Friday, May 18, 2018

“Jerusalem al-Quds: Eternal Capital of Palestine” Conference in Mashhad, Iran





L to R: Alexander Dugin, Arash Darya-Bandari, Reza Montazami, Scott Bennett, Philip Giraldi
Mashhad, Iran
6:00 pm, Al-Ghadir Hotel lobby
The post-conference wrap-up session for the 6th New Horizons Conference just finished an hour ago. Its theme “Jerusalem al-Quds: Eternal Capital of Palestine” was painfully timely, since Trump chose this week to move the US Embassy to Occupied Jerusalem al-Quds and tear up the Iran nuclear deal in acts of obsequious fealty to Netanyahu. Meanwhile, Israeli sharpshooters mowed down thousands of unarmed Palestinians with live gunfire and exploding bullets. Being here in Mashhad for this event was an act of protest against such insane barbarity—as I will tell the DHS interrogators when I arrive home in the United States.
This year’s conference was the first to include former US military, intelligence, and diplomatic people, including my Veterans Today colleague Jim Dean, former CIA officer Philip Giraldi,  US Army psy-ops whistleblower Scott Bennett, and ex-State Department whistleblower Michael Springmann. It also included a born-in-Israel guest, Miko Peled, son of the Israeli 1967 war hero general Matti Peled.
In the past, people with US government backgrounds and Israelis were off limits due to the Iranian government frowning on issuing visas for such people. I argued strenuously for including them, and am very happy to see the Iranian decision-makers choosing to do so.
Below is the final statement I read aloud at the conclusion of the Conference.

6th International New Horizons Conference Summary

By Kevin Barrett, Muslim-Christian-Jewish Alliance for Truth (MUJCA.org) and TruthJihad.com
New Horizons Conferences, held fairly regularly in Iran, bring together dozens of the world’s most provocative thinkers and activists.  I have attended five of the six New Horizons Conferences and can unequivocally affirm that they are the most interesting intellectual get-togethers I have ever experienced.
Attendees represent a considerable portion of our planet’s national, ethnic, linguistic, and religious diversity. They also represent wildly diverse projects and ideologies. But I believe all participants agree on two things: We support the transition from a unipolar world system to a multipolar one; and we support the liberation of Palestine.
This year’s conference coincides with Trump’s moving the US Embassy to Occupied Jersualem. Trump’s move symbolically supports the Zionist claim to Jerusalem—a claim that grossly violates international law, basic justice, and simple common sense. The notion that tribalist fanatics purporting to represent fewer than 20 million Jews (most of whom are not especially religious) should invade, occupy, ethnically cleanse, and assert sole ownership of a land that is holy to roughly four billion people, virtually all of them Christians and Muslims, is an absurdity and an abomination. There is only one possible response to such a ludicrous and criminal project: This will not stand!
Participants in the New Horizons Conferences have come to their shared anti-Zionist position from a wide variety of starting points. Some, especially those of us who were educated in the West, began as true-believing adherents of the religion of secular humanism, which holds the human being and his or her individual aspirations (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) as the one thing that is truly sacred. Corollaries of this secular humanist religion, which is the dominant creed of Western elites, include an individualist conception of human rights; special protected status to “oppressed minorities” that include majorities (women) and economically privileged groups (Jews, homosexuals); belief in never-ending “progress”; sacred and unquestionable narratives of mass human sacrifice events  (the Holocaust, 9/11); a materialist rather than spiritualist worldview; and a patronizing dismissal of traditional religion.
The secular humanist religion of Western elites is rarely recognized as a religion by its adherents, in the same way that fish are rarely aware of water. It is only when the fish leaves water that it becomes aware of what it used to be swimming in. Likewise, when those of us formed in an orthodox Western milieu come to New Horizons conferences in Iran, we often experience intellectual culture shock when we encounter the worldviews of those who have left Western elite orthodoxy even further behind than we ourselves have. And although we may in fact have good reasons for disagreeing with some of the unorthodox perspectives we encounter in Iran, we should also remain humble enough to recognize that we may have something to learn from them. In that spirit of the eternal quest for truth through questioning and humility I wish all of you a pleasant and productive return home. May God bless and protect you and help us all work together for a better world.



Veterans Today Editor Jim Dean looks pretty sharp in a keffiyeh -but what is he saying in Farsi?
 
