Author: TJ Roberts
As a performer of magic, Intellectual Property (IP) has always been a contentious issue. Many of my fellow performers believe that IP protects their creations. They believe that it ensures no one uses the effect without paying the proper price to gain access to the secrets of the illusions. I never shared that perspective, and now the magic community is seeing why.
The United States Playing Card Company (USPCC), situated a mere twenty minutes from my house, has recently announced a crackdown on the lifeblood of many magicians. The USPCC has decided that no alterations to their cards shall be permitted any longer. As an email from Ellusionist, a notable magic retailer, states: “No gaffing, no staining, no shadows, fades or alterations of any kind.” These cards the USPCC has banned are not necessarily “trick cards.” Rather, they are creative takes on the classic Bicycle playing cards. In other words, the USPCC has just stunted performative creativity among all magicians.
Cancel Culture: Its Causes and Its Consequences
The Cancel Culture Mob knows few limitations. While social media has empowered people to speak their minds, it has also empowered the masses to attempt to “cancel” those who express controversial opinions. Victims of cancel culture often end up jobless, friendless, and helpless.
Those engaging in canceling people, however, gain nothing but empty satisfaction. In a Cancel Culture, everyone loses the ability to understand differing perspectives, making echo chambers and their disastrous consequences inevitable.
What is Cancel Culture
Cancel Culture has been described as accountability by its proponents, but that is not a fair assessment of this phenomenon. If Cancel Culture implied accountability, then there would be an avenue for redemption. When the mob controls justice, there is no means by which you can regain their respect.
In the research paper, “Does Apologizing Work? An Empirical Test of the Conventional Wisdom,” Richard Hanania of Columbia University shows that public apologies typically have no effect or make the mob want the offender to be punished even more. In other words, Cancel Culture is not about Accountability.
Jeff Deist, president of the Mises Institute, provides a great definition: “Cancel culture means shutting people out of jobs, opportunities, platforms, & social settings- attempting to impoverish people, financially and otherwise.” The point of Cancel Culture rests in the name — eliminating thought criminals from polite society. If the mob cannot control what you say, they will attempt to control your ability to function in society. To put it another way, Cancel Culture is the necessary tactic the mob adopts when the conventional tactics of Political Correctness fails.
Weaponized Political Correctness
Jeff Deist defines Political Correctness as “the conscious, designed manipulation of language intended to change the way people speak, write, think, feel, and act, in furtherance of an agenda.” The goal of PC is to shape modern humanity into something that goes against our very nature. It destroys individualism and distinct communities and replaces our nature with mob-imposed values. It is not about good manners; it is about control.
But what happens when people refuse to be controlled? What happens when the programming fails? When people push back against PC, the mob must resort to more drastic measures. In the same way fascism emerged as a socialist’s last resort to impose their unnatural worldview, Cancel Culture emerged as a means to achieve a politically correct society. If you do not bend your knee to the mob, then the mob will unperson you.
This works remarkably well against ordinary people. But with someone like Michael Bloomberg, a billionaire who imposed racist “Stop-and-Frisk” upon millions of people, there is no way to cancel him. Bloomberg’s money and financial connections shield him from being canceled. Those engaged in Cancel Culture do not fight for justice. Rather, they target vulnerable individuals and preclude them from ever redeeming themselves (assuming what they said was actually wrong). Rather than have a conversation with people who hold different opinions, the Cancel Culture mob would prefer to dehumanize their adversaries.
The Consequences
Cancel Culture not only harms individuals who fall in the mob’s crosshairs, it harms all of society. When you hold a view that the PC Mob may disagree with, the Herd Psychology of the canceler imposes fear upon your psyche. Because of this fear, you either don’t express your opinion or you only express your opinion around people you know to agree with you. In other words, Cancel Culture curbs public discourse and creates echo chambers. A 1996 MIT study prophetically predicted that the internet would lead to more echo chambers, areas of conversation in which no differing views are expressed.
