It’s okay to be white, gun owners

It’s okay to be white, gun owners

So the great Virginia pro gun protest went on without a hitch or a boogaloo, which either made you happy or sad depending on who you are.

The media and government wanted so badly for something to happen, and I guess in a way we did too. Seems everyone is itching to finally have it out. The powers that be were literally planning on it being another orchestrated bum fight like in Charlottesville, where a permitted rally was pushed by local government officials and law enforcement into a crowd of Antifa who showed up unpermitted looking to crack “Notsee” skulls but were portrayed as the victims.

Yet this time there were no violent leftist counter protestors, or a fed false flag attempt, when the thousands of people protesting were heavily armed. Big think.

Lois Beckett, senior reporter for the Guardian, posted, “What is so striking about the scene at the gun rights rally in Richmond is what you don’t see: almost no cops. Just that little cluster of state police there. No lines of riot cops. No law enforcement in riot gear.”

And then came the responses, and the mask slipped. Nobody was happy that there wasn’t violence, or that thousands of heavily armed Americans could be pissed off but peacefully gather in front of the people who were violating their rights.

The critique of the gun rights rally wasn’t that it was about guns. It wasn’t about an argument balancing public safety and Americans getting fed up with unconstitutional restrictions on their rights and liberties. It’s not that they disagreed with conservatives and libertarians on policy differences. They didn’t even call the protestors murderers and terrorists… well, they did but there was another primary pejorative associated with all the slander.

It’s a pejorative so disgusting and loathsome that even the most “don’t tread on my cold dead hands covered in the blood of tyrants” patriot would melt into a puddle and publicly flog themselves in front of their enemies and accusers to prove they’re not. The Achilles Heel label that’s likely deterred these atomized individuals from a collective boogaloo.

They accused the protestors of being white.

And in contemporary America, anything positively white is “racist”.

People like Ethan Somers of Culture Media and Guns Down Movement posted to social media, which was shared by every anti gun group, “So… so white,” as he (and I know his pronouns because he put them in his bio) filmed an endless sea of white faces.

“NO NO, we’re not white! Just look at my black friend!” as every pro gun personality posted pictures of the same black people at the rally.

“We’re not racists! We agree with white people being a pejorative! Those Democrats are the real racists because all gun control is racist!” was the common reply to being called white.

“Call us anything, but whatever you do, please don’t call us white!”

And that’s the only allowable and acceptable conditioned defense, isn’t it? Except it isn’t.

In this case, the anti gun crowd is more correct than the pro gun.

“HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT?!?!”

Easy, because 99% of the people who showed up were white, and the most important part is – there’s nothing wrong with that 99%. And thank you too, 1%, we love you.

I’d also like to thank the anti gun crowd for pointing out just who it was out there standing up for our rights, because according to our friends, the other 99% apparently didn’t matter.

For all the outreach that’s been done over the years to prove to the anti gun crowd how “not white Christian male” those who support inalienable rights are, what did it accomplish?

Why are we so enamored with getting validation and acceptance from people who hate us, to agree with us when they never will, while overlooking the actual people who show up?

It’s like the Turning Point USA Blexit strategy: be like the left, call everyone who disagrees with you racist, and alienate your actual supporters to pull in a whopping 3% of the total black woman vote.

While we say “Gun Rights are for everybody!” apparently everybody but white people of good moral character are against gun rights. Maybe that’s why one of the first acts of the first congress was the Naturalization Act of 1790 limiting American citizenship to those people. Big think.

So we need to ask ourselves, while we say gun rights are for anyone who wants them, do we want to continue trying to convince people who hate us to support gun rights, or influence immoral people who cannot or will not control themselves to own guns? To use, agree with, and give undeserved legitimacy to their political gripes to further the cause of our single issue while throwing our actual supporters under the bus?

Do we reach out to man and family hating feminists and convince them they’re truly in danger from rape culture, toxic masculinity, and the patriarchy so these women will feel empowered to exercise and support their right to arms?

Do we reach out to homosexuals and say yes, you really are in danger from evil right wing Christian bigots who want to gay bash you for teaching their children how to have gay anal sex in elementary school, so go buy a gun?

Do we go to Black Lives Matter protests where people seem to have a lack of respect for other people’s lives and property as they trash, loot, attack, and burn down their own communities, or to young black men who comprise about 3% of the population but are responsible for over 50% of all violent crime, and tell them to arm up against “evil white racists” who want nothing more than to kill black men, and against systemic white racism, or whiteness, in general?

Do we agree with Antifa who love to violently attack anyone who doesn’t agree with them, that Trump is literally Hitler and anyone who voted for him is a literal Nazi, and they need to fight off this fascist tyranny which is the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms?

Do we go to illegal aliens and their families and tell them reconquista is here, La Raza Unida, Make California Mexico Again, nobody is illegal, borders violate the NAP, and resist with arms?

Do we want to convince somebody who would hack up their body to look like something they’re not, who also wants you to pretend you believe that they are something they’re not or they’ll have you fired from your job, and as a demographic has a suicide rate of 40%, to own a gun?

Or do we accept reality for what it is?

One thing’s for sure, the absolute worst thing you can be is a white gun owner. The left openly says it, the so-called right runs from it like the plague.

It’s fitting that #ItsOkayToBeWhite has been posted all January to raise awareness of the open social and political hatred and displacement of white people in media, entertainment, academia, employment, and our communities and countries.

So here’s to you white American gun owners who showed up, those descended from the free white men of good moral character who founded, settled, and built this country from nothing, who threw off tyranny to secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity, and who comprised 88% of the American population until the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. You don’t get the credit you deserve, but you will from me. Maybe if you actually stormed the Capitol though, that would have been great.

I’m also retiring the line “All gun control is racist.” It’s now “All opposition to gun rights is anti-white”.

I am a “white nationalist”, and you are being lied to

I am a “white nationalist”, and you are being lied to

A few days before the murder of 22 people in an El Paso Walmart, there was a story in The Forward, Antisemites Make a List of Jews – and Twitter Stands Up in Solidarity, in which it was reported that white supremacists were targeting Jews on Twitter for harassment by searching for people who openly stated they were Jewish.

Jewish Journal columnist Ariel Sobel [u]rged her thousands of followers to “avoid typing out the phrase ‘I’m Jewish’ on Twitter.” She had discovered that white supremacists were using the phrase “I’m Jewish” to compile a digital archive of Jewish targets.

