Sorry Liz and Bernie—For a country to be free and prosperous private property rights must be sacred

Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and most other Democratic presidential candidates  proclaim support for either outright socialism or policies that are very much like socialism in nature.  At the very heart of all of these policies is a diminishment of private property rights. 

The founding fathers of the United States understood that the right to acquire property and the right to use that property as wished where two of the most important God-given natural rights, rights that were essential for this nation to be both prosperous and free. That was a frequent topic found in their writing.

John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and the rest of the founding fathers of the United States received a great deal of their education about the essential nature of private property rights from John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government.  Here is a quote from Ch. V, sec. 27.  As you can see from this quote, money earned in the form of wages is one of the most crucial forms of private property.  It was written in 1689 and it is also the work that influenced the writing of the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution the most.

Every individual man has a property in his own person.  this is something that nobody else has any right to. The labour of his body and the work of his hands, we may say, are strictly his. So when he takes something from the state that nature has provided and left it in, he mixes his labour with it, thus joining to it something that is his own; and in that way he makes it his property. He has removed the item from the common state that nature has placed it in, and through this labour the item has had annexed to it something that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour is unquestionably the property of the labourer, so no other man can have a right to anything the labour is joined to—at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others

This quote from chapter 5 of Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith makes it absolutely clear that the money paid to an individual to perform work is the same as the labor itself and both are the property solely of the individual.  Progressives do not understand that at all. 

Labour was the first price, the original purchase-money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labour, that all the wealth of the world was originally purchased; and its value, to those who possess it, and who want to exchange it for some new productions, is precisely equal to the quantity of labour which it can enable them to purchase or command.

John Adams had this to say about the importance of private property when he wrote The Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States in1787.

Property is surely a right of mankind as really as liberty. Perhaps, at first, prejudice, habit, shame or fear, principle or religion, would restrain the poor from attacking the rich, and the idle from usurping on the industrious; but the time would not be long before courage and enterprise would come, and pretexts be invented by degrees, to countenance the majority in dividing all the property among them, or at least, in sharing it equally with its present possessors. Debts would be abolished first; taxes laid heavy on the rich, and not at all on the others; and at last a downright equal division of every thing be demanded, and voted. What would be the consequence of this? The idle, the vicious, the intemperate, would rush into the utmost extravagance of debauchery, sell and spend all their share, and then demand a new division of those who purchased from them. The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If “Thou shalt not covet,” and “Thou shalt not steal,” were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free.

Thomas Jefferson wrote this about property in a letter to Samuel Kercheval

The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen, in his person and property, and in their management.

In this quote from a letter to Pierre Samuel Du Pont de Nemours, Thomas Jefferson echoes John Locke.

A right to property is founded in our natural wants, in the means with which we are endowed to satisfy these wants, and the right to what we acquire by those means without violating the similar rights of other sensible beings.

Milton Friedman had this to say about private property in the interview “Free to Choose”: A Conversation with Milton Friedman

I think that nothing is so important for freedom as recognizing in the law each individual’s natural right to property, and giving individuals a sense that they own something that they’re responsible for, that they have control over, and that they can dispose of

Here is one last quote on this subject, this one from the essay Will Property Rights Return? written by my favorite author Thomas Sowell

Both free speech rights and property rights belong legally to individuals, but their real function is social, to benefit vast numbers of people who do not themselves exercise these rights.

Animal Farm is so very relevant today

I just finished rereading Animal Farm, the first time in over a couple of decades. All the time I was reading this great work I was continuously surprised by parallels between the fictional world created by George Orwell more than 70 years ago and conditions today in so many countries. There are also warning signs that these conditions could be created here. 

Animal Farm was written as a warning against the totalitarianism that had spread through many nations in the 1930s and 1940s.  Unfortunately so many have ignored the warnings and so many are keen to implement the policies that have time and again led to the totalitarianism Orwell warned against.

This quote from the pig Old Major in Chapter 1 is so reminiscent of the rhetoric used by Karl Marx and other socialists who sought to overthrow capitalism.  The rhetoric is eerily similar to that used by Bernie Sanders,  Elizabeth Warren, and the rest of the Democratic presidential candidates.

Man is the only creature that consumes without producing. He does not give milk, he does not lay eggs, he is too weak to pull the plough, he cannot run fast enough to catch rabbits. Yet he is lord of all the animals. He sets them to work, he gives back to them the bare minimum that will prevent them from starving, and the rest he keeps for himself. Our labour tills the soil, our dung fertilises it, and yet there is not one of us that owns more than his bare skin.