This study indicated that echo chambers lead to increased radicalization and decreased understanding of the “other side.” In a study on links between echo chambers, radicalism, and violence, Nature Research indicates that such an atmosphere is a breeding ground for violence. People internalize their beliefs. Rather than you believing in your politics, you become your politics. If someone disagrees with your perspective, they do so with ill will according to PC culture. Society confirms this grim prediction as people become more hostile about their politics. Radical organizations like Antifa and other groups engage in violence against their political opponents. To lay it bare, politics drops its pretenses and exposes itself as the violent struggle it truly is.
Cancel Culture benefits no one. Rather, it gives a false sense of dispute resolution and gives the “canceler” a false sense of improved social status while isolating people from civil society. The time to fight back is now. First, refuse to “cancel” anyone. Don’t engage in the mob’s tactics. Talk with people with whom you disagree. Second, engage in alternative media. The State Linguistic Complex has its filthy fingers in all mainstream media. Provide your own counter-narrative. Tell the Truth. Unless we fight back against Political Correctness and Cancel Culture, discourse will die.
Beto O’Rourke Threatened the Rights of All
Presidential hopeful Beto O’Rourke explicitly called for confiscating guns in the democratic debates. Briscoe Cain, a Texas lawmaker, sent a tweet in response that said, “My AR is ready for you Robert Francis.”
O’Rourke interpreted this as a death threat, but he sent out his own threat that night. When O’Rourke said he will take the justly acquired property of others, there was an implicit threat of death in that statement.
Death Threats Most Frequently Come from Government
There is an ultimate facet of enforcement to every law. Every edict of the state comes with a death threat. If you resist the government and its edicts, the government will retaliate either violently or with the threat of violence. This is the nature of government. It is inherently a monopoly on the use of force. IfO’Rourke insists on taking your guns, he insists on killing those who resist. Government agents play the victim card quite well. By having the mindless masses cheer for him, O’Rourke is claiming to have a license to do this. The fact is, however, the government has no different moral code from the people. If I attempt to forcibly take your guns and you shoot me in that struggle, you are acting in self-defense. The person making the threat, in this example, is me. If I try to take your car, and you defend yourself, that does not make you a criminal. Rather, it makes the carjacker a criminal.A Word on Hypocrisy
Beto O’Rourke has openly called Donald Trump a white supremacist. Whether President Trump is or is not a white supremacist is of no concern to this article, but let’s just suppose he is, for the sake of argument. If Donald Trump is a white supremacist, then O’Rourke is openly advocating for revoking the ability of minorities to defend themselves from the government that is run by a white supremacist. Remember, the government is force. If a white supremacist is at the helm of the state, then nonwhites are a likely target of government force. Any gun law, even “Red Flag“ confiscations, is especially dangerous for minorities when a white supremacist in power. While abhorrent, hate has no inherent power. When a hateful person is the president, however, it has enough power to ruin the lives of the marginalized. If O’Rourke truly believes Trump is a white supremacist, then he is actively encouraging him to oppress minorities by disarming them. So no, the Texas lawmaker did not send O’Rourke a death threat. Rather, O’Rourke’s policy carries an implicit threat of violence against all gun owners. He also sent a death threat to every individual in the country who owns an AR-15 or AK-47, two of the most common rifles in the U.S. Since government action is backed by the barrel of a gun, O’Rourke is far more pro-gun violence than gun rights.Thanks, Beto
In last Thursday night’s circus, Beto O’Rourke showed the left’s true colors about guns. During his performance, he said, “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15s and your AK-47s.” This led to the crowd giving O’Rourke a standing ovation. This statement also gained mass support from the left.
While any advocate for freedom is right to be alarmed by this sentiment, one must also be relieved. In fact, O’Rourke has done more for gun rights than so-called conservatives like Sen. Lindsey Graham and Rep. Dan Crenshaw ever could with their advocacy for “red flag” laws. As gun grabbers say “no one is coming for your guns,” they stood and cheered for an authoritarian call for taking our guns. They exposed themselves.
