Thursday, July 11, 2019

"Court Banned Me From Teaching Son Basic Rules For Boys" – Father Of 7 Year Old Slated For Transition

The personification of evil

RT
07/10/2019
Jeff Younger, who is locked in a court battle with his ex-wife over whether their son should undergo transition to a girl, says a court order bans him from discussing things like religion or the need to be respectful to girls.


National Pornographic now promoting pedophilia
and Satanism
Jeff and his former spouse Anne Georgulas are trying to resolve a parental dispute over their son, James. Anne insists that James identifies as a girl, calls him Luna, and envisions hormone therapy and eventually sex-change surgery in the future. 

Jeff rejects the idea and says his son is perfectly comfortable being a boy in his presence. The pair are fighting a legal battle, with a court temporarily ordering Jeff not to impose a male identity on the child.

The order forbids Jeff from calling his son James in front of anyone who knows him as a girl, and this significantly limits what they can do together, he told RT’s Sophie Shevardnadze.


“Basically I can’t go to a school. I keep him away from any friends he might have at school that know him as a girl, and at my home he’s known as James and I use male pronouns. What I’m prohibited from doing right now is trying to convince him that he’s actually a boy,” he said.

The court’s ruling means that Jeff, who is a religious Orthodox Christian, has to be careful when discussing his faith with his son, he said. He is also cautious about teaching James how to behave decently, so that his words cannot be interpreted as imposing a male gender identity.


CNN, BBC, MSM are stacked with LGBT pedophiles and homosexuals pushing their agenda 

“I’m even a little trepidatious about reading the Book of Genesis as we go through our Bible readings after Pascha,” he said. “So, I’ve had a lot of trouble communicating with him on religious issues and on basic things that you’d have to teach boys, issues around self-control: how they should deal with women, older women, being respectful to females of their peer group.”

Jeff said James was misdiagnosed with gender dysphoria and simply wants the approval of both his parents.


This evil must be met head-on by moral, decent societies and eradicated utilising whatever means are necessary 

“The court asked us to take them to social services and let the boys express their preferences,” Jeff said. “And what James said was: he wants to be a girl at his mom’s home and a boy at his dad’s home. He basically wants both his parents to love him.”

Watch the entire interview to learn more about what may become a landmark case in the debate on child gender affirmation in the US.



This news bureau contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.  We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Thursday, May 09, 2019

Island Gun Laws: The History Of Gun Control And Crime In Australia, New Zealand, UK

Globalist lab rats for total gun control - the U.S. is NEXT

AMMO.COM
05/07/2019
“We know that other countries in response to one mass shooting have managed to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours, Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it.” Obama, Oct. 1, 2015

Politics nowadays are dominated by what gets attention, because what gets attention spreads the fastest and furthest. This is the dark side of social media and 24/7 news, and one event in particular in the firearms world is ground zero for this phenomenon – mass shootings.


In the wake of a mass shooting, politicians who already dislike law-abiding Americans owning guns use the tragedy to push for additional gun laws, irrespective of the existing laws already broken. This is done when emotions are at their highest (and thus rational thinking at its lowest), usually under the auspices of enacting gun laws like those in the U.K. and Australia. President Obama's former Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said it best:


"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."

Careful analysis of these countries’ gun control experiments actually depicts a more nuanced picture of gun policy and crime. In fact, there is reason to believe that gun control may have actually not had much of an impact on crime in either country – but this sort of critical thinking takes concerted effort, and who has time for such things when politics today are less about sound, long-term policy and more about sensationalizing another's tragedy to advance your agenda?

Below is a guide to help American gun rights activists understand the history of gun registration and gun control efforts in the U.K. and Australia, the two countries which anti-gun politicians often cite as muses for their proposed laws.

Events That Led to Gun Laws in Australia

On April 28, 1996, Australia experienced a national tragedy. 

A deranged murderer, Martin Bryant, went on a rampage and killed 35 people in cold blood. In response to this atrocity, known as the Port Arthur massacre, the Australian government undertook a heavy-handed gun control campaign. This included a mandatory buyback program where Australian citizens had to turn over 650,000 “assault weapons” to the government. This program was followed up by a subsequent buyback program in 2003. 




At the center of Australia’s gun control policy following the Port Arthur massacre was the National Firearms Agreement of 1996. Although international media outlets portray the 1996 NFA as a ban, it was actually a draconian form of gun control that still allowed for gun ownership, albeit to a very limited degree. The only real bans that took place were ones targeting so-called “assault weapons” – long-guns such as rifles and shotguns. Handguns were still accessible to the public, but were subject to stiff restrictions.

Events That Led to Gun Laws in Great Britain

Britain’s first gun control package passed in the modern era was the Firearms Act of 1920. Fearing a growing wave of unrest in the aftermath of World War I, British politicians passed this gun control law despite scant evidence showing that crime was on the rise during that time period.

The Firearms Act of 1920 was only the beginning – as the 20th century was a time of progressive government growth in all facets of life, and the U.K. was no exception. After the enactment of the Firearms Act of 1920, the British government passed gradually stricter laws in 1937, 1968, and 1988. Despite having comprehensive gun control at the national level, the homicide rate in Great Britain slowly grew from the 1950s into early 2005.


One result of UK gun control: foreign "immigrant" rapes and crime have skyrocketed

When it came to mass shootings, British gun control efforts proved futile. Shooting rampages in Hungerford, England and Dunblane, Scotland received international attention, which put the island nation at a major public policy crossroads. Like its Australian counterpart, the United Kingdom opted for stiffer gun control.