[A] flood of supporters and well-wishers replied with Tweets including that phrase. Jewish Twitter-users expressed their Jewish pride, and non-Jewish allies posted the phrase in order to confuse and disrupt the white supremacists’ data collection.

It was a heartwarming story of people of all faiths coming together from across the political spectrum to combat online antisemitic hate and extremism.

Except that’s not what happened.

When those who write the history books omit the parts that make them look bad and lie about the rest of the story, the narrative gets twisted and the audience becomes an unknowing and enabling accomplice to the lie.

What does this have to do with the El Paso shooting? Admittedly, it seems like a small, insignificant, and mostly unrelated story except for the white supremacist tie in. This requires some back story.

I grew up in the 80s and 90s. I was told from an early age “the world is a rainbow”, “judge people by the content of their character, not the color of their skin”, “we’re all the human race”, and I believed it. I believed it so much that I either ignored, accepted, or was oblivious that the feeling wasn’t mutual because I was expected to… or I was a racist. I didn’t know that it was a one way street.

I had been noticing the rampant anti-white bigotry that was sweeping our nation’s institutions over the past few years. Anything white was deemed a pejorative. “White privilege”, “colonialism”, “end whiteness”, the open hatred of white people not being called out as racist but instead excused because “you can’t be racist without power”, diversity (or, less white people) being the greatest achievement, critical race theory – where it’s taught that all whites are racist as a baseline, and any interaction a white person has with a non-white person has to be seen through racism, so no matter what you do, it’s racism (move out = white flight = racism, move in = gentrification = racism, don’t see race = ignoring racism = racism, see race = racism, participate in other culture = cultural appropriation = racism, don’t participate in other culture = racism, ask “can I help you?” = racism, don’t ask “can I help you?” = ignoring = racism).

I watched the college campus videos of professors going on anti-white rants, or dealt with people who wouldn’t allow you to disagree with them without calling you a racist. I heard these anti-white talking points used commonly on mainstream media outlets, TV shows, and movies, that it was suddenly ok to talk this way about white people out in the open. Everything was “racist” and “white supremacist”, down to even having white children.

If someone called you a racist, you were expected to recoil in horror and prove you weren’t, yet no proof was ever enough because you could never rid yourself of your whiteness anyway.

I even saw other white people joining in, saying the most derogatory self-loathing things about themselves but especially about white people in general. None of this made sense to me.

A white kid from the 80s and 90s starts asking himself and those around him, “what the hell did I ever do?” It was expected that white people just accept this for “sins of our past” or to feel shame about ourselves and our ancestors, until I heard someone stand up against the anti-white bigotry. It was an anti anti-white defense, and it was surprising to me because in my near 40 years of life I had never heard anyone ever say something specifically in defense of white people, let alone that white people should even be proud of who they are.

Then someone pointed out something to me that I found disturbing, and my first instinct was to recoil and think the person telling it to me was a “white supremacist”, as I was trained to do my whole life apparently – they told me those who were saying racially derogatory things about their “fellow white people” were Jewish.

This made me uncomfortable, mainly because I instinctively felt you don’t criticize ethnic or religious minorities as a white person, nor did I ever think any criticism had to be made. White people committed all the wrongs in the world, after all.

I’m a “prove it to me” kind of person though, so instead of hearing it only from someone else, I started looking at who would espouse blatantly anti-white rhetoric who were also “white”, and sure enough, every single time they were Jewish. It became a meme of itself: “As a fellow white person, I hate white people. I’m Jewish.” I had never noticed it before, but once you notice, you can’t unnotice. Many, if not most, weren’t just random people; they were journalists, writers, bloggers, commentators, producers, teachers, professors, lawyers, artists, activists, members of prestigious groups, from media, cultural, political, and academic institutions, people of influence in the public discorse, and some were also blue checkmark verified.

And this brings us back to the story of the “evil white supremacists” who were “targeting Jews” for harassment, for no reason at all except for being Jewish, by searching for those who would openly say they were Jewish on Twitter, and everyone rushing to save the poor Jews from the literal Nazis by tweeting “I’m Jewish” to confuse and disrupt the hateful “antisemites”.

What you weren’t told was that first these people were tweeting the most vile and hateful things about white people, and white people who were tired of being trashed for the crime of being white were calling them out for their anti-white bigotry, screenshotting their own tweets and THEN searching their history to see if they were Jewish. A collage of their hate was made, and that’s what was being shared.

Every supportive person who stood in solidarity by tweeting “I’m Jewish” were lied to by omission, and they disrupted nothing because they probably never said anything disparaging about white people first.

These anti-white tweeters who were Jewish weren’t victims; they were the perpetrators. They left out the part of the story that made them look bad, labeled their victims things like “white supremacist”, “white nationalists”, “Nazis”, and “antisemites”, and made themselves out to be the victims for an audience to supply them with empathy and support. It’s classic narcissism. I encourage you to stop reading this article for a minute and read this one called How narcissists play the victim and twist the story. There’s a literal playbook to this particular personality disorder.

But where does that leave the real victims? That’s part of the narcissist’s playbook – leave the victim isolated, smeared, and slandered, all to maintain the narrative and the lie.

Every time more people online would notice and share the anti-white screenshots, they were mass reported and had their accounts suspended. And that’s the common condition for anyone who somebody else labels a “white nationalist white supremacist racist antisemitic literal neo-Nazi” – deplatformed for telling the truth. The victims weren’t “keeping a list of Jews”; they didn’t want the proof of the anti-white bigotry by Jews to be deleted.

Again though, what does any of this have to do with the mass shooting in El Paso?

Just like you were lied to about “white supremacists targeting anyone who said ‘I’m Jewish’ on Twitter”, it is a microcosm of what we’re dealing with here. You are being lied to about who so-called “white nationalists” are. The narrative is being twisted on a much grander scale by media and political narcissists, using a tragedy to isolate, smear, and slander peaceful people with a policy difference who are standing up for themselves.

Nationalists are no more “White Nationalists” than they are Japanese Nationalists. Nationalists believe every country and people should determine their own destiny, free from interference, forced globalism, or mass migration, respecting other nations’ sovereignty and borders, and peacefully existing by other nations. Nationalists believe that while every person is an individual with individual rights, a nation is a reflection of the unique people who inhabit it via a common language, culture, traditions, ethnicity, history, and values.