Beto O’Rourke: An Unintentional Hero for Gun Rights
While so-called moderates call for universal background checks (which is a form of gun registration), they claim that they wouldn’t support gun confiscations. These same people, however, cheered for O’Rourke’s call for just that. This shows how dishonest the left is. Know that when they say they just want “moderate” reforms, they want total control of your life. O’Rourke’s rhetoric, however, has an even more insidious goal. When he talks about full-blown confiscation, he is trying to make a new “assault weapons” ban seem like a moderate position. In politics, the extremes define the middle. Fortunately, O’Rourke’s sentiment will surely experience blowback. Gun rights advocates are now sure to realize exactly how important this fight is. With this new extreme from the left (and overwhelming public acceptance), the gun rights movement now has a golden opportunity to stand up and fight. Moderates now have the chance to see how dangerous any gun law truly is. It is incredibly obvious now that any attempt at reform is an effort to move toward confiscation.Time to go on the Offensive!
Since O’Rourke wants to take our guns, it’s time we fight back. Not only should we stop his policies, we also must stop “red flag” laws. We must also stop fighting for the status quo. Advocates for gun rights must fight to repeal the current National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). We need to secure the right to bear arms for people who have “lost” that right in the court system. We also need to repeal the entire National Firearms Act. Every current gun law has been a step in the direction of confiscation, and O’Rourke showed that in the most blatant way possible: calling for the ban of the most popular rifle in the United States. So Beto, thank you! Thank you for proving the gun rights movement all the ammo it needs to mobilize in the direction of freedom, not just stopping new tyranny.Bring them Home, It’s a Lot Easier Than You Think
Now that John Bolton is out as National Security Advisor, President Trump needs some advice on foreign policy. Bolton, being a hawk, would never give this advice. It is, however, the most important piece of advice one could give to the president right now. Regarding the troops, it’s time to Bring them Home. By this, I mean that we must bring every troop on foreign soil back to our country without exception.
The President DOES have the Power to Bring them Home
Some would immediately argue that “it isn’t that simple”, but it is. The president has the power and authority to bring every troop home with the stroke of a pen. Trump has possessed this ability since he took office in January 2017. Every day that the president hasn’t brought the troops home is a day that he has allowed these endless wars to continue. With this in mind, anyone who says the president can’t do this is wrong. As commander in chief, he possesses this power. Such power allows for the president to end these wars immediately. He has the power to bring the troops home. He just hasn’t. This, however, is not necessarily Trump’s fault alone.Why Hasn’t the President Ended the Wars
First off, Trump is not a non-interventionist. At the very foundation, he is a Jacksonian. Jacksonians do not believe in intervention unless it is in the best interest of their own country. What is in the best interest of the U.S. is the topic of debate for President Trump. This is how one can reconcile the belief in ending the seemingly endless wars with Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. while also advocating increased hostility with Iran. If Trump believes that intervention is in the country’s best interest, he will intervene. This is why Senator Rand Paul is such an important figure in shaping Donald Trump’s foreign policy. While Rand Paul and Trump have differing core beliefs, Rand Paul’s non-interventionism stems from the idea that foreign intervention, unless the U.S. is attacked, is never in the best interest of the U.S. This is why Paul claims that Trump’s “instincts are in the right place.” He says he wants what is best for America.Rand Paul Isn’t the Only Advisor
While Rand Paul has significantly influenced Trump’s foreign policy, so has Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the now-former National Security Advisor, John Bolton. Neocon allies like Pompeo and Bolton are consistently trying to persuade Trump that intervention is always in the best interest of the U.S. and her allies. The facts simply are on the side of non-intervention. War has cost the U.S. trillions of dollars, decades of innovation, and thousands of American lives. Endless war is a road to squalor. What we, non-interventionists, must realize is that intervention is never in the best interest of the U.S. We must step up our efforts against these wars. We have a president whose instincts are in the right place; Rand Paul is right about that. We must increase our pro-peace efforts to end the currently existing wars and stop any effort to start a war with Iran. The president has the power to end the wars. What he lacks, however, is the motivation.9/11 is Old Enough to Fight in the Resulting Wars
9/11 is a day that changed the course of history. As a result of US foreign intervention, groups radicalized. These groups attacked the US on our soil 18 years ago today. Now, the event that the power elites used as an excuse to strengthen their empire is old enough to fight in the wars of the US regime.