After the Hungerford massacre, the government responded with the passage of the Firearms Act of 1988, a new gun control measure that placed draconian restrictions on rifles and shotguns. The Dunblane massacre prompted the British government to ban the possession of handguns by passing the Firearms Act of 1997

Falling Crime Rates in the Western World

Arguably the most popular example of foreign gun control, advocates of tougher gun laws routinely cite Australia and its 1996 NFA law as an example of gun control causing crime to fall. Although Australia is a nation characterized by a low degree of crime, there’s more to Australia’s low crime rates than gun control.

Homicide rates have been declining across Western Europe, Canada, and the U.S. since the 1990s. Australia was not exempt from this trend, and in fact, Australia’s falling crime was essentially the norm for industrialized countries in the West. Homicides were already a rare occurrence before the passage of the 1996 NFA. In sum, we can barely learn anything meaningful from slight changes in Australian homicide rates around this time.




In Why Crime Rates Are Falling Throughout the Western World, Michael Tonry argues the following:

“There is now general agreement, at least for developed English-speaking countries and western Europe, that homicide patterns have moved in parallel since the 1950s. The precise timing of the declines has varied, but the common pattern is apparent. Homicide rates increased substantially from various dates in the 1960s, peaked in the early 1990s or slightly later, and have since fallen substantially.”

This same trend of declining violence was on display in the United States. American homicide rates reached a 51-year low in 2014.During this time period, there wasn’t a gun control measure as comprehensive as Australia’s NFA in America that we can point to in explaining this decline. In fact, American gun ownership per capita increased by 56 percent from 1993 to 2013. This was accompanied by a gun violence decrease of 49 percent. Correlation is not causation, but this goes to show the explanations behind crime rates are complex and are not necessarily about passing a so-called gun control “fix.”

The Effects of Gun Control in Australia

According to gun researcher John Lott, homicide rates in Australia have been on a downtrend since 1969. During this timeframe, the only time homicide rates increased was from 1998 to 1999, not long after the NFA was passed. However, Ryan McMaken argues that Australian crime data is very spotty. He contends that the data is not very reliable because crime was such a non-issue that the government did not prioritize recording it. McMaken provides further context:

“Australia is a small country, with only a few more million people than Florida, spread out over an entire continent. In the relatively high homicide days of the early 1990s, Australia's homicides totaled around 300. This means in a bad crime year, in which homicides increase by only 20 or 30 victims, it could swing overall rates noticeably.”

All in all, what we can gather is that Australia had low crime rates well before the passage of the 1996 NFA. However, this is one part of the story.




Australia’s gun buyback program from 1996 to 1997 was able to reduce the supply of firearms from 3.2 million 2.2 million, but the declines in homicide or suicide rates were not as high as many gun control advocates expected.

Interestingly enough, Australia’s gun buyback did not even stifle civilian gun ownership. In 2010, private gun ownership was back to 1996 levels. Plus, data from 1997 to the present day show that gun ownership in Australia has actually grown three times faster than the population. The total number of firearms in circulation went from 2.5 million to 5.8 million.

Gun control advocates maintain that the more guns present, the more likely crime rates will skyrocket. Crime rates were already low before gun control came into being and continued to fall even after gun control was implemented. Moreover, Australia still experienced an increase in the amount of guns in the country despite the gun control laws in effect.

Indeed, it’s hard to place what factors exactly contributed to Australia’s decreasing homicide rates. It’s simplistic to believe that gun control is the missing x-factor in lowering crime. Additionally, the Australian experience shows that Australia’s decision to not completely ban gun ownership has given some law-abiding gun owners a little bit of flexibility in acquiring firearms.


The LGBT deviant pedophiles played a major role in promoting gun ban laws in Australia

The Australian gun control case actually looks quite bleak when compared to the U.S.’s higher degree of gun rights over the past few decades. From 1995 to 2006 – a time when firearm ownership was reduced – Australia witnessed a significant increase in rapes and sexual assaults. In 400 Years of Gun Control, author Howard Nemerov specifically pointed to numbers indicating a 21.4 percent increase in rape and sexual assault rates during this period.

On the other hand, America saw increased gun ownership during this time, so it’s no surprise they fared better when it came to sexual assaults, which fell by 16.8 percent. Gun ownership tends to benefit the most vulnerable in society, like women and the elderly, who are often overpowered in violent assaults by criminals who rely on brute strength. With guns entering the equation, the playing field is ultimately leveled.

All in all, gun control down under is not what it seems.

The Effects of Gun Control in the U.K.

Like Australia, low homicide rates have been generally the norm in recent British history. At the beginning of the 20th century, England and Wales were already some of the safest countries in the world based on global and historical standards.

At first glance, the gun control measures appeared to coincide with decreases in Britain’s homicide rates, which started taking place after 2002. However, there is reason to believe that there were other factors contributing to Britain’s falling crime rates during that period. John Lott argues that increased policing in the U.K. is a more plausible explanation for this drop around the early 2000s.




Although Lott recognizes that the police play a crucial role in fighting crime, his research over the years has led him to the conclusion that the police can’t always be at crime scenes to save lives. They usually end up at the crime scene after the fact, thus demonstrating the need for other security options at our disposal. An increased law enforcement presence eventually hits a point of diminishing returns as witnessed in the U.K. during the mid-2000s. Despite a substantial increase in the police force, the murder rate was still above the pre-handgun ban rate.