Alexander Dugin, one of the world’s most influential intellectuals
 
Rabbi Dovid Weiss, the world’s best-known anti-Zionist Jewish leader, is a regular at New Horizons conferences




US Army psy-ops whistleblower Scott Bennett
 
Alison Weir, author of Against Our Better Judgment
 
Miko Peled, author of The General’s Son, engaged in lively discussion
 
Noted Catholic intellectual E. Michael Jones moonlighting as art critic
 
NYC Congressional candidate Sander Hicks sings out for Palestine
 
Ex-CIA officer Philip Giraldi tells the hard truths about Zionism—and its horrific effects on America
 
Renowned international journalist Pepe Escobar contemplates Paint for Palestine


Kevin Barrett
Dr. Kevin Barrett, a Ph.D. Arabist-Islamologist, is one of America’s best-known critics of the War on Terror.
He is host of TRUTH JIHAD RADIO; a hard driving weekly radio show funded by listener donations at Patreon.com and FALSE FLAG WEEKLY NEWS (FFWN); a audio-video show produced by Tony Hall, Allan Reese, and Kevin himself. FFWN is funded through FundRazr.
He also has appeared many times on Fox, CNN, PBS and other broadcast outlets, and has inspired feature stories and op-eds in the New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor, the Chicago Tribune, and other leading publications.
Dr. Barrett has taught at colleges and universities in San Francisco, Paris, and Wisconsin; where he ran for Congress in 2008. He currently works as a nonprofit organizer, author, and talk radio host.

Jack Mullen, Trump: There is No Such Thing as "A Gun-Free Zone"


      Author's note - On Thursday January 26, Donald Trump was speaking in Philadelphia at a meeting of Republican lawmakers and he noted violent crime rates in some of the major American cities are out of control. In particular Donald singled out Chicago, saying "What the Hell is happening in Chicago?"

      Well Donald I can tell you the difference between say Chicago and its crime rate and cities like Houston, Salt Lake City or Oklahoma City, is the right to keep and bear arms.

      These cities and many others are helping America experience a large downturn in violent crime which has gone down every year since 1994, reaching 1978 levels in 2014, according to the FBI. These cities allow some form of concealed carry by permit or Constitutional carry, in accordance with the Supreme Law of the land.

      It is to the politically created reality which touts the benefits of disarming the citizen to order reduce crime that I speak to now, because, as you know and all men of reason know, There is No Such Thing as a Gun Free Zone.
Gun-free zones are a magnet for those who want to kill many people quickly. Even the most ardent gun control advocate would never put “Gun-Free Zone” signs on their home. Let’s stop finally putting them elsewhere. - John Lott Jr.
Theorem: There are NO GUN FREE ZONES
    "Gun Free Zones" are bounded regions where law abiding people are not allowed to be armed - formally being disarmed before entering.  Gun Free Zones in Public Spaces (GFZPS) are a violation of the Constitution for the United States, violate many State Constitutions, and, more importantly, violate Natural Law. 

The fundamental law is the foundation of our society.  In the United States of America, it is the U.S. Constitution.  Through this document, our fundamental rights are secured and protected against infringement by the federal government and by the State governments, because the States are also parties to this contract. - Paul Andrew Mitchell, “The Federal Zone”

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. [16 Am. Jur. 2d, Section 177; later 2d, Section 256]
The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one, and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions.  The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of Nature for his rule.  John Locke

    Gun Free Zones in Public Spaces are dangerous and, like cancer, can become a pathological process spreading ever widening areas, including cities, parks, government occupied buildings and properties. It can further metastasize over whole public regions including counties and States.

    COMPETITION FOR PEACE AND SECURITY

Competition is a sin, therefore you must destroy it. John D. Rockefeller
The theory of natural monopoly is an economic fiction. No such thing as a ―natural monopoly has ever existed. The history of the so-called public utility concept is that the late 19th and early 20th-century ―utilities competed vigorously, and like all other industries, they did not like competition. They first secured government-sanctioned monopolies, and then, with the help of a few influential economists, they constructed an ex post facto rationalization for their monopoly power. . . . The theory of natural monopoly is a 19th-century economic fiction that defends 19th-century (or 18th-century, in the case of the U.S. Postal Service) monopolistic privileges and has no useful place in the 21st-century American economy. - June 14, 1995 at the CATO Institute conference examining the question Postal Service in the 21st Century: Time to Privatize? DiLorenzo, Thomas J.