Despite the promises of a more equal and just society made before, during, and after the revolutions that overthrow democratically elected free market societies, a cabal of elites always end up taking over and demanding special treatment, at the expense of the majority.  This is captured in this quote in Chapter 3 by Squealer, who is responding to complaints about the ruling pigs alone getting all of the milk and apples while everyone else is nearly starving..

“Comrades!” he cried. “You do not imagine, I hope, that we pigs are doing this in a spirit of selfishness and privilege? Many of us actually dislike milk and apples. I dislike them myself. Our sole object in taking these things is to preserve our health. Milk and apples (this has been proved by Science, comrades) contain substances absolutely necessary to the well-being of a pig. We pigs are brainworkers. The whole management and organisation of this farm depend on us. Day and night we are watching over your welfare. It is for YOUR sake that we drink that milk and eat those apples.

This point is reiterated in Chapter 5

Do not imagine, comrades, that leadership is a pleasure. On the contrary, it is a deep and heavy responsibility. No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?

In a socialist nation laws and Constitutions are changed at a whim. Democrats have done that quite often here such as this notion of our Constitution being a living document. Here is a quote from Chapter 6.

Afterwards Squealer made a round of the farm and set the animals’ minds at rest. He assured them that the resolution against engaging in trade and using money had never been passed, or even suggested. It was pure imagination, probably traceable in the beginning to lies circulated by Snowball. A few animals still felt faintly doubtful, but Squealer asked them shrewdly, “Are you certain that this is not something that you have dreamed, comrades? Have you any record of such a resolution? Is it written down anywhere?” And since it was certainly true that nothing of the kind existed in writing, the animals were satisfied that they had been mistaken.

Straw men are constantly used by leftists regimes to justify abuses.  This took place in Chapter 7.

Whenever anything went wrong it became usual to attribute it to Snowball. If a window was broken or a drain was blocked up, someone was certain to say that Snowball had come in the night and done it, and when the key of the store-shed was lost, the whole farm was convinced that Snowball had thrown it down the well. Curiously enough, they went on believing this even after the mislaid key was found under a sack of meal.

The real turning point of the novel is when nine puppies are taken from their parents and educated by the ruling elite.  These dogs were turned into a secret police and became the most ardent supporters of the ruling elite.   This has taken place over and over again in totalitarian nations and this is the type brainwashing of the youth that has been happening here on college campuses for decades and is now taking place in grade and high schools.  The dogs committed atrocities that are chronicled in the next two quotes, also from Chapter 7.  All those killed were innocent but that did not stop the indoctrinated dogs.

And so the tale of confessions and executions went on, until there was a pile of corpses lying before Napoleon’s feet and the air was heavy with the smell of blood, which had been unknown there since the expulsion of Jones.

When it was all over, the remaining animals, except for the pigs and dogs, crept away in a body. They were shaken and miserable. They did not know which was more shocking–the treachery of the animals who had leagued themselves with Snowball, or the cruel retribution they had just witnessed. In the old days there had often been scenes of bloodshed equally terrible, but it seemed to all of them that it was far worse now that it was happening among themselves. Since Jones had left the farm, until today, no animal had killed another animal.

Purges such as this are always the end result when the policies advocated by Warren and Sanders are implemented. It is just a matter of time.

This quote from Chapter 8 is a dire warning against the notion of a living Constitution.

A few days later, when the terror caused by the executions had died down, some of the animals remembered–or thought they remembered–that the Sixth Commandment decreed “No animal shall kill any other animal.” And though no one cared to mention it in the hearing of the pigs or the dogs, it was felt that the killings which had taken place did not square with this. Clover asked Benjamin to read her the Sixth Commandment, and when Benjamin, as usual, said that he refused to meddle in such matters, she fetched Muriel. Muriel read the Commandment for her. It ran: “No animal shall kill any other animal WITHOUT CAUSE.” Somehow or other, the last two words had slipped out of the animals’ memory. But they saw now that the Commandment had not been violated; for clearly there was good reason for killing the traitors who had leagued themselves with Snowball.

All quotes are copied from the Animal Farm Wikiquote page because I am a lousy typist.

Climate change alarmism is causing a lot of harm to children

Children today are being bombarded with a consent stream of dire warnings about climate change. The constant stream is causing children a great deal of anxiety, as documented by this Climate Change Dispatch article titled Only A Monster Would Afflict Children With ‘Eco-Anxiety’.

What kind of monster afflicts children with eco-anxiety by telling them they will be dead in 12 years? I’ll tell you who: the child abusers in the establishment media, the environmental movement, and the Democrat Party — that’s who.

What’s especially disturbing is that children are being taught the opposite of empathy. Empathy is the most important value an adult can impart to a child. But what these kids are being encouraged to become is nothing less than wild-eyed, religious fanatics where non-believers are fingered as the enemy, as heretics looking to destroy the world and kill everyone. And this is always the result of such things, of the moral certainty of a zealot mixed with intolerance.