Nationalists put the interests of their nation and people first before the interests of other nations or people – not in spite of other nations or people, nor to subjugate other nations or people, which is how some people try to conflate nationalists with “supremacists”. Nationalists who happen to be white are not “white supremacists”, just as Nationalists in Japan aren’t Japanese supremacists.

Nationalists care about immigration displacing Americans’ communities, values, language, ethnicity, culture, traditions, ideology, businesses, jobs, influence, representation, and their children’s future. Because a nation is a reflection of its people, if you displace or replace its people, you alter the nation.

Nationalists also care about what immigration to America does to a country like Mexico, where a third of its people are now living here, leaving it to be controlled by narco terrorism. Or what immigration to America does to a country like India, or any other country really, where those most likely and able to make economic, social, and political change to better the lives of their people are siphoned off for America.

While Nationalists may care about the wellbeing of the people of those countries, what people decide to do in their countries is none of our business and not our problem. Being a Nationalist means being a noninterventionist. If the people of another country want liberty or a better life for themselves and their children, they can vote for it or pick up a gun and earn it. What they make for themselves and what path they take as a nation and a people is for them to decide and them alone, just as our Fore Fathers did not spill their own blood so the rest of the world’s people could reap what they had sewn.

Nationalists believe it isn’t America’s responsibility to put our people’s lives on the line to be the police of the world. It also isn’t our responsibility to be the pressure relief valve for the world’s people. America doesn’t belong to the people of other nations who don’t like how their nations are being run, and Americans get to have a nation that we call our own too. It is our birthright.

America is also more than just a global economic zone where being an American is merely seen as a ticket to prosperity that everyone in the world is entitled to, where everyone is an American, they’re just not here yet. America is not cultural tofu – a shapeless colorless tasteless mass that’s awful on its own without the flavors of diversity, molded into whatever shape looks edible but still has to be choked down because America is so awful.

Nationalists are against any people of the world being forcibly displaced from their homeland. It would literally be a federal and an international crime to intentionally destroy or displace, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group. That’s the U.N.’s and America’s own definition of “genocide”.

The United States has been undergoing a massive demographic shift due to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. Since our Founding up until about 1970, our demographics remained largely unchanged, comprised of nearly 90% Northern and Western European descent. That number is now right around 60%, and in about 20 years, it’ll be under 50%. This is what’s referred to as the “Great Replacement”, which I researched after the ChristChurch attack in my article The Great Replacement: A murderer’s conspiracy theory or international policy.

This was not a naturally occurring phenomenon where one or more groups simply outpace another. It was a specific policy put in place that is displacing, in part and in some areas of the country in whole, a national, ethnical, and racial group through mass immigration. Mass migration is outpacing white reproduction by nearly four to one, per year. The fact that white people would need to be in a breeding contest to remain a majority in the country their ancestor’s founded is proof enough that genocidal policies are in place.

Because the group being displaced is “white people” though, white being the pejorative, Nationalists are called “white supremacists”, “white nationalists”, and “racists” for wanting this to stop through a change in policy.

“White Nationalist” is meant to be a slur, but some Nationalists in western and European countries have adopted it the way homosexuals adopted “queer”; they feel like they have nothing to be ashamed of for being white or for loving and supporting their people and children. They’re secure enough in their identity to tell people who are anti-white to shove it, and this is spun by the narcissists as bigotry.

Nationalism is a non violent ideology – Nationalists simply want to be left alone in peace in the lands our ancestors shed their blood throwing off tyranny to earn for themselves and their children. But those opposed to national sovereignty, in both major parties, the media, business, and finance, have no desire to allow our voices to be heard.

Don’t kid yourselves, voters who consider yourselves Republicans: the GOP is as globalist as the Democrats. Democrats support displacing Americans with amnesty for the tens of millions of illegal aliens here plus the +1M legal immigrants coming annually, and Trump and the Republicans support displacing Americans “as long as it’s done legally” by increasing the amount of legal immigration from what it is now. Libertarians want open borders. The Marxist group Democratic Socialists of America wants open borders. This is what’s known as the “controlled opposition”; there’s no alternative offered to being displaced, except by Nationalists.

But the public never gets to hear the Nationalist message or their side of the story. Even at the congressional hearing on “white nationalism” after ChristChurch, those they labeled “white nationalists” weren’t allowed to appear. The only person who stood up against the anti-white bigotry was Candace Owens – who was then basically labeled a token “white nationalist” for the crime of not hating white people who love the country their ancestors founded. The absurdity makes you feel like you’re the crazy person, which is why you hear the term “Clown World” thrown around in our circle so much.

There is nothing violent about a Nationalist’s ideology. Nationalists support policy changes, not violence.

Immigration:
• Repeal the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965
• A moratorium on immigration and naturalization, and permanent residency/work visas
• Deportation of illegal aliens and those who overstay their visas
• Define via legislation or regulation the 14th Amendment’s “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to exclude children of non-citizens, unnaturalized immigrants, illegal aliens, tourists, or foreign nationals so that only children born of a U.S. citizen can be a citizen, or ratify a new Constitutional Amendment defining citizenship and delegating broad authority over immigration to congress
• Prohibit remittance

Foreign Policy:
• End all foreign aid
• End the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), no wars without formal declaration by Congress, as mandated by the Constitution
• Draw down troops, close overseas bases
• Only use military to defend against attack or invasion

Debt (public and private)
• Abolish the Federal Reserve, the privately owned international central banking system and issuer of our perpetual debt-based currency
• Establish interest free public currency backed by either labor, goods, gold, etc
• Prohibit unsecured debt such as credit cards*
• Prohibit student loans*
• Prohibit/phase out usury* for secured debt (homes, etc)

*Minimum payments on maximum obtainable debt artificially inflates the value/cost of every commodity (most notably homes and college tuition), whereby requiring perpetual debt to participate in the free market.