    It is an axiom: competition for solutions in the markets of human action produce outcomes maximizing the values which support mankind's life and happiness.
    Competitive forces maximize truth and transparency, while actively and invisibly minimizing deception, fraud and dissimulative activities which drain and dissipate the resources originally available for the problems.
    Values necessary for human survival include Peace and Security, without out either, mankind cannot evolve as a community and in the long term he cannot exist.
    Gun Free Zones reduce competition for peace and security. Proceeding with an analogy from economics, GFZPS have the same effect as cartel created monopolies, unnatural and forcibly defended barriers against competitors deliberately erected around lucrative high demand products such as medical drugs (legal) and recreational drugs (illegal), and services, such as the provision of security via police forces and law enforcement.

Unable to maintain their government-granted monopoly, the powerful railroad interests turned to government to do the regulating and price-fixing which they were unable to do themselves. In fact, the pressure that induced Congress to enact the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 did not come from reformers bemoaning abuses by the powerful railroad interests; it came from the railroad interests themselves, asking Congress to shield them against the harsh winds of competition. - THE BUSINESS END OF GOVERNMENT (1973). Dan Smoot

    Forcibly defended monopolies mean the only people and groups allowed to provide and profit from the monopolized products, or services, are cartel members (corporate or criminal gangs) or Government created gangs (police forces.) In the case of gun free zones, the only people carrying weapons (illegally) are criminals. Criminals of course are not bound by the laws of a monopoly because all observance of law is a voluntary decision and criminals do not, by definition, voluntarily observe the law.
    THE IDEA OF A GUN FREE ZONE IS MAGICAL THINKING: MANY PEOPLE ARE ARMED IN GUN FREE ZONES

    In a monopoly controlled Gun Free Zone, there still exists a market for peace and security, but market forces are nullified creating a vacuum of competing solutions which would provide life maximizing results. In this situation, cartel members and criminals are given exclusive control of peace and security and yet neither group has any personal concern or investment for return in those values. Legally armed cartel members are concerned with law abiding people remaining disarmed and criminals are also concerned with law abiding people remaining disarmed, however for the different reason of increasing their chances of committing lowered risk further crime.  This is common sense and is consistent with natural law.

    Natural Law can be discovered and even understood and it can only be violated at some cost. In the case of an individual's ability to maximize his peace and security, Natural Law is clear, the Individual must be fully self-responsible, ie., he or she must be a competing market provider of peace and security, primarily focusing on preserving protecting their own.

Competition, properly so-called, rests on the activity of separate, independent individuals owning and exchanging private property in the pursuit of their self-interest. It arises when two or more such individuals become rivals for the same trade. - Ayn Rand

    However as an individual provides for his own peace and security and brings his solution to the market, others will too, and must, bring their solutions thereby maximizing the number of competitive solutions providing peace and security. As the number of armed people increases, the incidence of violence and crime, inversely, is reduced. In an invisible way, crime and anti-life activity is minimized for all as the number of competing solutions for peace and security increase.

    COMPETITIVE MARKET IN WEAPONS

    In the case of weapons it’s also axiomatic that to support the Natural Law of competing solutions maximizing peace and security, there must be a competitive market of weapons available to competitors. It would be an unnatural (monopolized) market if only criminals and cartel members could be armed with the most powerful or technologically superior weapons. Again, criminals and unbalancing agents of the enforced monopoly would have a competitive edge in this market and peace and security would again be reduced if there were not competitive weapons available to everyone in the market.

    Thus it is important to recognize: calls for reducing or eliminating your access to the best possible weapons technology of the day, are really deceptive calls to unbalance the market for peace and security and place you at a disadvantage in terms of maximizing your peace and security.

    Gun Bans and Restrictions on Weapons Are Market Destabilizing

    Cartels and monopolies of force are often created as a result of criminal elements having eliminated or usurped third party representatives formerly considered to be functioning to increase your peace and security.

    The Constitution of the United States, acting as a clarifier and preserver of Natural Law, explicated the Natural Law of Self Defense. The Constitution did not make the Law, but was created to provide a legal framework wherein the government established by the document would have enumerated restrictions on how the government could legally act.

    It's clear that for a period of some years, the Constitution was a sufficient reminder and the court systems a sufficient deterrent against acting outside or in a manner inconsistent with Natural Law and the Laws restricting government action as codified in the Constitution.

