases, you may be just as much of a criminal as the criminal you tried to stop because there are limits to when it is and is not appropriate to use lethal force.

While you may feel very tempted to fire them or aim them to “scare criminals off”, prevent a theft, or prevent other actions, it can backfire on you because it may not be reasonable to think your life (not property) or someone else’s life is in danger.

Most of the legally armed citizens will never draw their firearms unless in a self-defense incident. It is better to know what to do if you are forced to draw your weapon.

The Two Mind Boggling Questions

For those individuals who choose to carry concealed, there will be some sleepless nights when you must ask yourself some tough questions.

1 – When is it appropriate to draw your weapon and pull the trigger?

2 – Another question you must ask yourself, is “Can I take a human life if I must?”

gunThese are two very important questions. If you do draw your weapon and fire there are legal and emotional consequences of making a bad decision.If you do falsely believe that you can take a human life when necessary, and cannot do it when the event comes to pass, the odds are you and anyone you are trying to protect will become victims of this incident.

In this country most state statutes are very clear as to when deadly force may be used. It can only be used in cases of self-defense or the defense of others in imminent danger. Only the individual in the incident knows the point at which they felt their life or someone else’s life was being threatened and in imminent danger.

Sometimes the individual’s perception constitutes a very large gray area. When in this gray area, mistakes are made that will follow you one way or another for the rest of your life.

One thing that is certain if you draw your weapon there may be two, three, or possibly more stories of what happened. Get your version of the story of what really happened to local authorities before anyone else gets there with their lies and incorrect versions of what really happened.

It is up to the prosecutors to determine if a crime has taken place. It does not matter if the individual had a concealed weapons permit or not, it doesn’t affect how prosecutor’s office evaluates these incidents.

What one individual might perceive as imminent danger could be different from what another person believes. When a prosecutor looks at a case he must determine whether or not the person using self-defense has a reason for shooting, possibly injuring another person, or killing a person in this incident.

What If You Draw Your Concealed Carry Weapon Without Shooting It?

Some attorneys will tell you not to say anything at all to the local law enforcement, especially if there were no shots fired and no injuries. If they are wrong you could end up paying for attorney fees to defend you if you are arrested.

It is much better to speak up and let the authorities know what happened and go on the record before they are dispatched to get you and bring you to the police or sheriff station.

If you have drawn your pistol but no shots were fired, holster your pistol, and get out of the area before something else happens. Call the local police or sheriff’s office and tell them exactly what happened.

Let them know that you have a concealed carry permit or state license and you are concerned about harm done to you. Explain to them that is why you drew your pistol in the first place and you did it in self-defense. Insist on having your information recorded about what happened, and do file to have the other person arrested if possible.

If the law enforcement officials say it’s not necessary, still have it recorded as an official record in the event someone comes in and wants to press charges on you or a witness has a different story than yours.

Always get a copy of the official report for your records. Always make sure the report includes the police or sheriff employee’s name that took the report, the time of the report, and the date it was taken.

Remember you are a law abiding citizen that wants to stay on the right side of the law. You have been authorized by law to carry a weapon for self-defense purposes. If ever you have to draw a weapon, your reason for doing so, was the weapon was drawn in self-defense.

When Can You Draw Your Concealed Carry Handgun?

gun Generally speaking you may not draw your gun to threaten someone, even though they are threatening you. Legally your hand gun can only be used to save you or another from grave bodily injury or death.

Many times a gun was drawn and that ended the threat, but to draw the gun is still required for you and a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstance to believe that the threat of great bodily injury or death was imminent.

Remember, in some ways carrying a gun is a lot like cleaning one or storing it. Always go on the presumption that it is loaded, and that by accident or intent, it can go off and kill whoever happens to be in the way.

When you are calm, you may think your finger will never reach for the trigger, however the bullet in the other person’s body is all the evidence that is needed.

Keep your life simple, and only draw a gun when you feel you or someone else is in imminent danger of losing life, because once you draw the gun, the only thing that is left is to aim it and pull the trigger. Both can happen without thought and due consideration.

If you draw your gun, you may also have essentially backed yourself into a corner and eliminated other options for resolving the situation. The gun is a tool of last resort and if you carry it concealed, you cannot use it to ward off potential threats.