Domestic policy varies within Nationalist circles, as it should because that’s the point of Nationalism – we debate and decide what direction we go as a nation and a people. But here are some that are thrown around:
• Enact policies that encourage young families (such as subsidized 4 year college tuition for married parent(s) after 3+ children reach pre-school age)
• End perpetual property taxes so people can own their homes/land instead of paying the government rent, one time property tax at point of purchase (property tax refund after married couple had 3+ children)
• Harsher penalties and longer prison sentences for victimizers, State/Federal “3 strikes law” for serial victimizers

None of these policy preferences call for violence or murder. Is it possible for a Nationalist to pop off? No more than a Bernie supporter who attempted to execute a mass political assassination against Congressional Republicans at a baseball game. Or an African migrant who tried to burn over 50 Italian school children alive on a bus because Italy wouldn’t open its border to more migrants and refugees.

And none of those actions are excusable, yet you don’t have the entire media and political establishment condemning everyone who brushed up against Bernie or refugees as people who need to be wiped from the face of the earth. If you aren’t violent, nor call for violence or for others to be violent, it is unconscionable for you or an entire ideology to be labeled as violent, and you have nothing to apologize for.

Nationalists, however, are specifically excluded from the public debate, because the narcissists in the media and politics have already told you what they say Nationalists are. And as with all narcissists, they lie, they believe their own lie, they can never be wrong or admit that they’re wrong, and they have to keep repeating the lie to others until they triangulate their audience to turn against you.

Are Nationalists angry? I don’t think anger best describes it. Betrayed and righteously indignant better suits the mood. When you’re systematically targeted for your beliefs (or when beliefs are attributed to you that you don’t believe), to be lied about, to be smeared for calling out the actions of others so the truth is buried, to be doxxed and harassed, to have the “Two Minutes Hate” directed at you and your family, to have your job or livelihood threatened or taken from you, to be removed from the social media public square or be deemed too dangerous to have your views shared, to be denied access to payment processing services, to be violently attacked and have the attackers’ violence excused or condoned, to have the SPLC or ADL designate you a member of a hate group, to vote for someone who tells you they support your policies only to throw you under the bus, to have every institution of power that benefits off the current system unified in opposition against you, to be isolated and marginalized as you watch your nation and people dissolve before your eyes… that “anger” is pointed at by the narcissists as proof of your “instability”. And you wonder why a couple Nationalists have popped off.

This isn’t about “white nationalist” hatred for others; this is about our response to the hatred directed toward white people and our nation first. Because this country was founded by white people who wanted to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity”, those who hate white people believe this country is illegitimate, and want to eat away at and tear down every foundational block it stands on. When we as Americans are opposed to their subversive efforts to undermine our country through perversion, perpetual debt, forced globalism, and mass migration to “diversify” a country they believe is “too white”, we’re deemed the “racist” enemy who must be destroyed.

This is one Nationalist’s “manifesto”. It’s non violent, it’s rational, and it deserves to be heard without lies, slander, or violence.

And remember, the next time you hear someone call someone else a “white supremacist”, another unmistakable personality trait of a narcissist is projection.

When libertarians push open border globalism to destroy nations

When libertarians push open border globalism to destroy nations

There’s a piece by Nick Gillespie of Reason entitled, “Steve Bannon’s ‘Economic Nationalism’ vs Libertarian Globalism is the battleground of 21st Century Politics”, which as a person who subscribes to the philosophy of liberty, limited government, and the protection of individual rights, I found that it needed a response from a more “nationalist” point of view.

In it, he begins with a glowing review of a documentary hit piece on Steve Bannon and his adventures around the world helping to spread the ideals of nationalism (those who put the interests of their nation and their people first before the interests of others), but delves into the question of what really differentiates nationalists and globalists:

The real question is whether it will become harder or easier for people to cross borders.

Libertarians believe rights exists without any government saying they do, which is true. Individual rights do not exist as gifts from government.

However, in order for liberties and individual rights to be enjoyed freely, they need the protection of government, which is a bit of an oxymoron given that governments are mainly who we need the protection from. But we also need protection from the majority, people who would violate your individual rights because there’s more of them than there are of you, and our fore fathers attempted to devise a solution to this oxymoron, imperfectly as it is, to protect us from government and mob rule by limiting, dividing, and delegating power, and recognizing individual rights. To keep it, however, requires a people and representatives who believe in these principles.

What happens though when libertarians who believe in individual rights, like the right to travel and move freely, want to open the borders of a country (that imperfectly tries to protect its people from mob rule) to more mob?

In the 21st century, libertarians are going to have make common cause with the globalists of all parties, with the people whose core value is the right of individuals to move freely around the planet.

While he attempts to justify open borders as a libertarian cause to promote individual rights, in reality this first requires the destruction of sovereign, homogenous nations – including ones that imperfectly try to protect individual rights. This seems more like open border globalists using the philosophy of liberty as a Trojan Horse against nations, specifically America. My philosophy doesn’t include nor accept its suicide, nor the destruction of other nations or cultures.

He goes on to create an unpleasant caricature of Bannon in order to delegitimize any worldview that includes the concept of what it means to be a nation:

Bannon’s vision is of a world of distinct nations and cultures that might be defined by any number of factors, including race and ethnicity, but also a common history, religious values, or shared geography.

That is literally what defines a nation, Nick, not just “Steve Bannon”. What defines Japan? A country comprised of 98.5% ethnically Japanese people with a common history, tradition, culture, heritage, language, and geography. What defines Sweden? Swedes, their shared beliefs, and geography. What used to describe America until 1965 when the doors were flung open? 88% mostly northern and western European descent, their shared beliefs, and geography. Whatever boogeyman you try to make of Bannon, if he speaks the definition of what it means to be a nation, it doesn’t delegitimize what it means to be a nation. The only person here who has some utopian vision of the world is the person who’s advocating for something different that doesn’t exist. Nations are more than a land mass you might want to live on.

He then attempts to say that a nation having borders and any immigration policy leads to the loss of individual rights:

[Limiting the flow of people and goods over borders]… strongly impl[ies] a collective identity that will limit interest in individual rights, inciting yet more populist policies.

Including “goods” in there was a nice slight of hand, but it didn’t get passed me. We’re not talking about trade, we’re talking about immigration, and your article is advocating for open borders.

And why can’t Americans or any other nation of people have a collective identity? Why do you believe that if people have a common or shared “anything” immediately means the rights of an individual are limited or negated?

Why do you believe allowing massive amounts of people in who have no cultural connection to western civilization -which includes the protection of individual rights – will lead to the protection of individual rights? How can you secure the blessings of liberty when you leave the doors wide open to a world hostile to liberty? Show me one survey about the beliefs of the populations of the world and how they feel about protecting the rights of others that’ll make me believe open borders will protect our liberties and individual rights. Because I can show you California.