This anxiety has become  so widespread it has even been noticed by the American Psychological Association, according to this Ecowatch.com article Climate Change Is Causing Us ‘Eco-Anxiety’

A growing number of people report feelings of loss, grief, worry and despair amid news that climate change is making natural disasters like hurricanes and wildfires worse and more common, that polar ice is melting faster than we thought and that we only have 12 years to prevent the most catastrophic effects of climate change.

The American Psychological Association has come up with a term for these “resounding chronic psychological consequences” related to how we process the climate crisis: eco-anxiety.

Eco-Anxiety, which the APA describes as a “chronic fear of environmental doom,” isn’t listed anywhere in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the handbook for diagnosing mental illnesses

What makes the anxiety caused by fear over climate change even more despicable is the fact it is all based on a lie, a monstrous lie that has reached the level of indoctrination.  The American Thinker article Scaring the children on climate is cruel, cynical, and dangerous describes the far reaching nature of this indoctrination.

It is dangerous when teenagers who have been indoctrinated their entire lives are treated as if they have knowledge on climate change and fossil fuels.  They are just repeating talking points when trotted out on media outlets and before Congress as if they were experts.  They have been discouraged from doing research and critically thinking because they have been told the science is settled.  They know that anyone who says the climate is changing and has always changed naturally is de a climate change denier; to get good grades, they need to repeat what they are told.

It is more dangerous when almost all journalists and other Democrats repeat the same talking points instead of doing research and asking questions.  Instead of pointing out to the teenagers that temperatures, sea levels, storm activity, droughts and floods have always fluctuated naturally, and previous dire predictions have been 100% wrong, they just go along.

This New York Post article The climate strike is all about indoctrination, not science has much more to about the indoctrination.

Unfortunately for students, the movement is not about education but indoctrination. One of the final demands, “comprehensive climate change education,” is to be aimed at children ages 5 through 14 because “impressionability is high during that developmental stage.”

If the climate threat eventually leads to radical national action, it will only be because the concept is drilled into youngsters “from the beginning.” Of course, it’s unclear why such a long-term strategy is necessary, given that we have only “11 years” left to avert disaster.

Judging from the bizarre, extremist, sloppily composed manifesto, the students who have the city Education Department’s blessing to attend this event clearly won’t be learning much of anything truly “science-based.” The rest of us, however, are learning quite a lot about the climate change movement, and it’s not pretty.

The Breitbart article Watch: Climate Strike Activist Says Climate Change Activism and Socialism Are ‘Inseparable’ explains just why this hoax was originally perpetuated and why it is still being crammed down the throats of children in the United States and across the world.

The fight against climate change is intricately connected to the push for socialism, according to a climate change alarmist who flocked to the nation’s capital to participate in the global climate strike on Friday.

Thousands of activists participated in the Greta Thunberg-inspired global climate strike in Washington, DC — and around the world — on Friday. Participants in D.C. were heard shouting, “Hey hey, ho ho, climate change has got to go,” and, “Don’t eat cows; eat the rich.”

One activist told Breitbart News that he was there to not only fight against climate change but to actively “fight for socialism,” calling the two “inseparable.”

Academia is to blame for the radical nature of the Democrat Presidential candidates

The current crop of radical Marxists vying for the Democratic Presidential nomination are the end result of 50 years of the Marxist indoctrination that takes place on our college campuses. The fact that one of them might win the presidency demonstrates how critical the level of indoctrination has become.  I’m not the only one to come to this conclusion, it was also reached by the author of this American Thinker article

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/09/blame_academia_for_the_insanity_at_thursdays_dem_debate.html

For those who are wondering how the Democrats could have produced such a distinguished slate of the sanity-challenged, it is because of radical liberal control of America’s colleges and universities.  The Marxist radicals of yesterday became college professors of today, seizing ideological control of much of America.

Just as Saudi-funded Salafist religious schools have radicalized large swaths of the Islamic world, American universities are radicalizing an increasingly large share of America.  This is aided by the fact that nearly 70% of kids now go to college, where most of them are taught not to think.

The author of the article made many important observations about the wide reaching negative consequences of the overwhelming Marxist indoctrination that go way beyond just the radical presidential candidates.

It is in the American university where the battle is being lost.  Parents sacrifice for and encourage their sons and daughters to attend these universities with the best of intentions, thinking they are the gateway to a better life.  The university returns them as Bernie Sanders acolytes who think Beto O’Rourke whispers words of wisdom. 

