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.

Advertisements

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 wants to murder people to make his point.

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.

So instead of a conversation, I’ll just write at you, and if you care to read it or understand, good on you.

First, 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 fallacy 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.

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 (as has already happened) 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 merely a desire of governments to prop up their welfare programs and GDP, 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 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. 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.

The Projects are coming to a CA neighborhood near you

The Projects are coming to a CA neighborhood near you

Write Winger

There’s an opinion piece in the LA Times entitled “A Dark Side to the California Dream: How the State Constitution Makes Affordable Housing Hard to Build” that highlights a provision in the State Constitution that opponents claim is a “racist stain on our history” as it pertains to public housing.

First and foremost, the California Dream is not and has never been about taxpayer funded public housing. Nor does the State Constitution make “affordable housing” hard to build.

What the LA Times opinion writer has a problem with is Article 34 in the California State Constitution that says, “No low rent housing project shall hereafter be developed, constructed, or acquired in any manner by any state public body until, a majority of the qualified electors of the city, town or county, as the case may be, in which it is proposed to develop, construct, or acquire the same, voting upon such issue, approve such project by voting in favor thereof at an election to be held for that purpose, or at any general or special election.”

It allows the voters in a city, town, or county to decide if or when public housing, or “the Projects” as they’re commonly known, is built in their communities. To look at it from the point of view of supporters of more public housing, if your community is comprised of people who need or want taxpayer subsidized public housing, then your community can vote in favor of having it built there. But most communities will say of public housing, “Not in my backyard”, because they know what the negative affects in their communities will be, which is also why the voters turn it down every time opponents try to repeal it.

Article 34 came about through the frustration of communities that had no say when the government wanted to force the Projects into their neighborhoods. Through a ballot initiative, the voters of California approved a Proposition to remedy this situation, to protect themselves from unwanted government actions.

The premise of it being about “affordable housing” is absurd. Public housing is anything but affordable. They’re vastly expensive to build because they’re built by government contractors under government regulations at government mandated prevailing wage rates. Then they’re expensive to maintain because they’re also maintained by government contractors. And on top of it, the people who live there don’t pay for all of it, the taxpayer does – and it’s doubtful the taxpayer would say any of this is affordable.

Now obviously the opinion writer means “affordable” to the user of taxpayer funded public housing, but if somebody else was paying your way, everything would seem pretty affordable.

Real “affordable housing” is private developers buying large pieces of property and building a lot of houses on them until supply meets or surpasses demand. Then houses get cheap. California politicians do not support and actively try to deny building more houses (unless they’re densely populated, multi story complexes around public transit), which in reality is what has created the “unaffordable housing” issue (too many people chasing too few houses).

The premise of Article 34 being racist is equally absurd. The constitutionality of Article 34 was challenged all the way up to the Supreme Court where they decided in favor of Article 34, stating specifically, “It cannot be said that California’s Article 34 rests on ‘distinctions based on race.’ The Article requires referendum approval for any low-rent public housing project, not only for projects which will be occupied by a racial minority. And the record here would not support any claim that a law seemingly neutral on its face is in fact aimed at a racial minority.”

It continued, “The people of California have also decided by their own vote to require referendum approval of low-rent public housing projects. This procedure ensures that all the people of a community will have a voice in a decision which may lead to large expenditures of local governmental funds for increased public services and to lower tax revenues. It gives them a voice in decisions that will affect the future development of their own community. This procedure for democratic decisionmaking does not violate the constitutional command that no State shall deny to any person the equal protection of the laws.”

California State Senator, Scott Wiener, tweeted in response to the LA Times article:

“I’m partnering with @BenAllenCA to repeal Article 34 of the CA Constitution – a racist provision passed in 1950 that singles out public housing & requires that it be approved by voters, unlike any other form of housing. We have a broad coalition to get rid of this scar on CA.”

Attempting to frame the argument and define the provision as “racist” gives them the tool with which they can attack any opposition. If Article 34 is “racist”, then anyone who supports this provision is obviously a racist. If you oppose it, you’re fighting racism.

But Wiener’s words say more about what he and fellow California Democrat legislators believe about the people who supposedly benefit from public housing than the intent of Article 34, and it also reveals their true intentions for wanting it repealed.

To call this provision “racist” means that Wiener first believes taxpayer funded public housing is for non-white people (primarily black and hispanic), that these groups either need the Projects, belong in the Projects, or primarily benefit from the Projects, and that without the Projects they cannot get housing on their own. A constituency comprised of black and hispanic people should find this patronizingly paternalistic view of them by their representatives offensive and insulting.

But to go off of Wiener’s view of the Projects – that they’re primarily for blacks and hispanics – to then call Article 34 “racist” means that Wiener also believes voters who don’t want the Projects in their communities must only be white. Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti notably stated, “[The roots of Article 34 is] a white supremacist chapter in the state’s history.”