Gun control advocates remain steadfast in their belief that gun control was solely responsible for the fall in murders after 2002. Even if we concede ground on this point, we also have to ask why gun control was not at fault for the repeated increases in murder rates from the 1960s until the 1990s – a time when homicide gradually increased despite new gun control legislation being passed throughout those decades.

We must also keep in mind that statistical figures in the U.K. should be viewed with a certain degree of skepticism given the differences in the way crimes are accounted for. Starting in 1967, homicide figures in England and Wales exclude cases that don’t result in convictions. Put simply, when no arrest for a homicide is made, which in turn results in no conviction for the murderer, the murder is not accounted for in statistical figures.

The U.S. has a different approach to recording homicide statistics – including cases that did not result in murder convictions. For example, deaths caused by defensive gun use as well as unsolved cases would be classified as homicides in the U.S. 


UK government pedophiles now give free reign and encourage, protect immigrant rapists

This makes crime rate comparisons between countries like the U.S. and the U.K. rather tricky. When adding gun control laws and their effects on crime rates into these comparisons, the picture becomes murkier. Confounding variables abound which can lead to flawed interpretations of these events. Recent data show that the U.K.’s gun control experiments are actually causing more harm than good. Like its Australian counterpart, which also implemented draconian gun control in the 1990s, negative criminal trends have started to surface since new gun control laws were enacted.

Sexual assaults have seen an alarming rise from 1995 to 2006, specifically increasing by 76.5 percent according to Howard Nemerov’s book 400 Years of Gun Control. All the gun control in the world has not been able to save the U.K. from steadily increasing rates of violent crime.

One particular interesting detail about crime under the country’s gun control regime is that criminals have now changed the tools they use to carry out their dirty deeds. Specifically, British criminals are using knives to commit crimes.

The Guardian reported on the recent knife crime wave sweeping across the U.K.:

“Police recorded 39,598 offences involving a knife or sharp instrument in the year to December 2017, a 22% increase compared with the previous year (32,468), and the highest number registered since comparable records started in 2010. Gun crime rose to 6,604 offences.”




The London Metropolitan Police reports that teenagers commit 49 percent of knife crime. On top of that, three quarters of stabbings were committed by minorities. Breitbart also gave a lurid depiction of London’s ongoing knife rampage:

“London specifically experienced record high knife crime, increasing by 15 percent to a total of 14,987 blade offences – representing 38 percent of all knife crimes across England and Wales and averaging 41 knife crimes a day.”

With questionable immigration policies that prevent assimilation and an environment that does not protect law-abiding Britons’ right to self defense, the U.K. risks sliding into social chaos.

Sadly, British politicians still believe more government control is the answer to this problem. In the face of this stabbing epidemic, London Mayor Sadiq Khan has advocated for knife control. One Member of Parliament Scott Mann has even floated the idea of embedding GPS trackers on all knives sold in London.

Instead of considering alternatives like tougher policing in crime-ridden neighborhoods or even arming their citizens, elected officials in London have created a de facto surveillance state. A report from WorldAtlas uncovered that London is the most surveilled city in the world with an estimated 51,000 cameras used to snoop on London residents. 

New Zealand: An Addendum

On March 15, 2019, New Zealand faced its own Port Arthur incident. A 28-year-old Australian citizen by the name of Brenton Tarrant opened fire on two mosques in Christchurch, leaving 50 people dead. The shocking nature of this massacre had media talking heads around the world on edge for the next week 

In an already polarized environment in western countries, where identity politics have strong pull, politicians were quick to make their pro-gun control stances heard. From Alexandria-Ocasio Cortez to Bernie Sanders, U.S. members of the Democratic Party have made their calls for gun control clear. Universal background checks and so-called “assault weapons” bans are now on the table. 


Psycho face of U.S. gun control crazy: Occasio-Cortez

There is no question this event was a horrific tragedy and the atrocious nature of the incident will forever rock New Zealand’s public conscious. That being said, analyzing this incident and figuring out how to go from there requires level-headed thinking. Much to the dismay of pro-gun advocates who want to see their countries expand gun rights, emotion tends to reign supreme in all public policy discussions. 

As with the Australian and British cases, we find that New Zealand has also witnessed the same declining crime rates trend the rest of the West has experienced in the past few decades. In 2014, New Zealand’s homicide rate stood at 0.9 per 100,000 people. Particularly curious, New Zealand hit a 40-year low in its murder rates in 2017 – with only 35 people being killed in the country. Murders peaked in the 1980s, with 1986 being the year with the highest total of murders, standing at 79. 

It should be noted that New Zealand does feature pretty strict gun control. Gunpolicy.org notes that in New Zealand, “the right to private gun ownership is not guaranteed by law,” which is a stark contrast from the U.S. – which nominally recognizes it as a right. Prospective gun owners in New Zealand must have a license before buying a gun. Then, they must go through a universal background check of sorts that “considers criminal, mental health, medical, addiction and domestic violence records.” 

Following the Mosque shootings, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern immediately called for bans on semi-automatic weapons and “military-style” variants. She got her wish a few days after the shooting, with a new ban on “assault weapons.” Despite the New Zealand government’s push for gun owners to turn in their firearms in the wake of the mass shooting, a paltry number of firearmshave been turned in so far. 


UK, AU, NZ, U.S. feminists, faggots now targeting white men along with guns

Like Australia, we cannot assume with certainty that gun control has been the primary driver of New Zealand’s already low crime rates. The effects of New Zealand’s new gun control laws will be an interesting case study nonetheless. 