This also explains the increasing media radicalization.  These propagandists are the product of these same universities.  Conservatives who think media bias is the biggest threat in the country aren’t quite right.  These media representatives are a product of academia.  They were propagandized first before becoming mouthpieces themselves.  Just about every candidate on stage was radicalized at an American university.  Every K–12 teacher in America also has a liberal arts university degree, which again explains how so many schools have morphed from educational institutions into propaganda factories. 

These universities are doing all in their power to ensure they reach all the students with their propaganda and social engineering.  Even engineering and science majors are forced to take classes from these propagandists in the interest of producing “well rounded students,” a euphemism for indoctrinated liberals.  There are only a handful of colleges left that aren’t infected with this disease.

My favorite author, Thomas Sowell, has written a great deal about the Marxist indoctrination, and he is a much more eloquent author than I am.

https://www.creators.com/read/thomas-sowell/04/13/is-thinking-obsolete-bd997

Education is not merely neglected in many of our schools today, but is replaced to a great extent by ideological indoctrination. Moreover, it is largely indoctrination based on the same set of underlying and unexamined assumptions among teachers and institutions.

If our educational institutions — from the schools to the universities — were as interested in a diversity of ideas as they are obsessed with racial diversity, students would at least gain experience in seeing the assumptions behind different visions and the role of logic and evidence in debating those differences.

Instead, a student can go all the way from elementary school to a Ph.D. without encountering any fundamentally different vision of the world from that of the prevailing political correctness.

Walter E. Williams, another of my favorite authors, had this to say on the subject of Marxist indoctrination.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2001/mar/20/20010320-021654-8440r/

In keeping Americans ill-educated, ill-informed and constitutionally ignorant, the education establishment has been the politician’s major and most faithful partner. It is in this sense that American education can be deemed a success. The education establishment and politicians, particularly Democratic politicians, work hand-in-glove to further both of their goals. The education establishment makes large payments into the political campaign coffers of politicians, and politicians return the favor with large government education expenditures.

Abortion is anti-life, anti-liberty, and anti pursuit of happiness

Abortion violates every component of the most often quoted sentence from the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

Abortion is anti-life because abortion is murder.  It is a particularly heinous form of murder because the unborn child is the most innocent example of life you could possibly ever encounter.   Every individual is endowed by their creator with unalienable rights because all are endowed by God with a soul at conception.  Most genocides have occurred after a government has denied that certain individuals do possess a soul, abortion is another one of those genocides. 

I’ve been told by many self-identified libertarians that true libertarians must support the right of everyone to choose an abortion.  This is the position maintained by more than a few libertarian websites and organizations.  Many individuals have told me that I am not a libertarian because I believe abortion is murder, therefore, no one has a right to an abortion.  This happens even though I agree with those libertarians on every other key philosophical point.  If all libertarians had a proper understanding of the terms libertarian and liberty they would see that there is one correct philosophical side to the abortion debate, and that is the side I occupy.

A libertarian is someone who believes that the ideal of liberty should be their guiding principle, and the guiding principle at all levels of government in the United States.  That was precisely the guiding principle of the founding fathers of this nation. 

A great many believe that liberty is the freedom to do as you please.  They are mistaken.  Liberty is the freedom to do as you want as long as you do not hurt others or interfere with the rights of others.   Liberty is freedom with the responsibility to do no harm to others.  The responsibility portion of liberty was stressed by the founding fathers of the United States.  Because the fetus is murdered it is greatly harmed during the abortion. 

The fact the fetus is harmed during the abortion is a violation of the entire concept of liberty.   As a result of the abortion the rights of the fetus are destroyed which is also a violation of liberty.  Because all of the concepts of liberty are violated, abortion violates the entirety of the libertarian philosophy.

When it comes to libertarians who are strongly pro-life I’m in good company.  Here are two quotes from Dr. Ron Paul:

Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the “right” of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the “property rights” of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder.

As an O.B. doctor of thirty years, and having delivered 4,000 babies, I can assure you life begins at conception. I am legally responsible for the unborn, no matter what I do, so there’s a legal life there. The unborn has inheritance rights, and if there’s an injury or a killing, there is a legal entity. There is no doubt about it.

Abortion being anti pursuit of happiness is obvious, an aborted unborn child will never be able to pursue any form of happiness.

Labor Unions do more harm than good

In America labor unions have been lionized like no other organizations or movement, earning their own holiday, which is described by Wikipedia as:

Labor Day in the United States of America is a public holiday celebrated on the first Monday in September. It honors the American labor movement and the power of collective action by laborers, who are essential for the workings of society.

Do labor unions deserve any of their praise?  Does the labor movement deserve its own holiday?  The answer to both questions is a resounding no.  I know these answers won’t make progressives and others on the political left happy but that is the truth.  In today’s polarized political climate which is dominated by political correct thought police few offenses will be treated more harshly than shattering the falsehoods associated with labor unions.  This is precisely what I’m doing with this article.