It should only really come out of the holster when the expectation of death is imminent. Real life situations aren’t the same as what you see on TV or what goes on in the fantasies of anti-gunners.  You will be in a stressful situation and must think carefully in order to do what is best and within constraints of the law.

There are a couple of things to think about when you must make up your mind to shoot or not to shoot:

  • You walk up on somebody who is stealing a radio and other property out of someone’s car. You cannot point a gun at them or even shoot at them because human life is always valued over personal property.
  • If a woman is in her home and she is awakened by the sound of breaking glass in the middle of the night and sees a man climbing in through the broken window with a weapon. She has every right to protect herself in her home, but if she shoots at the presumptive assailant while he is fleeing outside of the home she does not have the right to use deadly force to stop him.
  • On Sunday October 18th 2015 a pastor in Detroit had to “protect his flock with a Glock”. An individual came inside of his church with a brick and was threatening people with sudden death if they did not do as he instruct them to do. This individual on numerous occasions had threatened the pastor and other members of his congregation but this was usually verbal threats. According to the news, this individual came to the church with murder on his mind. The pastor told him to leave but he refused to do so. This individual charged the pastor and was screaming and threatening the pastor with a brick saying that he was going to kill him. The pastor, defending himself and his congregation, had no alternative but to fire. The Detroit Police cleared the pastor of any wrong doing.

To have a concealed carry permit is a great responsibility. You have to know your state laws concerning this permit and any other state that accepts your permit in their state. Although most states that offer this permit may have very subtle differences in their laws and the laws of other states, it is your responsibility to keep up on the new changes of those laws.

You must always remember that you may only draw and fire your concealed weapon to protect a person or yourself from immediate death or great bodily harm. If your incident does not prove this, then you could be possibly charged with banishing of firearm or charged with assault with a deadly weapon.

Remember you could always be held legally liable if you did not follow the law to the letter. In some states if you shoot and an innocent bystander get hit, you can be held responsible in a civil lawsuit.  Therefore, not only must you always practice good firearm safety and accuracy, you must also be aware of the situations you find yourself in, as well as what the law says about them.

Interested in improving your safety? CLICK HERE to find out more!

This article has been written by Fred Tyrell for Survivopedia.

11 total views, 11 views today

Rate this article!

[Total: 1    Average: 5/5]

What You Need To Know About Getting A Concealed Carry Permit

Click here to view the original post.

Concealed Carry PermitWhen it comes right down to keeping guns during crisis, an anti-gunner aiming to get guns away from everyone will act in a manner that only serves to create more false justification for increased gun regulations.

Just play it safe and use the laws to your advantage to wage lawsuits and demand legislative changes instead of getting hung up by them. Make it your business and do involve your ego and pride in making repeal of gun laws the litmus test for election.

Do not allow yourself, your family members, or those on your survival team to become the reason for more gun control laws, and the reason for anti-gun scammers making more money while they destroy our safety and society.

If you are going to keep guns in the pre-crisis period and want to ensure the having them during and after the crisis, keep these thought in mind and follow the laws of your locality, especially on carrying a concealed handgun.

In all states in the US, concealed carry handgun permits are usually issued by the circuit court of the county or city in which the applicant resides. In most states, to carry a concealed weapon you must have a concealed weapons permit.

An increasing number of states are allowing concealed carry without a permit, however you should still be aware of restrictions related to where you can and cannot carry.

How to Get a Concealed Handgun Permit

To get a concealed handgun permit, the person putting in the application:

  • Must be at least 21 years of age or older,
  • May apply in writing to the clerk of the circuit court of the county or city in which he or she resides,
  • He or she must be a member of the United States armed forces of the county or city which he or she is stationed.

There usually is no requirement related to the length of time an applicant for conceal carry permit must have been a resident or living in the county or city where he or she currently resides.

In most states that offer the concealed carry permit, you must have documentation of proof of handgun competency. Most states have several ways of filling this requirement.