But with the American counterexample showing how crime rates can still decrease, even with certain jurisdictions liberalizing gun laws, we must call into question the conventional wisdom that gun control is the alpha and the omega of decreasing crime rates. When push comes to shove, the New Zealand government’s newest gun control package may turn out to be a dud that only satisfied the political class’s “do something.”

Follow the Red, White, and Blue

The British government will eventually have to admit that there’s only so much it can do to fight crime. Instead, the U.K. and Australia, for that matter, should follow in the footsteps of America and expand gun rights. The gun rights victories that have occurred since the 1980s have served America well.

Research from the Pew Center in 2015, showed that the murder rate in America fell by one half – 7 per 100,000 in 1993 to 3.4 per 100,000 in 2014. In the same period, the total number of gun deaths (numbers that include accidental deaths and suicides) dropped by almost one-third, plummeting from 15.2 to 10.6 per 100. Additionally, the number of privately owned guns and people carrying concealed has grown year by year.




Over the past three decades, gun laws have witnessed unprecedented levels of relaxation at the state level. From reforms such as licensed concealed carry to permitless Constitutional Carry, law-abiding gun owners in certain states have more firearms freedoms than in previous decades. These numbers at least demonstrate that looser gun laws don’t lead to chaotic episodes of violence. Crime rates don’t suddenly explode when people are allowed to freely own and carry firearms. The warnings of so-called Wild West scenes popping up left and right prove to be unfounded.

The Australian and British cases, on the other hand, show a more mixed picture of countries that were already safe before passing gun control due to political outrage. The effects of these laws are still being discerned, however, it can be argued that they have had little effect on impacting crime. In the British case, law-abiding citizens may want to have expanded gun rights due to the country’s increasingly unstable migrant crisis and the police’s inability to stop crime.

All in all, a truly free society is one that respects an individual’s right to self defense. No matter the intentions, governments have no authority to infringe upon this sacred right.



This news bureau contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.  We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Tuesday, May 07, 2019

Biden Says Jim Crow Is Back - Is “Creepy Joe” Becoming “Crazy Joe?"

Where have those hands been?  Creepy Uncle Joe and the 2020 petting zoo  

NEW AMERICAN
By R. Cort Kirkwood
05/05/2019

Presidential candidate Joe Biden got the nickname “Creepy Joe” because of his hands-on approach to the opposite sex at fundraisers and other political events.


Christmas with Creepy Uncle Joe can be "challenging"
He’s grabbed, groped, and kissed just about any woman within arm’s length.

Well, if Biden isn’t careful, he’ll get another nickname: “Crazy Joe.”

In January, he said white Americans are racist. Now, he says, President Trump wants to reinstate Jim Crow, the state and local laws that segregated blacks from whites, and that Congress abolished 55 years ago.



Voter ID Means More Jim Crow

The occasion of Biden’s claim was his maiden presidential campaign visit to South Carolina, the Associated Press reported, “where black voters play a key role in the South’s first presidential primary.”

Because Republicans think voters should show identification before casting a ballot, those Republicans secretly pine for the days when blacks drank at separate water foundations and used separate public restrooms.


Pedophile?

Reported AP on Saturday:

In criticizing Republican efforts to adopt more stringent voting rules, including identification requirements and curtailing early voting hours, Biden recalled the racial segregation laws of the past.

“You’ve got Jim Crow sneaking back in,” he said, referring to the era before the civil rights movement. “You know what happens when you have an equal right to vote? They lose.”

Biden “centered much of his trip around the need to restore decency to the White House,” AP reported, something of an irony given that decent men don’t make up lies about their political opponents, like calling them racists who want blacks to sit in the back of the bus.


Uncle Joe getting "familiar" with the daughter of Senator Christopher Coons

Nor do decent candidates accuse fellow citizens of racial animosity, as Biden did in January.

“The bottom line is we have a lot to root out, but most of all the systematic racism that most of us whites don't like to acknowledge even exists,” Biden said. “We don't even consciously acknowledge it. But it’s been built into every aspect of our system.”

“White America has to admit there’s a still a systematic racism,” he continued, because blacks are the victims of “substandard” schools, “undervalued” houses, “car insurance [that] costs more for no apparent reason,” and black poverty that is “still twice that of white Americans.”


Biden gropes the wife of Obama's Secretary of Defense Ash Carter as the blithering idiot carries on, oblivious to Uncle Joe's painfully obvious unwanted touching

Other Indecencies

Decent people don’t lie about their own past. But that’s what Biden is doing.

Biden is helping the radical Left and the sisterhood revise the events of 1991, when Anita Hill leveled a nasty, last-minute attack on Clarence Thomas, then the nominee to replace leftist William Brennan on the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Left has charged Biden with not giving Hill a proper hearing for her unproven charge that Thomas sexually harassed her when they worked together at the federal Education Department and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.




“I wish I could have done something,” Biden agreed in March, although the claim that the then-Senate Judiciary Committee chairman “silenced” Hill is nonsense, as The New American reported. Biden did plenty to help Hill.

Yet such is Biden’s lust to work in the Oval Office that he’s willing to peddle an outright lie about himself and add another even bigger lie. On The View, Biden said, “I believed her from the beginning.”

No, he didn’t.




The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway dug up the truth in Arlen Specter’s memoir, Passion for Truth: From Finding JFK’s Single Bullet to Questioning Anita Hill to Impeaching Clinton.

Specter interviewed Biden for the book in November 1998. “It was clear to me from the way she was answering [Specter’s] questions, she was lying,” Biden told him.