Labor unions are credited with all of the positive developments in our society such as the 40 hour work week, weekends, and living wages.  Free market capitalism, not labor unions produced all of these positive benefits.  This is documented in the article:

The article “Labor Unions are Anti-Labor” by the Mises Institute contains a treasure trove of information proving that labor unions do far more harm than good.

https://mises.org/library/labor-unions-are-anti-labor

How many Americans mistakenly believe all of the positive press labor unions have received?

Many Americans, perhaps a substantial majority, still believe that, irrespective of any problems they may have caused, labor unions are fundamentally an institution that exists in the vital self-interest of wage earners. Indeed, many believe that it is labor unions that stand between the average wage earner and a life of subsistence wages, exhausting hours of work, and horrific working conditions.

What produces widespread economic gain?

…the only thing that can explain a rise in real wages throughout the economic system is a fall in prices relative to wages. And the only thing that achieves this is an increase in production per worker. More production per worker — a higher productivity of labor — serves to increase the supply of goods and services produced relative to the supply of labor that produces them. In this way, it reduces prices relative to wages and thereby raises real wages and the general standard of living.

The wage gains produced by unions are offset by inflation.

What raises money wages throughout the economic system is not what is responsible for the rise in real wages. Increases in money wages are essentially the result just of the increase in the quantity of money and resulting increase in the overall volume of spending in the economic system. In the absence of a rising productivity of labor, the increase in money and spending would operate to raise prices by as much or more than it raised wages.

Free market capitalism makes everything cheaper which raises everyone’s standard of living.

With relatively minor exceptions, real wages throughout the economic system simply do not rise from the side of higher money wages. Essentially, they rise only from the side of a greater supply of goods and services relative to the supply of labor and thus from prices being lower relative to wages. The truth is that the means by which the standard of living of the individual wage earner and the individual businessman and capitalist is increased, and the means by which that of the average wage earner in the economic system is increased, are very different. For the individual, it is the earning of more money. For the average wage earner in the economic system, it is the payment of lower prices.

Labor unions raise the wages of members by limiting the number of people employed in a given industry.

…the efforts of labor unions to raise money wages are profoundly opposed to the goal of raising real wages and the standard of living. When the unions seek to raise the standard of living of their members by means of raising their money wages, their policy inevitably comes down to an attempt to make the labor of their members artificially scarce.  That is their only means of raising the wages of their members. The unions do not have much actual power over the demand for labor. But they often achieve considerable power over the supply of labor. And their actual technique for raising wages is to make the supply of labor, at least in the particular industry or occupation that a given union is concerned with, as scarce as possible.

Labor unions use many different tactics to limit the number of individuals employed.

…unions attempt to gain control over entry into the labor market. They seek to impose apprenticeship programs, or to have licensing requirements imposed by the government. Such measures are for the purpose of holding down the supply of labor in the field and thereby enabling those fortunate enough to be admitted to it, to earn higher incomes.

Labor unions raise the cost of hiring an individual beyond the market value which results in fewer being hired.

Even when the unions do not succeed in directly reducing the supply of labor, the imposition of their above-market wage demands still has the effect of reducing the number of jobs offered in the field and thus the supply of labor in the field that is able to find work.

More union workers in a given country will result in higher unemployment in that country.

The artificial wage increases imposed by the labor unions result in unemployment when above-market wages are imposed throughout the economic system. This situation exists when it is possible for unions to be formed easily. If, as in the present-day United States, all that is required is for a majority of workers in an establishment to decide that they wish to be represented by a union, then the wages imposed by the unions will be effective even in the nonunion fields.

Here is another article which contains very similar information.

https://fee.org/articles/unions-are-the-worst-labor-day-deal/?fbclid=IwAR1D6w-cou00WPkpj4FdO-1v-NhQBj5TiXOhfBztSuzlBCmtKTvJsIzJEu0

Collective guilt is an alien concept in our constitutional system

From the founding of the United States until about the mid 1960s individual guilt was the only form of guilt that existed in this country. Thanks to progressives taking us on a path that is entirely foreign to the founding principles of this nation, collective guilt has been steadily replacing individual guilt.

Until the mid 1960s only the individual who committed a particular crime was punished for that crime, and every individual was solely responsible for their own actions. That changed when a group of radical professors began introducing collectivist teachings into college campuses. Those radical teachings took hold on college campuses and over time have infected so much of academia and our culture. Now, thanks to radical progressives inhabiting the United States Congress and State Legislatures, collective guilt is starting to make inroads into out legal system. Several of the Democratic candidates for president support some form or collective guilt. This is very dangerous.