  • training shootCompleting a hunter education or hunter safety course as approved by your State Department of Game and Inland Fisheries.
  • Completing any National Rifle Association firearms safety or training course.
  • Completing firearms safety or training courses available to the general public by law enforcement agencies, junior colleges, or instructors certified by an NRA or Department of Justice Services
  • Completing any law enforcement firearms safety or training courses offered for security guards, investigators, or special deputies.
  • Presenting evidence equivalent experience with firearms through participation in organized shooting competitions or current military service from any branch of the armed forces.
  • Updating or previously having held a concealed carry firearms permit license.
  • Completing any firearms training and safety courses including those that are electronic, video, or online courses conducted by state certified or NRA certified instructors.
  • Successfully completing any government police agencies firearms training courses and are qualified to carry a firearm in the course of their normal police duties.
  • Completing any firearms training course that the court deems adequate.

To prove that you have met the requirements of knowing how to correctly use a firearm, you must submit a copy of your certificate of completion of the course or evidence of participation in firearms competition.

Fees for Concealed Handgun Permits

Most states have state regulated fees that the applicant must pay in order to get his or her concealed handgun permit. Usually the court also has a small fee for handling the application. This is known as the application fee.

Your local police or sheriff department usually charges an investigation fee which covers your background check and your fingerprint check fee. Usually your state police also have a small fee to cover their end of processing the application. Each state has a maximum charge that any city or county can charge for processing your concealed handgun permit application.

Most states also have time limits that the courts must have the application completed by. They are usually between 30 to 45 days to complete all the necessary investigations and for the judge to make his decision on whether to issue or not to issue the concealed handgun carry permit.

When you are carrying a concealed weapon most states require that you have a picture ID issued by the state that issued you the concealed carry permit. This permit and your photo ID must be on your person at all times. If you are US military and you are carrying concealed, you must have your government ID card on your person along with the concealed weapons permit.

How to Renew Your Permit

You must reapply to the court using the same procedures that your state decreed to get your first concealed carry permit. If the investigation reveals that you are no longer eligible to have this permit, then you must surrender the permit back to the court that issued it.

If your permit was revoked, you have the right to your day in court. You have a right to be represented by counsel and the Rules of Evidence shall apply. The final order of the court will include the court’s findings of fact and the conclusions of the law.

If you disagree with the lower courts findings and conclusions, most states allow your case to be heard and reviewed by the Court of Appeals of that state. Usually the decision of a court of appeals is final.

When Aren’t You Allowed to Get the Permit?

Here are a few reasons why an individual would not be qualified to obtain a concealed carry permit:

  • The applicant is a subject of a restraining order and is prohibited from purchasing or transporting a firearm.
  • The applicant has been convicted of two or more misdemeanors within a five year period immediately preceding the application.
  • If the applicant is addicted to or an unlawful use of marijuana or any controlled substance.
  • If the applicant was discharged from the US military under dishonorable conditions.
  • If the applicant is a fugitive from justice.
  • If an individual have been convicted of assault, assault and battery, sexual battery, discharging a firearm, or banishing a firearm in most states they are ineligible for a concealed carry permit.
  • If the applicant has been convicted of stalking.
  • If the person has been charged with a felony.

Most states have laws in their concealed carry statutes that define prohibited conduct and where unlawful to carry:

  • Any individual with a concealed carry permit who is under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs while carrying their handgun in a public place is usually guilty of a misdemeanor.
  • If you are charged with driving while under the influence or public intoxication you can also lose your concealed carry permit and you must face the charges in court.
  • In some states it is against the law if an individual with a concealed carry permit drinks any kind of alcoholic beverage. This too is also grounds to lose your concealed weapons permit.
  • In some states, if the owner of private property has posted a no firearms sign on the outer doors of his business. You may not carry a concealed weapon on this private property. If you must go to these places, make it a point to sue them if you wind up becoming a victim of a crime that would have been stopped if you were carrying a gun and have a concealed weapons permit.
  • Most states it is illegal for concealed weapon permit holders to enter court buildings or churches.
  • In some states it is illegal for concealed weapons holder to enter school buildings while carrying a concealed weapon. Most states have exceptions to this if you are a concealed carry permit holder, some states have exception and their statues states a person who has a valid concealed handgun permit and possesses a concealed handgun while in a motor vehicle in a parking lot, traffic circle, or other roadways they may carry their concealed weapon.
  • It is illegal to carry a concealed weapon at any airport in this country. Doing this will get you charged with a federal felony and the loss of your right to keep and bear arms. If you are a victim of a crime while in the airport parking lot or other location, be sure to sue the airport and the government because you were not allowed to properly defend yourself. Remind the court and politicians that 9/11 was carried out by men carrying box cutters, not guns, and if concealed weapons permit holders had been on the plane, they would have stopped these events from happening, thus avoiding the loss of over 3,000 US citizen lives and two wars that have cost us our freedoms, billions of dollars in taxes, and cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, including our own soldiers who were killed or suffer permanent injury.