Is Biden Lying?

Is Biden lying? Perhaps. On the other hand, maybe the aging politician doesn’t remember the Thomas hearings, or that the FBI agents who interviewed Hill thought she lied. It was 28 years ago, after all, when Biden wasn’t yet 50.


Uncle Joe puts no limits on his pawing 

Maybe he doesn’t remember that asking voters to provide identification before casting a ballot is unrelated to Jim Crow, or that the 1964 Civil Rights Act ended such statutes just a couple years before Biden began law school.

Biden is 78 years old. If he really thinks Jim Crow is “sneaking back in,” perhaps he should call it quits. If he doesn’t really think so but said it to smear Trump and the GOP, then by his own standard — decency — he is unfit for the presidency.



This news bureau contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.  We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Sunday, May 05, 2019

ANDREW KREIG: Critic Of U.S. Venezuelan Policy, News Coverage Speaks In DC At Press Club

Iraq 2.0

JUSTICE INTEGRITY PROJECT
By Andrew Kreig
05/04/2017

Longtime Washington journalist Ken Silverstein delivered during a dinner lecture on March 27 at the National Press Club his hard-hitting critique of mainstream media coverage of the ongoing Venezuelan crisis.


Ken Silverstein
Silverstein, an author and the editor of the WashingtonBabylon.com news site, spoke to the McClendon Group speaker society about Venezuela and the U.S. Media: Pravda Was Better.

Silverstein, right, has traveled to Venezuela three times, in 1993, 2004 and this February. His new article “Caracas Chronicles” on Washington Babylon describes how the media has so routinely misread — or lied — about the political situation in Venezuela.



He is writing an ongoing series about what he assesses as the likelihood that the Trump administration will invade the country. Caracas Chronicles is Part I of the forthcoming series.


Guaido
Since then one major flashpoint among commentators has been whether the massive power outages afflicting Venezuela this month are because of covert sabotage by allies of the United States on behalf of legislator Juan Guaido (at left) who has declared himself the rightful president. Guaido thus seeks to replace Nicolás Maduro, shown below, who was elected to another term last year in a disputed election. Critics claim that the electricity blackout was caused by poor policies and performance of the incumbent government.


Silverstein's reporting coincides in general with a March 5 column by the Justice Integrity Project U.S. Mainstream Media Propagandize Venezuelan Rebellion.

"News coverage of current political strife in Venezuela," we wrote, "serves as a fresh reminder that U.S. mainstream newspapers and broadcasters too often deliver remarkably biased 'news' reports on sensitive global topics."


Maduro

We continued:

The corporate media — including the prestigious newspaper outlets like the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post — consistently portray leaders of Venezuela, Syria and Russia as bloodthirsty dictators with no semblance of popular appeal. That's despite independent evidence that they have won elections (unlike some tyrants counted as strong U.S. allies) and probably could continue to do so in fair elections, according to independent popularity polls and other evidence.

Appendices to that column and this contain excerpts from a sampling of corporate-controlled and alternative media. Readers can thereby see differences and patterns.


Have Americans already forgotten the ongoing Iraq/Afghan debacles?

Silverstein is the creator of WashingtonBabylon.com, a political, satirical and investigative website. He has previously worked as an AP correspondent from Brazil, at the Washington office of the Los Angeles Times, and as the Washington Editor of Harper's Magazine.

He has been a columnist at the New York Observer and a Contributing Editor at VICE, and has written for scores of other publications, with datelines from dozens of countries. These nations include Iraq, Lebanon, Sudan, Senegal, Equatorial Guinea, Indonesia, Vietnam, Dubai, Egypt, Venezuela, Colombia and many more. Also, he is the author of several books, most recently The Secret World of Oil, and has two more books in the works. He will sign copies at the event.

The Venezuelan crisis is not only an ordeal for its population but a test for the entire Hemisphere’s democratic institutions, including the media’s performance.

The McClendon News Group is a private speaker society founded in 1946 by the late White House Correspondent Sarah McClendon (1911-2003). The current chairman is her former colleague, John Edward Hurley. The Justice Integrity Project's editor facilitates the logistics as deputy chair.

Editor's note: A preview of the lecture was updated above to reflect that the talk occurred as planned.


Andrew Kreig

Andrew Kreig, Esq.
Andrew Kreig is Justice Integrity Project Executive Director and co-founder with over two decades experience as an attorney and non-profit executive in Washington, DC. An author and longtime investigative reporter, his primary focus since 2008 has been exploring allegations of official corruption and other misconduct in federal agencies. He has been a consultant and volunteer leader in advising several non-profit groups fostering cutting-edge applications within the communications industries.
  
As president and CEO of the Wireless Communications Association International (WCAI) from 1996 until 2008, Kreig led its worldwide advocacy that helped create the broadband wireless industry. Previously, he was WCAI vice president and general counsel, an associate at Latham & Watkins, law clerk to a federal judge, author of the book Spiked about the newspaper business and a longtime reporter for the Hartford Courant.

Listed in Who’s Who in America and Who’s Who in the World from the mid-1990s and currently, he holds law degrees from the University of Chicago School of Law and from Yale Law School. Reared in New York City, his undergraduate degree in history is from Cornell University, where he was a student newspaper editor, rowing team member, and Golden Gloves boxer.

Contact the author Andrew Kreig.