Slavery Reparations are the most ludicrous form of collective guilt I’ve encountered. Since slavery was abolished in 1865 in the United States and all slave owners have long since perished how can anyone alive be individually guilty of the crime of slavery?

Stripping innocent gun owners of their right to bear arms because other individuals have committed crimes with their guns is another all too common form of collective guilt. This form of collective guilt will only make everyone less safe. Good guys with guns stop on average 1 million crimes a year. Stripping gun owners of their guns will also eliminate one of the most important safeguards the founders of this nation devised to prevent the government of the United States from becoming tyrannical.

Progressive taxation is also an insidious form of collective guilt. The wealth of individuals who have committed no crime, they are simply successful through hard work, is confiscated and redistributed to individuals who have not earned it.

White guilt is another ridiculous form of collective guilt, one that is very much in vogue on college campuses. If the same false blame was placed on another race the cries of racism would be deafening and unremitting.

Assigning guilt to collective groups such as society or one particular race only makes crime worse. When crimes of individuals are not properly punished then more individuals will boldly commit the same crimes. This is one reason why crime is much more prevalent in Democrat controlled states and cities.

Individual guilt is enshrined in our Constitution, not collective guilt. This is most notable in the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment and the 14th Amendment. Blanket warrants are not covered by the 4th Amendment, only individual warrants. Unfortunately the federal government has recently forgotten this in their quest to fight terrorism.

Busting some myths about mass shootings

Every single time there is a mass shooting gun grabbers immediately flood news programs and social media with a great many myths, mistruths, and outright lies about guns and mass shootings. For this article I assembled a collection of quotes that bust the most outrageous myths I’ve encountered the past couple of weeks. I’ve included a link to the original article for each quote. I highly recommend that everyone check out the original articles because they contain a veritable wealth of information. Unfortunately links are not working at the moment on this website so you’ll have to copy and paste the links into your browser..

The first quotes I’ve included tackles the myth that mass shootings are becoming more frequent

https://fee.org/articles/mass-shootings-arent-becoming-more-common-and-evidence-contradicts-stereotypes-about-the-shooters/?fbclid=IwAR288VJRBph4_99ZazaB3lYJjvrD1b1Cj_drJaS7v1gNUP9Y5O3U3XKRBc0

“Mass homicides get a lot of news coverage which keeps our focus on the frequency of their occurrence. Just how frequent is sometimes muddled by shifting definitions of mass homicide, and confusion with other terms such as active shooter.”

“But using standard definitions, most data suggest that the prevalence of mass shootings has stayed fairly consistent over the past few decades.”

The next quote from the same article disproves the recent claims that mass shootings are a white male problem. The original article contains a really great chart.

“Overall, though, the ethnic composition of the group of all mass shooters in the U.S. is roughly equivalent to the American population.”

This next quote from the same article proves something that I’ve known all along but may be a surprise to many.

“Long-term studies of youth consistently find that violent games are not a risk factor for youth violence anywhere from one to eight years later. And no less than the U.S. Supreme Court declared in 2011 that scientific studies had failed to link violent games to serious aggression in kids.”

The next quotes are a series of facts from an article that appeared on the website www.federalistpapers.org.

“Fact: There were 387 deaths from mass shootings in the United States in 2018 (defined as four or more shot—not necessarily killed—at one time). Of those, most were regular criminals as we expect to see in gang-related drive-bys, bar fights, and a strangely large number of shootings at parties (like this one). About 100 deaths were the result of the random, psycho-killer shootings that dominated news coverage for days and weeks at a time. Mercifully, those are quite rare. But that’s not the impression we are given by the news coverage.”

“Fact: There are more privately owned guns in the United States than ever before and the number of murders has been declining for decades and has been at or near a multigenerational low for several years. More guns, less crime.”

“Fact: There are between 1.2 million and 1.5 million defensive uses of guns per year in the United States. How many more murders, rapes, thefts, and assaults would there be without armed citizens?”

The next quotes disprove the myth that mass shootings are a curse that only the United States suffers from.

https://www.mrctv.org/blog/more-lies-mass-shootings-america-after-tragedies?fbclid=IwAR1-tiQG4QYPiZUq1gjH0J13paGOQpCmSAnalBNnGH99VCeFZjNF2inaUoI

“After the tragic events of El Paso, TX, and Dayton, OH many took to social media and the airwaves to perpetuate the myth that the U.S. leads the world in mass shootings.”

“When factoring in gun deaths per capita, homicide rates, and gun ownership rates compared to gun homicide rates – the U.S. is much safer than a plethora of other developed countries, according to a study by the Crime Prevention Research Center.”