    But consistent with our understanding of how deception, fraud and unbalancing of coercion free markets is necessary for criminals, and those seeking enrichment not via successful and productive efforts but rather by enslaving or stealing from others, we can directly correlate the creation of monopolies in all profitable markets required by man with a violation of Natural Law (with costs distributed to all not benefitting from the monopoly) and hence violations of the Constitution for the United States.

    The Constitution has now become powerless and no longer limits government action, but has been interpreted to limit the action of market actors; the market being all areas where men and women could and should rightly participate in commerce without coercive limitations on action.

    One such area is in the market for peace and security. Criminals, now actually parties with legal rights or cartel rights inside the created monopolies, are restricting free and open competition for maximizing the values of peace and security.

    It’s totally clear and fully transparent, gun free zones, proliferating in ever widening circles of enforcement, are spaces being made safe and for criminal activity, keeping in mind, criminals do not voluntarily recognize the legal restrictions of gun free zones.
    Arming the people has the effect of creating competition in economic markets - With more and more people armed the competition for peace provides MAXIMUM PEACE. 

    And by way of economic principles, it is not the actual competition (outwardly carrying guns) that reduces violence, but rather it is the threat of competition (possible concealed weapons on everyone) -- the threat of people everywhere competitively armed - that reduces the violence and cost.. It is common sense and natural law.
    We are now witnessing the government acting in a manner that is consistent with favoring criminals, unbalancing the market and institutionalizing violence and predation.

    STATE SPONSORED TERRORISM

    History records time and time again, institutions organizing, at first in service or as representatives for individuals acting in a way supposedly beneficial to individuals. This usually starts out as a system of providing quasi-market solutions for problems individuals find troublesome or uncomfortable creating solutions.

    However, over time, criminal elements, psychopaths and their sycophants will begin to infiltrate and then escalate the number of services provided. Slowly at first, market solutions for many common problems are eliminated as government offers solutions sold as better than competitive services can provide.

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. - Adam Smith

    This process easily continues as people, especially European people , (read about white Pathological Altruism), are very trusting and readily handover responsibilities and tasks they find troublesome, labor intensive, or otherwise not pleasurable.

    Over time these governments, Monarchies, or any system of controlling people begin to use fear, intimidation and the invention of problems for which   they can provide monopoly solutions. Costly solutions that ultimately reduce peace and security as their veiled goal is really predation on those unbalanced toward a weaker position in the market place of human action.

    But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. Adam Smith

    State Sponsored Terrorism is a natural and typical act of a fully evolving criminal, mentally ill, control system which attempts to surround populations in monopolies of force, eventually creating total gun free zones inside their nations, while terrorizing the people into giving up their competitive positions and, as criminals, preying on the unprotected individuals across all perceived dimensions of wealth and value.

    These governments and their masters know peace and security are increased by individual competitors, using the most competitive weapons technology available, freely offering (un-coerced) competitive solutions in the marketplace.

    Therefore, the only logical conclusion to be drawn is, the Government intends to do violent crimes against the people and naturally must reduce the number of firearms in the hands of the people to accomplish this goal.

    State Sponsored Terrorism is nothing more than marketing, albeit ruthless, often bloody, and always immoral, by a control system in support of a monopoly in the market of solutions and services offering peace and security

    Governments, collectivized gangs and pockets of mentally ill crime syndicates must still compete in the social and economic market place of human action in order to gain market share and market control. This is a fact most don't understand, much or all of the evil and injustice done by one group to another is done with permission, either overtly or covertly via tacit acceptance of the products, services and contracts of an illicit defacto control system.

    It’s not until, an organization within a market obtains a corner on the market that they can evolved into a fully coercive tyranny, closing the doors to any competition and then gouging takes places in areas of important services. This explains why the Obama Regime must continuously create false flag shootings in order to gain American's permission to begin the process of disarming. After a certain number of people provide support for the idea, the monopoly will have enough power to force its barriers around all peoples: Time is short.

    Gun Free Zones are the safe spaces where State sponsored terrorism can exist mostly unimpeded.

    Gun Free Zones are action zones, State actors and criminal actors artificially causing market unbalancing legal restrictions on people's ability to protect themselves.  In the end, as all people are disarmed, the worst personality traits begin to monopolize the positions of authority in the control system until, a mentally ill monopoly of force begins its most egregious acts of terrorism, theft, rape and mass murder. This has been explored as the concept of Pathocracy wherein, organizations begin to populate with similar minded, mentally ill or psychopathic personality traits.