Friday, March 08, 2019

Gun Background Checks: How The State Decides Who Can And Cannot Buy A Firearm

Veteran? Pissed off a family member lately? Here's what can happen to YOU under the new Nazi gun seizure laws  

AMMO.COM
03/08/2019

Prior to 1968, most adults in the United States could purchase a firearm without state interference. Guns were available in local retail stores, as well as mail-order catalogs, and as long as you hadn’t been convicted of a felony and you had the funds, there weren’t any questions asked. 


Things are different now. Depending on where in America you are and what type of gun you want to buy, there’s a good chance you’ll need to pass a NICS-mandated background check to complete your purchase. 

Although many people hold a strong opinion for and against gun background checks, they’ve proven to be an integral part of the state's gun control apparatus – and they don’t appear to be leaving anytime soon. 



Since background checks are such a requirement for today’s gun enthusiasts, it’s important for gun owners (and those who may someday be gun owners) to understand everything they can, including how the current system works and how it came to be.

The History of Gun Background Checks in the U.S.

The history of background checks for gun purchases reaches back to the first restrictions placed on individuals trying to purchase firearms. Here in the U.S., this occured after the Civil War, when several southern states adopted “Black Codes,” which replaced the prior slave codes and worked to suppress the freedoms of black Americans. Among other restrictions, the Black Codes forbade African-Americans from owning firearms. 




The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 began restricting the sales of firearms, requiring those in the business of selling firearms to purchase a Federal Firearms License (FFL) and maintain a list of persons who purchased firearms, including their name and address. The Firearms Act of 1938 also listed convicted felons as the first prohibited persons – who are not allowed, by law, to own, purchase, or possess firearms. 

And then something happened that would forever change American history. Six days before Thanksgiving, on November 22, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald using a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle purchased from a mail-order catalog. The Kennedy assassination led to the Gun Control Act of 1968, which was specifically intended to keep “firearms out of the hands of those not legally entitled to possess them because of age, criminal background, or incompetence.” 




Through the Gun Control Act of 1968, the federal government placed restrictions on the sale of firearms across state lines and expanded the prohibited persons who were not allowed to purchase or possess firearms. Under the new law, gun purchases became illegal for those who were: 
  • Convicted of a non-business-related felony;
  • Found to be mentally incompetent;
  • Users of illegal substances.
To determine this information, those who wished to purchase a firearm from an FFL had to complete a questionnaire of yes/no questions such as “Are you a convicted felon?” and “Are you a fugitive from justice?” Although these questions needed to be answered, they did not require verification from the gun seller. 

In 1972, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) was formed as a way to help control the illegal sales and use of firearms. 

In March of 1981, the assassination attempt of President Ronald Reagan led to further gun legislation with the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, which amended the Gun Control Act of 1968 to now require background checks for the purchase of firearms from a retailer. The Brady Act, as it’s known today, also led to the development of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which launched in 1998, and is the current law on background checks for gun purchases in the U.S.

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) was mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, and was launched by the FBI on November 30, 1998. The NICS is used by FFLs to check the eligibility of those who wish to purchase firearms. 




Located at the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division in Clarksburg, West Virginia, the NICS is currently used by 30 states and five districts, as well as the District of Columbia, to check the backgrounds of those who wish to purchase firearms. Those states that opt not to use the NICS have their own point of contact (POC) to complete background checks. 

The NICS applies a person’s identifying characteristics, including name and date of birth, to its own index, as well as the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database and the Interstate Identification Index. These systems compare the intended purchaser’s demographic information against the national databases to see if they match someone deemed a prohibited person. Prohibited persons include those who are or were: 
  • Convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a year or more;
  • Fugitives from justice;
  • A user of or addicted to a controlled substance;
  • Adjudicated as a mental defective or been committed to a mental health institution;
  • Illegal aliens;
  • Aliens admitted to the U.S. under a nonimmigrant visa;
  • Discharged from the U.S. Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
  • Renounced their citizenship to the U.S.;
  • Subject to a court order that restrains their interactions with an intimate partner or child;
  • Convicted of domestic violence.
Since its conception, NICS has completed over 300 million background checks and has issued more than 1.3 million denials. The NICS is available 17 hours a day, seven days a week, except for Christmas Day.

How Do Background Checks Work?

When you visit a gun store and attempt to purchase a firearm, you must complete a Firearm Transaction Record, or ATF Form 4473 – which requires the intended purchaser’s name, address, and birthdate. The form also requires a government-issued photo ID and asks questions regarding the individual’s appearance, including height and weight. 

Once the form’s completed, the gun seller can either call the 1-800 number for NICS or use the online system to run the background check. In over 90 percent of the cases, the results are almost immediate, with the system either approving, delaying, or denying the purchase within minutes. 


More than 450 people in Florida ordered to give up guns under new law

With an approval, the sale can immediately proceed as planned with you purchasing the firearm. If there is a delay, the NICS and FBI investigate the inquiry over the next three days. If the FFL does not hear anything within that time period or if a determination cannot be made, then the retailer can, but does not have to, continue with the firearm transfer. When this occurs, it’s often referred to as a “default proceed” sale. 

When a denial is made, which occurs in only about 2 percent of background checks, the retailer is unable to sell or transfer the firearm to the individual in question. You must submit a request to the NICS to receive the reason for your denial, the most common of which is a history of a felony conviction. 

If you believe you were given an erroneous denial, you can appeal the decision by completing a Voluntary Appeal File (VAF), which can be done online or by mailing your request to the FBI. Along with the VAF application, you will also need to be fingerprinted to move forward with the appeal process.

When is a Background Check Needed to Purchase a Gun?