The final quote proves that President Trump is not responsible tor the El Paso mass shooting, or any other mass shooting.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/08/the_mass_shooting_miasma.html?fbclid=IwAR0YSYqEmvusW7y1Bysu3jOM9YA8Twp4nw18okHXDhKB0jNnllRJ1SiejV4#.XUnNQ6t-GaA.facebook

“President Trump is no more responsible for mass shootings during his tenure in the White House than Barack Obama was for the shooting at the church in Charleston, nor the Sandy Hook school massacre. On the precipice of a presidential election, it’s convenient for Democrats and their media lapdogs to blame Trump.”

Red Flag Laws are a stealth attack on the Second Amendment

Whenever there is a man caused tragedy a large segment of the population immediately demand that the government does something, most often the something involves taking rights away from individuals that had nothing with the tragedy. That is most often true when the tragedy is a mass shooting. Red Flag Laws are currently the most popular solution proposed by politicians on the political left, the liberal news media, Hollywood, and even President Trump and Senate Republicans including Mitch McConnell

Red Flag Laws are a very bad idea because they violate several constitutional provisions, most especially the Second Amendment. Here is a description of Red Flag Laws and a discussion why they are such a bad idea from this Breitbart article;

https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2019/08/08/rick-manning-red-flag-laws-raise-a-gigantic-red-flag/

“Red flag laws are designed to confiscate a person’s legally held property under the presumption that they may misuse that property in the future. And given that the accusation itself is that the accused has the possibility of doing violence to themselves or others, even the most well-intentioned prosecutor and law enforcement agents will err on the side of denying the rights of the accused due to the fear that the accusation may prove correct – and failure to aggressively enforce the law will be devastating to their personal careers regardless of the credibility of the complaint. The accused is then required to prove that the accusation is wrong with those sitting in judgment facing enormous political pressure to leave confiscation orders in place, destroying the presumption of innocence. What’s more, in today’s Internet age, the accused forever will be tainted by the accusation regardless of outcome.”

The article “7 Reasons to Oppose Red Flag Gun Laws “ contains a wealth of information.

https://fee.org/articles/7-reasons-to-oppose-red-flag-guns-laws/?fbclid=IwAR0jOCBCBKRcVzBITb134CHJPy3GVp4W13aYItQngYqQVt13ikNLTvRZrz0

“These laws, also called “extreme risk protection orders,” allow courts to issue orders allowing law enforcement to seize firearms from people who’ve committed no crime but are believed to be a danger to themselves or others.”

The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the federal government from seizing the property of any individual unless they are charged with a specific crime and found guilty by a jury in a court of law. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment places the same restrictions on state and local governments.

”Regulating firearms is not among the powers listed in the Constitution (though this has not always stopped lawmakers from regulating them). In fact, the document expressly forbids the federal government from doing so, stating in the Second Amendment that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” “

This is true because the Second Amendment specifically prevents the federal government from interfering with the right to bear arms of any individual therefore Red Flag Laws are unconstitutional on the federal level. All but one or two states have clauses in their Bill of Rights that prevent that state from infringing on the right to bear arms of its citizens.

The Right to bear arms is one of our most important God-given natural rights, one that a great many individuals will defend passionately, especially if it is violated unjustly. Red Flag Laws will lead a large number of violent and deadly clashes with individuals who believe their right to bear arms is being trampled on. This has already happened once.

“In 2018, two Maryland police officers shot and killed 61-year-old Gary Willis in his own house after waking him at 5:17 a.m. The officers, who were not harmed during the shooting, had been ordered to remove guns from his home under the state’s red flag law, which had gone into effect one month prior to the shooting.”

Red Flag Laws are so bad they belong only in dystopian science fiction such as the movie Minority Report. Way too many of the people implementing and enforcing these laws now, and in the future, believe that only police and those in the government should have guns, and those on the political right are the enemy whose statements and positions on issues constitute hate speech.

https://fee.org/articles/red-flag-gun-laws-are-a-page-out-of-dystopian-science-fiction-novels/

“There is an understandable desire among Americans to feel safer and more secure following highly publicized mass shootings. Yet the idea that the government can prevent crimes before they happen whiffs of utopianism and could threaten individual liberty”.

President Trump has expressed support for Red Flag Laws. He is very much in error and should quickly reexamine his position on this issue.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/08/05/president-trump-calls-for-red-flag-laws-following-texas-ohio-shootings/

“Trump said, “I am directing the Department of Justice to work in partnership with local, state, and federal agencies–as well as social media companies–to develop tools that can detect mass shooters before they strike.” He then referenced the February 14, 2018, Parkland shooter, noting he had sent up many red flags with his behavior prior to the shooting, but no one took action to stop him.”