Reciprocity and Recognition Between States

Many jurisdictions honor a permit or license issued by another jurisdiction. Recognition may be granted to all jurisdictions or some subset which meet a set of permit issue and criteria, such as similar training comparable to honoring jurisdictions or certain background checks.

Several states have entered into formal agreements to mutually recognize permits. This arrangement is commonly called reciprocity or mutual recognition of each other’s permits.

While 37 states have this agreement with at least one other state and several states honor all out of state concealed carry permits, some states have special requirements like training courses or safety exams, and therefore do not honor permits from states that do not have such requirements for issue.

Some states make exceptions for persons under the minimum age (usually 21) if they are active or honorably discharged members of the military or a police force. States that do not have this exception generally do not recognize any license from states that do.

Where Are You and Are You Not Allowed to Carry

Although carry may be legal under state law in accordance with reciprocity agreements, the Federal Gun Free School Zones Act subjects an out of state permit holder to federal felony prosecution if they carry a firearm within 1000 feet of any kindergarten through 12th grade school property line.

However the enforcement of this statute is rare given several states have nullification statutes prohibiting state law enforcement officers from enforcing federal firearms laws.

Restricted areas where concealed weapons may not be carried:

  • Federal government facilities. All federal buildings, military posts and bases, and federal parks (only includes restrooms or any other buildings or structures located within federal parks is illegal).
  • State government facilities. It is illegal for a person to carry a concealed weapon in state government buildings, which include courthouses, DMV Offices, police stations, correctional facilities and city or county government meeting places.
  • In political party events.
  • Educational institutions – some states have drop off exceptions which only prohibit carry inside school buildings or permit carry while inside a personal vehicle on school property.
  • Some states will not permit concealed carry in amusement parks, fairs, parades, or carnivals.
  • Hospitals – Some hospitals do not permit concealed carry weapons on any of their property or some state that they cannot be carried in the physical hospital itself or outbuildings that belong to the hospital.
  • Church, mosques, and other houses of worship is usually at the discretion of the church clergy in most states.
  • Municipal mass transit vehicles and facilities.
  • In controlled access areas of airports.
  • Aboard aircraft or ships unless specifically authorized by the pilot in command or the ship captain.
  • Any public place while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

There are many states that have Legal Gun Free Zones, and you should learn where these zones are in your state of residency and in those states that you are visiting.

In these states, any private business can post a sign prohibiting concealed carry on their business property. Violating these posted signs in some states are grounds for revocation of the offenders concealed carry permit and criminal prosecution.

In other states, they only enforce trespassing laws when a person violates a gun free zone sign. By posting these signs, business create areas where it is illegal to carry a concealed handgun similar to regulations concerning schools,hospitals and public gatherings.

In addition to placing a sign on the property, all jurisdictions allow some form of oral communication by the lawful owner or controller of the property that the person is not welcome and should leave.

Are this limitation viable? There is considerable dispute over the effectiveness of such gun free zones. Here only law abiding citizens are being punished. Those individuals cannot carry firearms legally just ignore these signs.

I have personally seen over the years when restaurants put up the no concealed carry weapons allowed signs on their doors and they were robbed.

All this did was wave a flag in front of the criminal individuals of these areas to go ahead and rob the place blind. They didn’t worry about it because no one was armed and could shoot back at them. So they took what they wanted and when satisfied left the area before police response could intervene.

I guess these restaurants learned a very expensive lesson. It is better to have a few concealed carry individuals on the premises than to be completely defenseless.

Furthermore those wishing to commit mass murder might intentionally choose gun-free areas like shopping malls, schools, and churches, where general carry is prohibited by statute or signs. Here the population inside these areas is disarmed and could do nothing to stop them. Actually, statistics show that all but 2 mass shootings were carried out in gun free zones.

Brandishing and Printing

Printing refers to the circumstances were the shape or outline of a firearm is visible through a garment while the gun is still fully covered and holstered.