A background check is necessary any time you purchase a gun from a retail provider, which is defined as someone conducting business in the sale of firearms. These sellers must have a Federal Firearms License (FFL) and are legally mandated to complete a background check for every firearm sold to a non-licensed individual.




It doesn’t matter if you purchase the firearm in a brick-and-mortar store, a gun show, online, or through a magazine – if the seller is a retailer provider (i.e. has an FFL), then the background check must occur.

When is a Background Check Not Needed to Purchase a Gun?

Under federal law, any adult can sell a personally owned firearm to another adult in the same state as long as you know, to the best of your ability, that they’re allowed to own a firearm. 

Private sellers aren’t required to ask for identification, they don’t have to complete any forms, nor keep any records of the transaction. What’s more, federal law does not mandate a background check to purchase a firearm from a private seller. This includes buying a gun from a relative, a neighbor, or a friend. 

Although federal law does not demand a background check for the private sale of firearms, some states do require a background check. 

If you inherit or are gifted a firearm, you don’t need a background check.

Do Gun Background Checks Differ By State?

Thirty states, five districts, and D.C. all rely solely on the NICS for gun background checks. The following 13 states use their own full point of contact (POC) data system for gun background checks and do not use the FBI’s system: 
  • California;
  • Colorado;
  • Connecticut;
  • Florida;
  • Hawaii;
  • Illinois;
  • Nevada;
  • New Jersey;
  • Oregan;
  • Pennsylvania;
  • Tennessee;
  • Utah;
  • Virginia
Some states, namely Maryland, New Hampshire, Washington, and Wisconsin, use NICS for long guns, but a state program for background checks on handguns. Iowa, Nebraska, and North Carolina use NICS, but have a partial POC for background checks in relation to handgun permits. 

Many of these states have added their own provisions to their background checks, on top of what federal law mandates. In most cases, they also include looking at state and local records to determine if the person in question should or should not be allowed to own a firearm.


STOP RED FLAG GUN CONFISCATION ORDERS

Some states have implemented universal background checks via an FFL, even during a private gun sale. While Maryland and Pennsylvania require background checks for all handgun transfers, regardless of retail or private sale, the following states require a background check for all firearm transfers: 
  • California;
  • Colorado;
  • Connecticut;
  • Delaware;
  • District of Columbia;
  • Nevada;
  • New Jersey;
  • New York;
  • Oregan;
  • Rhode Island;
  • Vermont;
  • Washington.
In addition, some states require permits to purchase firearms. Hawaii, Illinois, and Massachusetts require a permit for all gun purchases, while Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska, and North Carolina require a permit for purchasing a handgun. These permits often require their own background check as well. 

It should be noted that although these laws exist in Nebraska, they’re not currently being enforced, but are expected to be by January of 2020.

But Isn’t There a Gun Show Loophole?

There is no gun show loophole when it comes to background checks for gun purchases. The law clearly states that if you purchase a firearm from a person with an FFL, a background check must occur. If you purchase a gun from a private seller, you don’t need a background check. These same two principles apply whether you’re at a gun show or not.




So if you purchase a firearm from a gun seller with an FFL at a gun show, you will need to complete Form 4473 and have a background check. Under federal law, if you purchase a gun from a private seller at a gun show, you don’t need to have a background check. Your state laws may differ. 

Of the average 4,000 gun shows in the U.S. each year, it’s estimated that 50 to 75 percent of vendors have an FFL, and therefore require purchasers of firearms to complete background checks. But that doesn’t mean that 25 to 50 percent of vendors are private sellers of firearms – many of these are vendors that sell gun paraphernalia. Gun shows are filled with vendors who sell everything from t-shirts and ball caps to holsters and concealed carry gear, and it’s these sellers that make up the majority of the remaining non-licensed vendors. 

Are there private gun sellers at gun shows? Absolutely. But the idea that criminals are flocking to gun shows to illegally purchase firearms is untrue. In a report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, only 0.7 percent of convicted criminals purchased their firearms at gun shows.

Have Background Checks Stopped Gun Violence and Crimes?

The research on the effectiveness of background checks to stop gun violence shows conflicting evidence. In an October 2018 published study completed by U.S. Davis and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, in the 10 years following California’s comprehensive background checks, the number of gun homicides and suicides were not impacted. In a similar study published in July of the same year, gun violence did not increase with the repeal of comprehensive background checks.


North Dakota House considers "red-flag" gun seizure measure

Yet other studies show that background checks do reduce violence. A 2015 study found that requiring Connecticut handgun owners to go through a background check led to a 40-percent decline in gun homicides and suicides over a 10-year period. 

This contradicting research shows that the problem of criminals getting their hands on guns can’t be stopped by mere background checks. According to the Department of Justice Special Report on Firearm Violence, 77 percent of state prisoners associated with firearm crimes received their firearm through: 
  • Theft;
  • Black market;
  • Drug dealer;
  • On the street;
  • Family or friends.
Not one of these criminals would have been affected by background checks, universal or otherwise. After all, most criminals don’t feel obligated to use legal means to obtain their firearms since they've either broken laws previously or plan to do so. 

Beyond theft and the black market, criminals also use straw purchases, which are illegal, to get their hands on firearms. Straw purchasers are people who can pass a background check and intentionally purchase firearms for criminals. The San Bernardino terrorists used a straw purchaser to get the firearms they used to kill 14 people in the 2015 mass shooting.

Background checks for gun purchases often become a talking point after these types of events, but those who partake in this terroristic activity often don’t have criminal histories that would flag a background check. For instance, the Virginia Tech madman legally purchased a gun at a Virginia-based FFL and passed his background check before using it to shoot fellow students. 