“Trump voiced support for “Red Flag laws, also known as Extreme Risk Protection Orders.” He explained, “We must make sure that those judged to pose a grave risk to public safety do not have access to firearms and that, if they do, those firearms can be taken through rapid due process.” “

Representative Crenshaw of Texas has a proposal for Red Flag Laws that might not violate the Constitution if they are implemented on the state level. Actual threats of violence and statements that an individual is planning to kill others are specific crimes. If those statements are reported to the proper authorities and the person is tried and convicted then due process is not violated

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/08/11/rep-dan-crenshaw-explains-his-support-red-flag-laws/

“Crenshaw said, “Clearly, when we said ‘Red Flag Laws’ you guys stop listening, you can’t hear what we are suggesting, because understandably you automatically assume that we are just agreeing with the left’s version of that law. And we all know the left’s version would not be good, it would not protect due process.” “

“Crenshaw continued, “At its heart what we are talking about is the ability to confiscate weapons where there is evidence that violence is about to be committed. It’s that simple, and this isn’t that controversial.” “

“He went on to explain that everything turns on due process and how due process would be protected under the type of Red Flag Laws Crenshaw supports. He suggested the difference between what he supports and the left’s “blatantly unconstitutional laws” all boils down to how due process is protected.

Government solutions to mass shootings will not solve the problem

History has proved that government solutions never solve problems, and most often make the problems worse. This is most definitely true when it comes to mass shootings. Banning guns is the remedy most often proposed for ending gun violence. Banning guns only produces a more plentiful supply of unarmed victims.

Gun free zones were instituted on the local, state, and federal level to prevent mass shootings. The title of this Breitbart article “Study: 97.8% of Mass Shootings Since 1950 Occurred in ‘Gun-Free Zones’” proves the utter insanity of these zones.

“According to CPRC, 97.8 percent of mass public shootings from 1950 to May 2018 occurred in gun-free zones. These include the Virginia Tech University attack, which killed 32 (April 16, 2007); the Fort Hood attack, which killed 13 (November 5, 2009); the Aurora movie theater attack, which killed 12 (July 20, 2012); the Sandy Hook Elementary School attack, which killed 26 (December 12, 2014); the D.C. Navy Yard attack, which killed 13 (September 16, 2013); the Chattanooga military base attack, which killed 5 (July 16, 2015); the Umpqua Community College attack, which killed 9 (October 1, 2015); the San Bernardino attack, which killed 14 (December 2, 2015); the Orlando Pulse attack, which killed 49 (June 12, 2016); the Parkland high school attack, which killed 17 (February 14, 2018); and the Santa Fe High School attack, which killed 10 (May 18, 2018).”

The El Paso and the Dayton Ohio mass shootings took place in gun free zones. In his manifesto the El Paso shooter states he specifically chose a gun free zone and urged others to do the same.

We must educate others that gun free zones do not live up to the good intentions of those that advocated for them, that they produce disastrous results that are the opposite of the intended results. Repealing all of these deeply flawed government solutions will greatly lesson the number and severity of mass shootings. I know this is extremely unlikely given the overwhelming opposition from the democrats, liberal news, and Hollywood. I for one enjoy a good fight against overwhelming odds.

Far too few individuals are armed in public. When a mass shooting begins to happen the shooter rarely faces any armed opposition. The liberals have not only won the government battle with all of the gun control measures on the books across this country, they have also won the education and culture battles, convincing too may that guns are responsible for the killings rather than just a tool that can be used for both good and bad.. So few of us still understand the tremendously positive benefits of individuals being armed in public, not to mention having a well armed population. Few still understand the original meaning and rationale behind the Second Amendment, something we need to change. Winning the hearts and minds about guns will result in the repeal of misguided infringements of one of our most important God-given natural rights. I know it’s another tall order but it is one worth fighting for.

Thanks to the doctrine of Separation of Church and State, which appears nowhere in the Constitution, religion and morality have been all but banished from the public square. This is one of the biggest drivers of the mass shooting crisis and this needs to be fixed to solve the crisis. The first instance of the Supreme Court using this unconstitutional doctrine was Everson v. Board of Education in 1947. That decision openned the flood gates of the banning of things religious. Is it a coincidence that as the banning of religion and morality in the public square become more prevalent mass shootings became more prevalent?

There are almost always warning signs leading up to mass shootings, yet these signs rarely ever get reported to the proper authorities, if they had then these tragedies could have been averted. I don’t believe red flag laws are the answer. They would be too easy for liberals to twist into a mechanism for disarming people who do not pose a threat. Individuals reporting other individuals who show warning signs to the proper authorities who would investigate is the answer.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/11/20/study-97-8-percent-mass-shootings-since-1950-gun-free-zones/