The world believes in America’s money and benefits (yes, the “Schrodinger’s Immigrant” you mocked us for in your article, simultaneously taking jobs for less pay while they and/or their family accept taxpayer funded benefits – it’s a thing, I work in the public and see it every day), but not the other perks of western civilization – like liberty and the protection of individual rights. Look at California, big on money and immigrants (legal, illegal, doesn’t matter when discussing open borders), small on liberty and protecting individual rights. They vote for legislators who increase their benefits and deprive us of our liberties. They vote for executives who enforce those laws, who appoint judges who then uphold those laws. The “magic parchment” doesn’t protect our liberty and individual rights – we’re all supposed to. There’s already too many Americans who don’t believe in protecting liberty and individual rights; there’s literally no basis to believe an open border policy will better this situation.

Speaking of Schrodinger’s Immigrant, he offered one of his own that I now get to mock: that “emotionally-driven nationalists” need to be “explained to” that open border globalism that will flood the market with labor is a good thing because it will simultaneously lower unemployment AND increase wages:

cities that welcome immigrants experience increased wages and lower unemployment

So if labor is a commodity, and you increase the amount of a commodity, the price of that commodity goes up? I thought libertarians were supposed to be economically literate.

If there’s work available, and there’s not enough labor commodity, businesses have to compete for labor and the price of labor goes up (increased wages). Conversely, if you import a massive amount of labor, the price of labor goes down (lower wages), and there’s a bunch of people standing around not working (the unemployed). But if it’s immigrants, the laws of economics apparently go out the window.

Not to worry, Milton Friedman said you can’t have open borders and a welfare state, and good thing there isn’t a welfare state teat anymore for the unemployed masses to suckle from.

Notice though, the article he references is about immigrant entrepreneurs, a specific group of people, the few and far between, the creme de la creme that we scrape off for America and leave the countries they came from with one less job creator or one less person who could influence their politics and policies for the better, otherwise creating a “brain drain” from their home countries and further justifying the “need” to bring the rest of their brethren with them. And that’s who’ll come flooding in under this globalist open border policy.

And finally, his “The World is a Rainbow” conclusion:

We need to update our arguments about why individuals are ultimately more important than groups, and about why empowering individuals creates a richer, freer, and ultimately more socially cohesive world. We need to show that there is no inherent tension between being a citizen of the world and a proud son or daughter of one’s country, region, and hometown.

You forgot to include, “Diversity is our strength!” How can anyone be proud of “one’s own country, region, or hometown” if there’s nothing unique about it nor anything that binds it together, no “collective identity” if you will? What “country, region, or hometown” if it’s comprised of vastly different people with different languages, identities, ethnicities, cultures, religions, heritage, and traditions, in which study after study shows inherent tension and lack of social cohesion always occurs under these conditions, and is then nothing more than a land mass you happen to live on with people you don’t want to be around and who don’t want to be around you? Multiculturalism has always been a fraud propped up by propaganda and repetition of bumpersticker slogans.

Libertarian globalists conflate protecting individual rights with a rejection of all things “non-self”, as if people’s common identity, ethnicity, language, heritage, culture, religion, traditions, communities, and nations don’t matter, aren’t important, or don’t mean anything – and apparently should be done away with.

Liberty and the protection of individual rights is unique to us specifically because it is who we collectively are and because we are a sovereign nation. If the rest of the world wants liberty and the protection of individual rights, they can vote for it or pick up a gun and earn it like our fore fathers did for themselves and for us, their posterity.

What our fore fathers earned for us through their blood and sought to protect is not yours – nor the Globalists of all parties – to just give away. The rest of the world is not our responsibility, and as a non interventionist libertarian, I’d think you’d understand that. But if you personally think they need help, help them help themselves in their own countries.

Nationalism vs Globalism may indeed be the battleground of the 21st Century, but if your 21st Century solution destroys the sovereign, homogenous nations of the world, this libertarian sides with the nationalists of all parties. I would never impose that on any nation or people – especially my own.

To supposedly combat violent extremism, Huffpo senior reporter teams up with… Antifa?

To supposedly combat violent extremism, Huffpo senior reporter teams up with… Antifa?

Following the attack in Christchurch, tech giants such as Facebook have changed their policy on policing “hate” on their platform to include banning praise, support, and representation of “white nationalism”.

Our policies have long prohibited hateful treatment of people based on characteristics such as race, ethnicity or religion — and that has always included white supremacy. We didn’t originally apply the same rationale to expressions of white nationalism and white separatism because we were thinking about broader concepts of nationalism and separatism — things like American pride and Basque separatism, which are an important part of people’s identity.

Going forward, while people will still be able to demonstrate pride in their ethnic heritage, we will not tolerate praise or support for white nationalism and white separatism.

Senior reporter for the Huffington Post, Andy Campbell, put another notch on his “progressive ideological activism disguised as journalism” belt when he helped deplatform Faith Goldy, a outspoken critic of mass immigration into western nations and former Toronto mayoral candidate, from Facebook after running a story highlighting a video he believed violated Facebook’s new broadly and vaguely defined “white nationalism” thought-crime policy.

Who else would be considered a “white nationalist” in this great purge?

Let’s ask Ilhan Omar:

Yes, Stephen Miller, who is Jewish, is also a “white nationalist”, a person who supposedly adheres to an ideology that’s “so dangerous and violent” that the recent Congressional hearing on “white nationalism” equated to being responsible for the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting.

Let’s ask Hillary Clinton who “white nationalists” are… you remember her, the former Presidential candidate?

And there it is, wrapping Trump and all of his supporters under the banner of “white nationalism”, which is what the hearing was all about. Trot out victims of the violent acts of a few evil people, and label anyone who disagrees with these victims and their policies as “hate” to be deplatformed, marginalized, and criminalized.

Make no mistake, as Candace Owens eluded to in her testimony, everyone who disagrees with “progressive” policies, especially on immigration, are the new so-called “white nationalist” boogeyman. It’s a slur to delegitimize peaceful policy differences and debate as “hate”. They conflate “nationalism” (looking out for your own country and its people’s interests first before other countries and people) and “white supremacy” (the belief that your race should dominate over and subjugate other races) as the same thing if you’re a “white person” supporting “nationalist” policies.