Except that’s not the case. Over the years, even Los Angeles, which isn’t known to be comprised by a majority of supposed “white supremacists”, has voted not to repeal Article 34 during previous attempts, and have voted to not have more Projects built in their communities.

But Wiener’s characterization of it as a “racist scar” eludes to what his plans will be if he is ever successful at repealing it. Supporting Article 34 isn’t racist, but the effort behind its repeal is, fueled by an anti-white bigotry that’s sweeping the nation’s so-called “progressive” institutions and policy decisions.

Wiener and others like him believe Article 34 protects “affluent white suburbs” from “poor black and hispanic Projects”, so he wants to get rid of it in order to use the government to force “poor black and hispanic Projects”, which are typically high in crime and vote left, into “affluent white suburbs”, which are typically low in crime and vote right.

This isn’t a wild-eyed conspiracy, nor is it a new concept – and it’s been done on a much grander scale. During the Obama administration, head of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Julian Castro, implemented regulatory changes to the Fair Housing Act called the “Small Area Fair Market Rents” in which they used a method called “Diversity Mapping”, searching demographics by zip code to specifically target ones that were “most white and affluent”, to give high dollar rental vouchers to “non-white” users of Section 8 public housing to afford high rent in the white affluent neighborhoods, all the while reducing the value of rental vouchers in urban neighborhoods so they could no longer afford to live there in order to “push” poor non-whites into the affluent white areas. He also threatened to sue landlords in these areas for discrimination if they wouldn’t accept Section 8 tenants with criminal records, and he implemented an additional regulation called “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” which was designed to pressure suburban counties receiving federal grant dollars to change local zoning laws to build more low-income housing, and required landlords of these properties to accept Section 8 vouchers. It was an intentional scheme to force the inner city into “affluent white suburbs”.

This had also been done during the Clinton administration with the “Moving to Opportunity Initiative”, which consequently led to non-whites who used Section 8 vouchers in affluent white suburbs to stay on welfare longer, to increase usage of food stamps, for their children to not do better in schools, and for violent crime to increase in once peaceful neighborhoods.

The Trump administration has temporarily halted the “Small Area Fair Market Rents” program, but as with all “progressive” programs that have been halted nationally by the Trump administration, California politicians like Wiener see it as their defiant act of resistance to reimplement them within their state (like Net Neutrality, healthcare individual mandates, etc), and it seems this is their attempt to continue that racially motivated policy.

Segregation through government force imposed by Democrats in the south after the Civil War was a true racist scar, and was rightfully done away with. The federal government had to step in to prevent state-forced segregation, but it wasn’t there to force integration; there is a difference, and it’s an important distinction.

People still prefer to live in communities of similar income levels or ethnic, racial, cultural, religious, or social groups; they freely associate or disassociate, and that isn’t a bad thing. Humans are, by their very nature, tribalistic. The freedom to associate with whomever they like into communities that they prefer, as well as to disassociate from whomever they don’t like and out of communities they don’t prefer, is how communities of likeminded people come together and decide what’s best for them, but an added American value is taking care to not infringe on the rights of others.

Those who oppose Article 34 believe that “building and living in taxpayer funded public housing in whatever community they prefer” is a right – that they have a right to use the government to forcibly take what other’s earn through taxation, to spend that confiscated wealth on public housing, and to put that housing in communities that don’t want it. That’s not how “rights” work, but opponents of Article 34 claim their efforts are a form of Civil Rights driven anti-racist “integration”, regardless of what the Supreme Court decided.

The government wanting to use force to “integrate” people to the government’s preferences is as bad as government using force to “segregate” people. Government force is the common evil, and that’s what Wiener and his “broad coalition” are proposing.

Opponents of Article 34 in the LA Times piece openly state that forcible integration their reason for wanting it repealed, and why it’s an obstacle to their goal.

“The Supreme Court case [that decided in favor of Article 34] is one of the most important defeats in civil rights history in the last century, and is under-appreciated in how much it contributed to the stoppage of efforts to integrate communities across the country,” said Matthew Lassiter, a history professor at the University of Michigan and so-called expert on American suburbs.

If forcible segregation was and is wrong, how is forcible integration not?

If people, out of their own free will, have over time moved into and/or grown into a mostly homogenous community of whatever commonality, or left communities they no longer wanted to be a part of, why does the government need to forcibly change that? And why are only affluent white communities typically targeted?

There could be many reasons why Article 34 opponents want it repealed. First, it’ll undoubtedly benefit developer donors with government building contracts. Pretending to help the disadvantaged is always a great cover for unadulterated cronyism. But could the underlying reason also be to alter the demographics of “white” communities as a form of atonement for racial grievances as their rhetoric suggests, to fight or give non-whites access to this magical “white privilege” so-called progressives are always talking about to attempt to raise the outcomes of “underprivileged groups” (which never ends up happening)? Or is it to simply amass power, to target only “white”, right-leaning communities (or what’s left of them in California) or anywhere there’s a swing Assembly, State Senate, or Congressional District? Whatever the intent, rest assured there will never be a Project on the corner of 17th and Diamond in San Francisco (Wiener’s neighborhood).