    Communism is such a political system and, over its nearly 200 years of implementation, every expression of this malignant political system has exhibited mentally ill and psychopathic behaviors leaving misery and wealth destruction as its legacy.

    When a government or system of control begins to demand it provide solutions for peace and security, not voluntarily, and when concomitantly, peace and security are reduced with violent and escalating attacks on people and property (and always "advertised" via a public media circus) you must immediately recognize the danger; the control system is marketing a mentally ill system of control.

    At this moment in time we have an emergency situation.  The acts of Terrorism against the people, ie., Oklahoma City bombing, 9-11, mass shootings like the Batman Movie Theatre shootings, with James Holmes or the Safeway Shooting with Jared Loughner, or the TOTALLY FAKED attacks like the Sandy Hook School Shooting and likely the Boston Bombing, and attacks which may have been faked like those recently in Paris and San Bernardino, **are only the beginning**. Because when the people can no longer provide for their own defense, then anything and everything will be done to them -- history has shown.
    ARGUMENTS FOR IRRATIONAL ACTORS

    Many argue mass shooters are mentally ill and emotionally charged. Claiming such states of mind preclude rational thinking regarding the location of mass shooting. The Batman Shooter, James Holmes for example never mentioned in his notes or other clues the theatre's 'Gun Free Zone" policy had anything to do with his choice of venue for his "mass shooting".

    However, if one actually believes the Holmes shooting was not either encouraged, provocateured, engineered or otherwise influenced by State actors working toward an agenda of total disarmament of the American people, one has to realize by unintentionally choosing a "Gun Free Zone" Holmes was elevating his chances of not being shot while committing his crime. Further the death toll was statistically likely to be higher as a result of the "Gun Free Zone" location.

    It was also claimed in a 2002 study right to carry laws have no effect on the location of a mass shooting (This study does not include recent data, refuting this claim.) But again, it is not the location a "right to carry" law should affect, it's the elimination of a threat or shooting in progress that a Natural Law right to defend your life most certainly will affect.

    Most Americans cannot wrap their head around the fact that most of the recent escalation of mass shootings is in some way influenced by the control system which is attempting to disarm Americans.

    NATURAL LAW SOLUTIONS FOR REDUCING GUN AND OTHER VIOLENT CRIME

    If the government actually cared about insuring the least number of causalities were caused by mass a shooting situation (or other violent crime), then it would have no choice but to recommend the Swiss system of arming and training all people to defend themselves.

    Gun and weapons training could again be part of the education system and begin early in a child's life resulting in self-assured less fearful people aware of the fact that a virtual police officer was everywhere - all the time - in the form of citizens equally armed and trained to respond.

    Training people at a young age to use, respect and understand the importance and position, in a self-dependent individual's life tool complement, is the most responsible, rational and mature way to ensure self-defense is a basic component of healthy state of mind and part of creating, from birth, healthy and self-dependent personality traits.
    This system naturally reduces violent crimes, rapes, robberies, while minimizing damage due to mentally ill shooters who are not motivated to save their own lives in first place.

    Creating a state of dependency in which others are to stand up for your life and to be available in your instantaneous moment of need is childish thinking; the magical thinking of an undeveloped state of consciousness. This is a condition deliberated created by those planning to exploit this vulnerability; public education is culpable and complicit in the devolution of adult states of mind.

    Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin

    Clearly Natural Law requires adult people take responsibility for their own lives, otherwise third parties, who are under no obligation to risk their lives for yours, will convince you to transfer your self-responsibility to them in exchange for protection. Transferring self-responsibility to another makes you a ward, a slave, beholden to another for your physical safety and, by induction, anything similar to safety, eventually transferring responsibility for whole classes of actions you are no longer rightfully allowed to take. 

    SILLY ARGUMENTS THAT GUNS IN HANDS OF THE PEOPLE DO NOT STOP TYRANNY

    Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. James Madison

    There are many that argue (supporting their oppressors) guns in the hands of militias and the people could not have stopped the absolute torturous blood bath of the mentally ill Bolsheviks set loose on Russia by the European and American Jewry and other genocides prosecuted against defenseless peoples.