Andy Campbell, smelling blood in the water after his “victory” over Faith Goldy, wasn’t done pushing for the deplatforming of those whose ideas he disagrees with.

He published a follow up piece of who to target next.

In his piece, he claims those who he wants deplatformed peddle in “white nationalism”, but that alone won’t get them banned from Twitter (because they’re just white people who support nationalist policies); they also need to align with a “violent extremist faction”, which the only evidence he could find against one of his targets, Red Ice, is a link to a WWII/Hitler documentary.

Lana Lokteff of Red Ice defended her position in one of her recent videos:

No other political group is hunted like nationalists, who oppose forced globalism (i.e. mass immigration, open borders) and the destruction of sovereign, homogenous nations. I’m against it for Europeans, but also for every other group on the planet.

I reached out to Henrik Palmgren of Red Ice who stated:

We have these argument points levied against us all the time just because we talk about the legitimacy of these topics, of saying we’re against open borders, we don’t want mass migration, we don’t want there to be “open borders” in the sense that anyone can come into our countries because it will lead to problematic situations. [W]e summarize all those things, and just say we’re against this policy.

We’re not targeting specific groups or individuals of the existing migrants who have entered in, and saying, “Let’s go after those individuals, they’re to blame!” We don’t talk that way.

[W]e’re talking about, “Does the policy have to change?” but they’re actively saying that, “Well, they’re basically calling for ethnic genocide of these people” just because we bring up these points, and no one, anywhere, can actually point to a video or article where we said, “Round up these people and mass murder them” or “kill them all” or hunt them or be violent against them. We’ve never said such a thing, and they can’t prove it, but they write these articles and it’s out there.

They call us “white supremacists”, they call us “white nationalists”, they call us all kinds of things… racists… Nazis… whatever, to dehumanize our position. They don’t want people to hear the points, and why is that? I think it’s because our points are correct, essentially, and so therefore the only way they can go about this is to shame people and actively terminate their ability to reach more people, because otherwise it will spread.

I also reached out to Andy Campbell, and specifically asked if anyone he wanted banned had ever called for violence or made true threats against anyone. He did not respond.

But speaking of aligning with “violent extremist factions”, in his effort to track down and stamp out those who are guilty of social media wrong-think, Andy Campbell has turned to none other than Antifa and a similar group to assist in his quest.

Commenting on his Twitter feed, a group that calls itself Chicago RADicals said: (I can’t see it anymore because I was blocked):

James Alsup, Nick Fuentes, (who is verified by Twitter), American Identity Movement, James Woods, Patrick Casey etc

You read that right, they even want to shut down James Woods for wrong-think.

Chicago RADicals states on their Twitter bio, “If youre a nazi we will fuck your shit up.” Who is a Nazi? If you’ve been listening to progressive talking points or have braved your way to a Trump rally through the protestors, Trump is “Literally Hitler” and all his supporters are “Nazis” who deserve to have their “shit fucked up”.

Andy Campbell responded to Chicago RADicals:

The list goes on and on and on! And I didn’t even realize until you and @NYCAntifa pointed it out that AIM is still on the platform. Crazy

He gives a shout out to Antifa of all groups, and then they respond:

We think Darryl Lamont Jenkin’s workaround acronym, AmIM is what people should use for the fash group

Andy Campbell of the Huffington Post is being given information by known and self-identified violent Communist extremist factions to target those with a policy difference for deplatforming. What irony.

What will Twitter do with this information?

The hearing on the threats of, and the actions that should be taken against, so-called “white nationalism” was tantamount to a Soviet-style show trial, where a vague, interchanging definition and label of “hate and violence” was placed on those with a legitimate policy difference – who were not present nor allowed to appear to face their accusers or defend themselves at this show trial, and the only one who stood up for them was Candace Owens. Where a government that’s hostile to nationalist beliefs can’t tread due to First Amendment protects of speech and association, tech loyalists like Facebook and Twitter, and media loyalists like Andy Campbell dutifully volunteer to deprive them of their ability to speak.

The Great Replacement: A Murderer’s Conspiracy Theory or International Policy?

The Great Replacement: A Murderer’s Conspiracy Theory or International Policy?

There are two men with similar points of view. One man discusses his views in an open debate, and tries to persuade others to his side through facts, reason, and logic. The other man murders people.

Question: does that implicate the first man because of their similar beliefs?

Well, it depends on how similar the beliefs are. This might help you understand the similarities and differences in any particular belief:

The reality is that the two men don’t share the same belief since one doesn’t believe in and doesn’t call for murdering people he disagrees with.

The murderous actions of one man doesn’t delegitimize the views, concerns, or policy preferences of the peaceful man with similar views, but that’s where we are. We’re always being lectured to that we need to “start a conversation”, but if that conversation starts with your views being labeled “murderous”, there’s not a lot of room for discussion.

If you believe I’m referring to the actions of the New Zealand murderer, you’re mistaken. I was referring to the African migrant who attempted to murder 51 Italian school children by trying to burn them alive on a bus in the name of open borders and for Italy not accepting more migrants.

There are obvious policy differences between those who wish to help and accept migrants and refugees from Africa and the Middle East and those who wish to prevent a third world invasion into European countries, but not all supporters of migrants want to burn children alive. Nor does the other side want to shoot up a Mosque. If both sides can accept that, maybe we can “have this conversation” like rational adults.

The murderer of Muslims in New Zealand began his manifesto talking about The Great Replacement. If you simply Google it, you’ll immediately find Wikipedia calling it “The Great Replacement Conspiracy Theory”, stating:

The great replacement is a right-wing conspiracy theory, which states that the white Christian European population is being systematically replaced with non-European people, specifically Arab/Berber Middle Eastern, North African and Sub-Saharan African populations, through mass migration and demographic growth.

The conspiracy theory commonly apportions blame to a global and liberal elite, such as Brussels and the European Union, which is portrayed as directing a planned and deliberate plot or scheme to carry out the replacement of European peoples.

But is it a conspiracy theory, or is it an actual, provable policy? And if something is a provable policy, does that still make it a conspiracy theory or a policy that can be scrutinized with legitimate, peaceful debate?