Printing generally is not desired when carrying a concealed weapon. An individual can see the printing of the firearm on your person and they know you are armed. Doing this could warn the criminal that you are armed and you could be the first one shot.

Brandishing can refer to different actions depending on the state. These actions can include printing through a garment, pulling back clothing to expose the gun, unholstering a gun, and exhibiting it in the hand.

The intent to intimidate or threaten someone may or may not be required legally or to be considered brandishing. In most states brandishing is a crime, but the definition of brandishing varies widely in US.

Legal Liability

shootingSome states have a duty to retreat provisions which requires a permit holder, especially in public places, to vacate him or herself from a potentially dangerous situation before resorting to deadly force. The duty to retreat does not restrictively apply in a person’s home or business even though escalation of force may be required.

A majority of states who allow concealed carry forbid suits being brought in such cases either by barring lawsuits for damages resulting from criminal act on the part of the plaintiff or by granting the gun owner immunity from such civil suit if it is found that he or she was justified in shooting.

The Castle Doctrine allows persons who own firearms and carry them conceal to use them without first attempting to retreat. The Castle Doctrine is usually applied to situations within the confines of one’s own home.

Many states have adopted escalation of force laws along with provisions for concealed carry. They include the necessity to first verbally warn a trespasser or lay hands on a trespasser before a shooting is justified, unless the trespasser is armed or assumed to be so. The escalation of force does not apply if the shooter really believes a violent felony has been, or is about to be committed on his property by the trespasser.

In the 1895 Supreme Court ruled in Beard vs US, if an individual does not provoke an assault, and is residing in place that they have the right to be, then they may use considerable force against someone they really believe may do them serious harm without being charged with murder or manslaughter should that person be killed.

In most states lethal force is only authorized when serious harm is presumed to be imminent.

Did you get your concealed carry permit? Share your experience in the comment section below!

Interested in improving your safety? CLICK HERE to find out more!

This article has been written by Fred Tyrell for Survivopedia.

9 total views, 8 views today

Rate this article!

[Total: 0    Average: 0/5]

The Villainization Of Conservatism

Click here to view the original post.

False newsIs it just me, or is the news starting to get repetitive? Some shooting happens, the media immediately blames it on conservatives and the NRA, before they even know the name of the perpetrator and then Obama has a speech where he does the same thing.

The same message over and over, with never a retraction when the truth is found out.

Many of these shooters are turning out to be Muslims, but that is never admitted in the liberal mainstream media. After all, admitting that would cause them two problems. It would make it look like the Muslims are something other than innocent victims and it would eliminate liberals’ ability to blame everything on conservatives. After all, as every liberal knows, all gun-toting conservatives are murderers.

At first glance, it would seem that our news media is highly incompetent. After all, consistently blaming the violence on the wrong group of people sure doesn’t make them seem competent. But there’s something deeper going on here; as if it is intentional.

Anyone who doesn’t understand that the news media is fully in bed with the progressive liberal agenda is either a liberal themselves or asleep. While the media has clearly leaned to the left for a couple of decades at least, it hasn’t been until the last few years that they have so clearly become nothing more than the propaganda arm of the progressive liberal movement.

There have been a number of rather troubling accusations come out against the news media lately. For one thing, several of the news agencies have been caught dramatizing events to get the footage they needed for their nightly reports. Then there has been revelation of how much money top news executives have donated to the Democrat Party and Democrat Candidates.

Several reporters have come forward, saying that the White House has threatened them if they tell the truth, and now, there’s a whistleblower who is saying that the news media receives money from the U.S. government and other countries, for putting the news in a favorable light.

With all this going on, it’s hard to believe anything that’s coming out of the mainstream media, yet millions of low information voters still do. Perhaps that’s simply because as long as they are taken care of, they don’t care what else the government does. This leaves the door wide open for the government to get away with a lot of things; some of which might be immoral, if not illegal. The media is supposed to be self-policing, but it’s clear that they aren’t doing that very well either.

There has been a fair amount of information come out; pointing to the fact that Sandy Hook was phony. The whole event was a planned exercise in reacting to an active shooter situation.

When the time came, they brought in the media and the actors, making it seem like an actual shooting event. There’s just one thing… there were no ambulances to take away the kids who had been shot. If kids had been hurt or killed, why weren’t there any ambulances?