And then there’s the fact that sometimes the background check system fails. NICS is not a 100-percent absolute system, and time has shown that gun background checks can only be as reliable as the records they contain. Devin Kelley, the Texas Church madman, was prohibited by law to own or purchase a firearm because of a domestic violence conviction while in the Air Force. Yet Kelley purchased four firearms between 2014 and 2017, completing Form 4473 and being approved each time by NICS.




In this case, the Air Force failed to report the court marshall to the FBI’s National Crime Information Center, which the NICS relies on for information. So, again, the system is only as good as the information it contains. 

(It's also worth pointing out that Kelley's murderous rampage was stopped by a private citizen, a plumber named Stephen Willeford, who legally owned an AR-15. Kelley was shot in the leg and torso by Willeford, stopping him from murdering more people inside that church before the police could arrive.)

And whereas sometimes the system which gun background checks rely upon is incomplete, in other instances it produces false positives. In other words law-abiding citizens get incorrectly matched by NICS or their respective state-level POC data system with criminals who have similar names. And if that happens to you, then you could be denied your right to own a gun because of a bureaucratic error. Estimates from the Crime Prevention Research Center pointed to 93 percent of initial NICS denials turning out as false positives in 2009 with similar estimates in 2010. (The Obama administration quit reporting these statistics after 2010.) Yes, individuals can appeal this denial and restore their gun rights, but dealing with bureacracy can be an expensive hassle.

The myriad of issues with NICS is why the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), a trade association representing the firearms industry, launched FixNICS.org in 2013. It is also why the NSSF publishes a yearly ranking of the states based on the number of mental health records they provide relative to their population - to encourage the states to comply with existing federal law, and submit any and all records establishing an individual as a prohibited person to the FBI's databases. Their goal is to improve the existing system for everyone so that gun background checks are more accurate and complete.

Whether you like them or not, background checks are here to stay for gun owners and gun purchasers – but they are not the saving grace that some make them out to be. Background checks for gun purchases can only do so much and are not the permanent solution to keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and keeping Americans safe from gun violence. More concerning is that they give the state an ever-growing list of private citizens who own guns, and such a list has historically been used for subsequent gun confiscation attempts.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ANDREW KREIG: EXPERTS REJECT FIRE AS CAUSE FOR 9/11 WTC COLLAPSES

The real truth on 9/11 slowly continues to bleed out

 photo
Technical experts are mounting major challenges to official U.S. government accounts of how three World Trade Center skyscrapers collapsed in near-freefall after the 9/11 attacks 15 years ago.

Many researchers are focusing especially on the little-known collapse of

READ MORE >>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Geopolitics Of The United States, Part 1: The Inevitable Empire

The Empire and the inevitable fall of the Obama criminal regime

 photo
STRATFOR Editor’s Note: This installment on the United States, presented in two parts, is the 16th in a series of STRATFOR monographs on the geopolitics of countries influential in world affairs.

Like nearly all of the peoples of North and South America, most Americans are not originally from the territory that became the United States.

READ MORE >>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Geopolitics Of The United States Part 2: American Identity And The Threats of Tomorrow

A look back at 2011 predictions for the future in order to put events of today into perspective

 photo capitalism_zpsah78uy5p.jpg
We have already discussed in the first part of this analysis how the American geography dooms whoever controls the territory to being a global power, but there are a number of other outcomes that shape what that power will be like. The first and most critical is the impact of that geography on the American mindset.

READ MORE >>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


By Robert S. Finnegan

This e-mail outlines and confirms the acts of espionage against Indonesia and Indonesians by Akiko Makino and the others involved both in Kobe University and in AI Lab at University of Airlangga, Surabaya; Bahasa Indonesia original follows English translation...

READ MORE >>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATED 01/07/2015 : New Analysis Challenges Tamiflu Efficacy; Hong Kong Corona Virus Outbreak

UPDATED 01/07/2015 : FOX NEWS CORPORATE PHARMA SHILL MEGAN KELLY AND FOX NEWS QUACK DOCTOR NOW PUSHING TAMIFLU FOR PREGNANT WOMEN AND CHILDREN;

 photo TAMIFLU_small_zpssojx6okt.jpg
THE 5TH ESTATE UNEQUIVOCALLY WARNS THE PUBLIC NOT TO TAKE OR GIVE THIS PROVEN DANGEROUS, INEFFECTIVE DRUG TO ANYONE

Obama criminals now resulting to biowarfare in quest to destroy Chinese and ASEAN economy; "novel virus substrain" points directly to a Kawaoka / Fouchier / Ernala-Ginting Kobe lab virus weaponized and genetically altered to specifically target and infect the Asian population: Ribavirin...

READ MORE >>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 photo WHO02_zpsplmhtlpr.jpg
The 5th Estate has just purchased a library on H5N1 "Novel" virus pandemics, there are dozens of PDF and Exel documents we feel will assist you in saving lives following intentional releases of the H5N1 and now MERS viruses; we will begin by printing those that appear to be extremely relevant here: H5N1 Kobe-Kawaoka-Ernala series continues soon with more "Smoking Gun" e-mails from Teridah Ernala to The 5th Estate . . .

READ MORE >>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


By Robert S. Finnegan

On October 12, 2002 the Indonesian island of Bali experienced a terrorist attack that rocked the world. It was unquestionably well-coordinated and executed, the largest in the country's history.

READ MORE >>