On March 17, 2000, the U.N. released a report on “Replacement Migration” issued by the U.N. Population Division which was a solution to be enacted by western governments as a way to deal with aging populations and low birth/fertility rates. Instead of enacting policies to encourage births among native populations, they would import large numbers of migrants with high birth rates to fill the gap in order to prop up social welfare programs and increase GDP.

The Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) has released a new report titled “Replacement Migration: Is it a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?”. Replacement migration refers to the international migration that a country would need to prevent population decline and population ageing resulting from low fertility and mortality rates.

United Nations projections indicate that between 1995 and 2050, the population of Japan and virtually all countries of Europe will most likely decline. In a number of cases, including Estonia, Bulgaria and Italy, countries would lose between one quarter and one third of their population. Population ageing will be pervasive, bringing the median age of population to historically unprecedented high levels. The potential support ratio — i.e., the number of persons of working age (15-64 years) per older person — will often be halved, from 4-or-5 to 2.

Major findings of this report include:

• In the next 50 years, the populations of most developed countries are projected to become smaller and older as a result of low fertility and increased longevity.

• Population decline is inevitable in the absence of replacement migration.

• The numbers of immigrants needed to prevent the decline of the total population are considerably larger than those envisioned by the United Nations projections.

• The numbers of immigrants needed to prevent declines in the working- age population are larger than those needed to prevent declines in total population.

• The levels of migration needed to prevent population ageing are many times larger than the migration streams needed to prevent population decline. Maintaining potential support ratios would in all cases entail volumes of immigration entirely out of line with both past experience and reasonable expectations.

To ensure the potential support ratio doesn’t drop below 3, according to the report Europe would need to add 294 million immigrants and their descendants by 2050. If Europe wanted to maintain their current potential support ratio of 4 to 5, it would need 1.7 billion immigrants and their descendants, or 3/4 the population of Europe.

With this as their stated concern back in 2000, and current European governments’ seeming unwillingness to do anything about the flood of African and Middle Eastern migrants and refugees (not just unwillingness, but active support of), is it any wonder why native populations who are being subject to “Replacement Migration” might see themselves as being replaced, and consider this an attack on them, their way of life, their communities, their culture, and their children’s future (for those who are actually still having children, that is)?

Is giving a name to what the U.N actually proposed and what’s now staring them in the face everyday a “conspiracy”?

Let’s talk about Japan, since it’s included in the report. Why do we call people Japanese? Sounds like a strange question with an obvious answer, right? But really, why? Because they’re from Japan, of course. So if I, as an American of European descent, moved to Japan, it would make me Japanese. No? Of course it wouldn’t, because being Japanese means more than taking up residence in Japan. Japan isn’t just a geographic land mass that can be inhabited by anyone and still be considered Japan and its people still be considered Japanese. Japan as a nation is a reflection of its people’s identity, ethnicity, ancestry, heritage, history, traditions, language, and culture, and referring to someone as Japanese actually means something.

Japan is still very much comprised of Japanese people:

According to census statistics, 98.5% of the population of Japan are Japanese, with the remainder being foreign nationals residing in Japan.

Since 2010 Japan has experienced net population loss due to falling birth rates and almost no immigration.

Japan is a homogenous nation. Its people and its policies regarding immigration are a form of “ethnic nationalism”, and that isn’t a bad thing because Japan without being comprised of Japanese wouldn’t be Japan. If Japan had enacted the same policies most of Europe has over the last 20 years, it wouldn’t be Japan.

Is its population aging and birth rates falling? Yes, but human history is full of population ebbs and flows. A hundred years ago its population was 55 million. Now its 126 million, but last year it was 127 million. So? The reality is that populations don’t always have to go up indefinitely, nor do countries need to import people from wildly different cultures to maintain perpetual growth. It also isn’t expected of Japan to open their borders to “Replacement Migration”, but it is of western nations, and only of western nations.

People of Sweden are Swedish. They’re ethnically Swedish, they speak Swedish. Sweden has been a country since the 12th century. It has its own identity, heritage, history, traditions, and culture. The people’s ancestors have survived and adapted there for thousands of years. If you take a 23andMe test, it will tell you how much Swedish you are, because people from Sweden are Swedish. Sweden is more than a land mass, and being Swedish actually means something. This sounds redundant, but for some reason Swedish leaders believe that importing a few million people from Africa or the Middle East into a country of about 10 million is good for the Swedish continuing as a people, and any opposition to this policy is tantamount to a hate crime. Yet as they say “diversity is our strength”, another grenade is thrown, another Swedish girl is raped, and another Swedish girl is dismembered by a truck.

Diversity is our strength, as M(u/o)hamm(a/e)d is the most popular name given to baby boys in Britain for the 9th straight year, while a Briton like Tommy Robinson is being imprisoned for filming four Muslims at court who were convicted of gang raping a child, teenage girls are bombed at a concert, more people are mowed down on the street, and the Muslim mayor of London says terrorism is part and parcel of life in a big city.

The Great Replacement is real; whether it was originally designed to purposefully rid white Christians from Europe or other nations founded by Europeans (U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand) or to reduce them to a minority, or if it was a desire of governments to prop up their welfare programs and GDP (or if that’s merely the excuse), its results are the same, and the people are seeing and experiencing the ramifications. Europeans, while already a global minority, will become minorities in their own countries within the next 25 years under the current policies of their own leaders. And it begs the questions: are any nations that are currently whatever ethnic European majority allowed to remain that ethnic European majority, and if not, why not? Because of supposed sins of the past? Do to Europeans what “they” did to the world? Is it ok to even ask these questions or debate this policy without accusations of being a blood thirsty “white supremacist”? Should Japan remain Japanese?

The United States in the 1960s was comprised of about 90% European descent. Since our inception, immigration was limited to those coming from northern and western Europe. This can be verified by the Naturalization Act of 1802 and the Immigration Act of 1924. Even in 1965 when the Immigration and Nationality Act was passed to lift restrictions on immigration based on national origins, Senator Ted Kennedy famously stated (lied):

First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same.

Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset. Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia.

In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think. The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.

That, as they say, didn’t age well.

The United States had a population of 199 million in 1965. Since then, Americans were encouraged not to have more than one or two children due to the threats of “overpopulation”, and to abort their unexpected or unwanted children resulting in a third of an entire generation of Americans having been aborted, while at the same time millions upon millions of immigrants came legally and illegally to fill in the potential support ratio gap.