    In the myopic article called Militia Myths the author makes the claim: A historical analysis reveals that Militias are typically the gateway to tyranny, not the safeguard against it. A heavily armed population has little to no bearing on preventing tyranny. and then gives examples of nations using a militia to throw off foreign aggressors only to create some new form of dictatorship afterwards. He cites examples of the liberating militias degenerating into tyrannies in countries like Vietnam, Afghanistan, Cuba, Somalia, Iraq, and southern Lebanon.  The rest of the article makes similar claims about Bolshevik Russia and other nations where blood baths resulted when unarmed and untrained peoples fell victims to violent psychopaths.

    The article referenced above is written by a person with absolutely no understanding, or apparent education regarding the psychologies and personality types of nations, races and cultures. Nations structured around forms of social hierarchy, having no long standing, historical and institutionalize protection of values, such as property rights, contract law, Individualism, Natural Law and other mainly Western values, as codified in common law principals, cannot be expected to create new governments or ruling bodies based on those values. Western culture (European white cultures) have for hundreds of years had an enlightened system of law and justice based on the Natural Law ideas of

1)   Do all you have agreed to do – which is the basis of contract law;
2)   Do not encroach on other persons and their property – which is the basis of criminal and tort law. Richard Maybury

    Additionally, nations and their peoples with NO HISTORY of identifying and enshrining moral philosophical values preserving individual rights OR isolating governments from assimilating a religious dogma as part of its system of law, cannot expect some liberating internal militia to afterward "promote a Free State". Again, this is childish or magical thinking, resulting in the formation of conclusions which are harmful to rational thought regarding maintaining peace and security and minimizing despotism, tyranny and mentally ill systems of control.

    The cultures and governments of the East and, in fact, isolated and heavily influenced by Eastern immigrants, Czarist Russia, did not or do not possess a law based on Scientific Law, or Natural Law, but rather on Political law. As Richard Maybury aptly points out:

    POLITICAL LAW IS BASED ON POLITICAL POWER. It has no requirement for logic or morality. It changes whenever the political wind changes. Fickle and tangled, no one can completely understand it…. You do whatever the power-holders say, or else. Right or wrong.

    This type of social structure will not allow or promote a system enabling individuals to grow and advance with an understanding of their right to self-defense and protection of their own property.  To expect a "Free State to just manifest after an untrained, either morally or philosophically, militia or organization of peoples with guns, throw off a given tyranny is just plain silly.

    But in fact, Americans, mostly educated (as the educational system has been hobbled and purposely dumbed-down) in a system of property rights, contract law, and the moral values of individualism, could easily and handily throw off tyrants and still retain the knowledge and understanding of how to reconstituted a system based on those principles of property rights, contract law and the common law (Natural Law) tenets of individual rights.

A skilled common law judge would try to make all his decisions logically consistent with the two fundamental laws. Common law was not only a private legal system, it was a scientific one. Abraham Lincoln considered `Euclid's Geometry' to be one of his most important law books; he studied it to be sure the logic of his cases was airtight.
 One of the most important characteristics of common law was its certainty. It had evolved very carefully over many centuries, changing little from one decade to the next. The two fundamental laws remained always in place, a stabilizing force. The community could expect their legal environment to remain reasonably orderly. Richard Maybury]

    It has been shown repeatedly armed citizens reduce causalities or prevent mass shootings.

    The question for the American people, and not the usurped Federal or State Governments, is one of third party trust. Can American's expect their governments to protect them? Can American's in light of all of human history, expect their governments to not become immoral, corrupt or tyrannical?  Do Americans feel safe, even as their governments invite mostly fighting age males from Eastern nations having no moral or philosophical training or upbringing in the ways of a Limited Republic or a religiously unconcerned system of control based on common law, including property rights and individual rights? Do American's feel safer disarmed as their own country is being overrun by criminals, former terrorists, rapists and people with other undesirable characteristics, a people that are not going to assimilate and become Western, but are rather going to struggle non-stop to make America more Eastern.

    Will Americans feel safer disarmed as a financial collapse of proportions never experienced in America, deliberately caused by the financial looting of a criminal banking system and the vitiated corporate monopolies they licensed, creates armies of hungry, homeless and outraged people forced to take to the streets looking for answers and shelter from the banker's caused financial nuclear winter?
    The Government, their corporate masters and the criminal banking families behind them all are desperate to be sure Americans do not throw off their intended tyranny and restore a Natural Law system of government and reinvigorate the moral justice system that was once America and finally come after those who have attempted, with extreme hubris, to collapse civilization and rebirth it into a deformed, mentally ill, fledging New World Tyranny.