Sandy Hook wasn’t the only event that people are saying was staged. There are rumors that 9-11 was, that the Boston bombing was and that several other events which have gripped the country’s attention were staged for political reasons. While I don’t know that any of those rumors are true, I do know that the news media is quick to blame conservatives, regardless of what actually happened.

Time after time, conservatives are being blamed for things that they didn’t do. Take the mass shootings that have been happening in schools and other gun free zones.


Almost without exception, the shooters in those incidents have either been registered as Democrats or in the case of perpetrators who are too young to be registered voters, they are from families which are registered as Democrats. But if you ask the average person on the street, they’ll tell you that those are all conservatives.

Why is that happening? Because they are hearing what the news says and there are never any retractions of those statements. When the investigations are concluded and the information comes out that they are liberals, the news media doesn’t report it. They let their initial false narrative stand. Obama is helping this along too, refusing to label killings by radial Muslims acts of domestic terrorism and pushing the narrative that there are more people killed in the United States by right-wing extremism than there are by radical Islam. Uh, what people killed by right-wing extremism? Other than the killing in the black AME church in Charleston, I don’t know of any.

But the facts apparently don’t matter when you’re trying to swing public opinion. As Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda minister once said, “If you tell al lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” Could it be that what we’re seeing is nothing more than a propaganda campaign against conservatives?

The truth of the matter is that conservatives are probably the biggest danger that Obama and his followers can see, to their socialist utopia vision of the United States. In their minds, anyone who stands against them is a terrorist. By that definition, you and I, not those who are out there raping, killing and beheading people, are the terrorists of today.

Yes, this is a ridiculous point of view, but the scary one is that it is the point of view that is being sold to the general public. While the population of the country is roughly equally divided between Democrats and Republicans, the number of true conservatives is lower than the total number of Republicans. The number of conservatives who are truly willing to take a stand for what they believe in, even if it will cost them, is lower than that. All it would take to silence them is a threat by those in power.

Conspiracy or Not?

Don’t believe me? Look at the vast number of people who refuse to speak out against anything PC. If being labeled racist is enough to silence people, how easy will it be to silence them when the alternative is being sent to a concentration camp?

There has been a lot of talk amongst conspiracy theorists on the right, talking about the DHS list of people to arrest and FEMA internment camps. I tend to ignore that. It’s not that I don’t believe that such things are possible, it’s that I’ve heard so many things through the years that I wait until I can see something tangible happening. Even if those things do exist, my talking about them or worrying about them isn’t going to change a thing. That has to wait until the other side takes action first.

But just for a moment, let’s suppose that the conspiracy theorists are right and that Obama’s government is working towards capturing all true conservatives and putting them in those camps. Wouldn’t they need an excuse to take that action? They would have to tell everyone else something. They couldn’t just let it go that X million people have disappeared or that X million people have been arrested. There has to be a reason behind it.

Swiss guns

Before Hitler started rounding up Jews and sending them to the extermination camps, he put them in ghettos. But before that, he turned the people of Germany against them. The opening salvo in his war against the Jews was propaganda. He had to get the people behind him first.

I could show you other examples as well. Hitler wasn’t the only one. Mao did it in China. Stalin did it in Russia. Castro did it in Cuba. Obama is doing nothing more than following a well-documented pattern. Turn the people against the group you want to get rid of, then when you give an excuse for rounding them all up, the people will buy it.

What’s the excuse to lock up conservatives? How about the overwhelming preponderance of evidence that every gun owner is a murderer? What, you don’t think they are? You’re right. But all those liberals out there are convinced of it. Just look at the things they post on social media if you don’t believe me.

Okay, enough of conspiracy theory. Let’s get our feet back on the ground. Look around you, can you tell me any logical reason for the villainization of the right, that Barack Obama, his political cronies and the liberal media are propagating? I can’t either. There seem to be only two options; the conspiracy theorists are right or there is something much more sinister and secretive going on, than even they have imagined.

Obama only has 15 more months to act. He either has to do something in that time period, or he has to declare martial law and suspend the Constitution so that he can remain in office. The match is set to the fuse, all that remains to see is when and how it will blow.


This article has been written by Bill White for Survivopedia.

173 total views, 27 views today

Rate this article!

[Total: 22    Average: 3.5/5]