But make no mistake, Wiener and his “broad coalition” want to take away the people’s power and their vote in order to force the Projects into communities that don’t want them. That is the goal, and the voters and the State Constitution are their obstacles.

Articles in the California State Constitution are similar to the Bill of Rights; they’re meant to delegate and limit the powers of the State, and to protect us from government. What does it say about politicians who desire to repeal one of them?

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.

FOIA lawsuit reveals failure of ATF to maintain NFA records

FOIA lawsuit reveals failure of ATF to maintain NFA records

Since the passing of the National Firearms Act in 1934, the federal government has been tasked with maintaining a database of records for NFA weapons, and additionally, while performing inspections of FFLs, they must also ensure NFA compliance, a job currently overseen by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Office of the Inspector General. This database, the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Records (NFRTR), contains roughly two million possession records of machine guns, short barreled rifles and shotguns, suppressors, AOWs, and explosive devices not under the control of the U.S. government.

The accuracy of the NFRTR is paramount to not just the Bureau’s ability to ensure FFL compliance with the NFA, but more importantly to the two million possessors of registered NFA weapons who rely on the accuracy of the NFRTR to keep them out of prison. Violations of the NFA (being in possession of an NFA weapon without proper paperwork) carry fines of up to $250,000 and/or a 10 year prison sentence; people can get sent to prison based on their records or lack thereof.

The Bureau has long maintained that the accuracy of the NFRTR was above reproach and unquestionable, that is until ATF agents themselves were actually questioned about them.

An internal online survey of ATF Industry Operations Investigators was performed years ago consisting of closed and open ended questions regarding the NFRTR and its impact on their duties, but the Bureau never publicly released the analysis and summary of the survey, as it was rumored that the results were damning… until now.

Newly released documents obtained by Mr. David Hardy through his attorneys Alan Beck and Stephen Stamboulieh through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit demonstrate the total lack of confidence the ATF’s own agents have in the NFRTR as it pertains to their ability to perform compliance inspections of FFLs and NFA weapons.

Questions such as Question 7, “How often is the discrepancy due to an error in the NFRTR?” Out of 299 responses:

Always – 30
Most – 103
Sometimes – 99
232 out of 299 state NFRTR error

Or Question 12, “How do errors and discrepancies in NFRTR inventory reports affect your ability to carry out compliance inspections?”

One IOI answered, “Errors and discrepancies make ATF, as a whole, look inept. These are extremely important records and our own NFA Branch can’t even get it right. It takes extra hour(s) to rectify these problems, and sometimes we find out 1-2 years down the road on the next inspection that the corrections we forwarded to the NFA Branch aren’t even taken care of by the next inspection.”

Another answered, “Since there is no requirement for the Transferor of an NFA firearm to keep a copy of an approved transfer form once the firearm is transferred, it is very difficult to determine if the transfer took place correctly without contacting each licensee or person to whom the firearms were sold.”

And worse yet, “As ATF Investigators, we cannot determine if a FFL is missing NFA weapons or if a FFL is in possession of an unregistered NFA weapon, or if a FFL is in possession of NFA weapons registered to another FFL/individual without accurate records from the NFA Branch.”

Question 13, “How do errors and discrepancies in the NFRTR inventory reports affect the FFLs you inspect?”

Answer: “While the burden of proof is generally placed upon the FFL to demonstrate that the firearms were properly transferred, incorrect information from the NFRTR can cause an undue burden for those FFL’s who have properly transferred the firearms yet must spend days or weeks searching for documentation to prove these transfers.”

Answer: “FFL’s are upset, become very concerned, and fear any possible liability or action that might be erroneously taken against them as a result.”

Question 14: “Do you have any suggestions for improving the NFRTR inventory reports or the work of the NFA Branch?”

The best answer given: “I have none that anyone would find palatable!”

What does this all mean? It calls into question and casts reasonable doubt on every conviction of NFA violations based on the supposed unquestionable accuracy of the NFRTR. Every time they claimed there was no or incorrect records on file for an NFA weapon, and thus sent someone away to prison, there is now evidence in the ATF’s own analysis and summary that they very well were wrong.

It should also cause concern for all current possessors of registered NFA weapons that they need to be sure they can 100% prove that they are in compliance with the NFA, because the ATF cannot say that they can. If there is a discrepancy, as one IOI put it in regards to inspecting FFLs, “They feel that if their inventory was ever challenged that they would lose the fight because, in their opinion, the Branch says it is always right.”

A copy of the documents can be found at Stamboulieh Law.

Alan Beck can be reached at:
alan.alexander.beck@gmail.com