    MY CONCLUSION: Hold On To Your Guns Like Your Life Depends On Them.

South Carolina passes Law defining Any Criticism of Israel as "Anti-Semitic" just as IDF kills 60 Civilians


As many Americans criticize the number of civilian deaths on the Gaza Strip, a state has passed a measure labeling criticism of Israel as "anti-Semitism."



The news that Israel killed more than 60 Palestinians on Monday alone, has sparked criticism from Americans who are frustrated with the United States’ failure to hold one of its closest allies accountable for the human rights violations it is committing—and individuals in one state will soon be labeled as “anti-Semitic” for openly voicing their opinion.
South Carolina will become the first state to legally define criticism of Israel as “anti-Semitism” when a new measure goes into effect on July 1, targeting public schools and universities. While politicians have tried to pass the measure as a standalone law for two years, they finally succeeded temporarily by passing it as a “proviso” that was slipped into the 2018-2019 budget.
According to the text of the measure, the definition of “anti-Semitism” will now include:
  • a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities;
  • calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews; making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as a collective; accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, the state of Israel, or even for acts committed by non-Jews;
  • accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust;
  • accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interest of their own nations;
  • using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism to characterize Israel or Israelis;
  • drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis;
  • blaming Israel for all inter-religious or political tensions;
  • applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation;
  • multilateral organizations focusing on Israel only for peace or human rights investigations;
  • denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, and denying Israel the right to exist, provided, however, that criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.
As can be determined by the long list of ways in which South Carolina will now define “anti-Semitism,” individuals will be forced to tiptoe around a legitimate subject, and expressing an opinion that is no longer considered politically correct can now be legally used against them.
Calling out this bill is not antisemitic, it is pro free speech. Criticizing the Israeli government as well as any other government is the right and duty of all free humanity. Just as TFTP advocates for the freedom of Americans, we advocate for the freedom of Israelis and the Palestinians. Only through discussion and peaceful criticism will peace ever be achieved.
What’s more, even the chief of the IDF would be considered in violation of this law because in 2016, he gave a speech comparing the “contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”
For as long as this bill has been proposed, it has been criticized by many who argue that it infringes on Americans’ First Amendment rights. With the measure currently focusing on public universities, it has left protesters concerned that it will hurt one group while allegedly helping another. Caroline Nagel, a professor at the University of South Carolina, told The State that she is concerned the law will discourage discussions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and will hinder pro-Palestine student groups.
This bill, I fear, will silence professors and student groups who are trying to explain and to give voice to a diversity of opinions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I am frankly baffled as to why any legislator would consider an ideal to curtail our freedom of speech,” Nagel said.
The United States is a country that prides itself on the “freedom and democracy” it has shared with other foreign nations over the years, and there is no doubt that if the governments in Syria, Iran or Russia were openly shooting and killing civilian protesters, the U.S. would be calling for war and championing a full-scale invasion.
But when Israel shoots and kills 60 civilians and injures around 1,700 in just one day, the U.S. responds to the bloodshed by blocking the United Nations Security Council’s attempt to push for an independent investigation into Israel’s actions.
Unfortunately, the idea that Israel should be exempt from criticism, and that all of its actions are automatically justified—when a very different standard applies to its neighbors—is nothing new in the United States.
As The Free Thought Project reported, 41 other members of Congress came together to champion proposed legislation in July 2017 that would “make literal criminals of any Americans boycotting Israel—a brazen, if not explicit, attack on the BDS Movement, incidentally exploding in popularity worldwide as the belligerent nation continues its occupation of Palestinian lands.”
Then when a hurricane caused massive destruction in Texas in October 2017, residents in Dickinson received a notice from the city that they would only receive funds to repair their homes if they agreed “not to boycott Israel.”
The new measure in South Carolina may focus on public universities right now, but it is setting a blueprint for other states to follow, and in addition to chipping away at the First Amendment, it is serving as a clear reminder that the United States only seems to care about oppressive governments who commit human rights violations when those governments are not considered “close allies.”

Rachel Blevins is an independent journalist from Texas, who aspires to break the false left/right paradigm in media and politics by pursuing truth and questioning existing narratives. Follow Rachel on FacebookTwitterYouTubeSteemit and Patreon.