The U.S. population in 2018 was 327 million, with about 800,000 to 1,000,000 legal immigrants still coming every year (Trump suggesting he wants to increase this number), and an untold amount of illegal aliens plus their children either brought here or born here who are now considered American citizens. The population is now comprised of 62% European descent.

To put that in perspective, in 1965, Americans of European descent totaled 175 million. Today, it’s 202 million. The total European increase was only 27 million in 54 years (half a million per year), while non-Europeans increased by 101 million.

The U.N. didn’t exclude the United States from their Replacement Migration report. To prevent the potential support ratio from dropping below 3, the U.S. would have to import more 61 million immigrants and their children by 2050. To maintain a ratio of 4-5, it would be 593 million.

Is it any wonder why those in power, from both parties, will not stop illegal or legal immigration? They believe that a country that was created for “ourselves and our posterity (descendants)” must be dependent upon a never ending Ponzi scheme of immigration to prop up their welfare state and GDP.

There’s a saying, “Demographics is destiny”, and everyone acknowledged it – and some even celebrated it – at least they did before the Christchurch murders.

Time
These 5 facts show why demographics are destiny

Brookings
The US will become minority white in 2045, census projects

NY Times
Projections put whites in minority in US by 2050

Stat Chat (Univ of Virginia)
Will whites actually be a minority by 2040?

Boston Globe
When will minorities be the majority?

Now demographers are saying, “We need to rethink how we talk about our data” because they’re concerned a “racist terrorist” will use it to justify another Christchurch.

Their data did not inspire or give “false scientific and rhetorical legitimacy” to justify Christchurch; what governments did with their data led to Christchurch and the current upheaval in Europe. Demographers should be more concerned about how they present their research to governments and what policies they should recommend rather than what a “racist terrorist” might do. There are other options than simply “replace the native populations with mass immigration”.

Mass replacement migration is something that’s never recommended, endorsed, or encouraged into non-European or non-western countries, as it’s considered colonialism and genocide of native peoples. In 1948, the United Nations defined genocide as any of several acts (including murder) “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”. If governments intentionally import massive amounts of people from radically different national, ethnical, racial, or religious groups to the point that their own people are now minorities, it is literally the U.N.’s definition of “genocide”.

If we’re to have an open and peaceful debate on the merits of mass replacement migration and the huge influx of refugees into European countries, this double standard first needs to be addressed by those pushing the “diversity is our strength” narrative, then the actual policy needs to be debated, and, in my opinion, ended.

This current policy has consequences, and until the side which is screaming “STOP” is heard, those consequences will never be properly resolved.

tHe PoLiCe WoUlD nEvEr EnFoRcE aNtI gUn LaWz!

tHe PoLiCe WoUlD nEvEr EnFoRcE aNtI gUn LaWz!

On February 13th, a video was posted showing law enforcers confiscating two AR pistols from their owner in California.

Per the video and a thread on Reddit, the owner tried to be a good law abiding law abider, and attempted to comply with the litany and intricacy of ever changing, liberty closing California gun laws.

He allegedly completed an unfinished lower receiver (80% lower) and assembled a single shot AR pistol with a fixed 0rd magazine back in 2012 using a magazine locking device, which was one of two legal avenues to obtain an AR pistol at the time. The other way was to buy a single shot AR pistol from a gun store, which you could later modify to be semiautomatic. There was a debate whether those who completed an 80% lower first into a single shot pistol then to a semiauto were “manufacturing an unsafe handgun” (not going to get completely into the weeds of CA gun laws here).

A few gun laws later, he was required to register any pistol with a magazine locking device that used a tool to remove the magazine as an “assault weapon”. In order to do that, being a law abiding law abider he had to put a serial number on his pistols. He “voluntarily registered” his pistols (which is not the same as registering it as an assault weapon), adding his own serial numbers per federal guidelines, and submitted the paperwork to CADOJ. His application was still pending. He then registered his AR pistols on the California DOJ website CFARS as assault weapons, in which he had to include pictures of his weapons.

This is likely what prompted the visit from CADOJ, as only serial numbers that CADOJ provides can be used on an 80% build that is registered as an assault weapon.

Apparently, CADOJ believes if someone builds a single shot AR pistol from an 80% lower then makes it semiauto, they are in violation of the “manufacturing an unsafe handgun” law, and using his AW registration as probable cause sent four law enforcers to his home and confiscated his AR pistols. When he threw their oath to uphold and defend the constitution in their face, they said, “just doing our jobs” and “we’re not lawyers, just enforcing the law, figure it out in court.”

He is lawyering up.

Two lessons can be learned from this. One, the police will enforce gun laws. Stop acting like they won’t. Stop believing they won’t. They will do what the state tells them to do to you. Two, never ever ever ever ever register anything. That’s the whole purpose of 80% lowers. You never tell the government you have something they don’t want you to own… in writing no less.

*edit*

Per the CADOJ:

Alterations of a single shot pistol (i.e. changing upper receivers, connecting gas tubes) may also be considered manufacturing an unsafe handgun. See California Penal Code sections 31900-31910 for the definition of unsafe handguns and 32000(a) for more information on illegal acts involving unsafe handguns.

This means ANY AR pistol that was single shot and converted to semiauto may be considered in violation of the law.

If you registered an AR pistol as a semiauto assault weapon, you need to lawyer up and/or stick a 0rd sled mag back in to make it single shot or disassemble it.

TX Atty Gen bans state travel to CA for denying LGBT gun rights

TX Atty Gen bans state travel to CA for denying LGBT gun rights

Write Winger, Firearms Unknown

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said Friday that state employees will be prohibited from official travel to California based on his determination that California has enacted laws that deny the LGBT community and other minority groups their Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

“California has enacted legislation that deprives individuals of their state and individuals who visit their state of their constitutionally protected rights,” Paxton said during a news conference in Dallas.

Last year, the California legislature passed and their senile communist governor Jerry Brown signed into law some of the most restrictive anti-gun laws in the nation, laws that disproportionately affect the LGBT community and other minority groups due to the diverse demographic makeup of California.

“There are consequences to denying the LGBT community and other minority groups their Constitutionally protected rights,” Paxton said. “Restricting state-sponsored travel is a consequence.”

H/T LA Slimes

 

 

 

And yes, this is satire… but the part about CA denying Constitutionally protected rights isn’t.