If this doesn’t show you that 9/11 has become a political tool for warmongers, I don’t know what will.
9/11 is not an excuse to continue these wars
To start, none of the wars in which the US is engaged is against countries that helped commit the September 11th attacks. The US killed most perpetrators of these attacks within months after the attacks. Now, everyone who was directly involved with the attacks is either dead or in prison. Any war that is justified by 9/11 ended years ago.
When someone invokes 9/11 as an excuse for continuing the wars, they are lying to you. So-called “foreign policy experts” beg the public to support the Military-Industrial Complex on the corporate press. It is a pathetic display. These individuals are dedicated to indoctrinating you, and they are using an attack that would be able to fight in the US military were it a person. Any time someone criticizes a foreign policy of peace by invoking September 11th, know that they are not being honest.
End the Wars to Stop the Next Attack
Pearl Harbor and September 11th were both the result of blowback. US involvement has made us less safe and less free. Due to US engagement in the Middle East, the public has lost friends and family to the terror that inevitably results. As a result of 9/11, the Patriot Act annihilated the Bill of Rights. While the military “fights for our freedom” abroad, we are losing our rights by the day. We suffer from crippling debt. Ultimately, there is no fight for freedom in America that must be taken abroad.
The true fight for freedom, however, is to end the wars. As the US continues to fight these wars, the risk of another blowback attack increases. If the US truly cared about safety and freedom, they would end the wars and bring the soldiers home. 9/11 was a great tragedy. It ended thousands of lives. This did not have to happen. We can and we must stop it from happening again.
I Pity Meghan McCain
Pamela Anderson and Meghan McCain engaged in a heated discussion on The View last Friday. The two clashed over Julian Assange and the military. Throughout the exchange, Anderson called out McCain’s blatant lies about Assange’s heroism. To say the least, McCain was smearing Assange by calling him a “cyber-terrorist.”
The crowd was on Anderson’s side, leading to an outburst from McCain. All in all, this exchange was an embarrassment for the War Party and its shills within the corporate press.
But this exchange goes beyond Julian Assange. It goes beyond American foreign policy. Rather, one can see a horrifying problem with America’s heart in this exchange. As the conversation continued. It became increasingly obvious that McCain has no concept of society, even humanity, without the state. It is not, however, her fault. She has fallen victim of years of indoctrination that American children, but especially the children of the power elites, suffer.
Meghan McCain Sees No Life Without Government
At an especially testy part of the exchange, Anderson explained that the US Military has killed far more people than Wikileaks could ever imagine. After she said this, McCain responded to Anderson by asking, “So you think the military is putting the government at risk?” I didn’t notice this line at first. But when I saw this video again, I felt chills thinking about this quotation. Pamela Anderson just pointed out that the military has killed thousands, if not millions, of innocent people; and the only response you have is that the military doesn’t endanger the government?
In order to believe this, you have to believe that there is no line dividing the people from the state. One does not come to think of the best interests of the state when the death of innocents come to mind unless they were conditioned to think that way.
Simply put, Meghan McCain is just as much a victim of indoctrination as the average mainstream adherent of political thought. For McCain, however, it is ten times worse. The probable source of this radical indoctrination is her father, John McCain, and his associates.
To be very clear, we are not the government. Until we realize this, the heart and soul of liberty and independence is at jeopardy. This is the real battle of our generation – autonomy vs. the absolute disintegration of a culture that separates us from the state.
We must fight against our social conditioning to view all that is good as the state, and all that is outside the state as bad. Such a cultural disposition is the road to totalitarianism.
So, condemn Meghan McCain’s sentiment, but don’t blame her for it. She is a victim as much as any other prisoner of government “education” is.
Red Flag Laws: What’s the Worst that Could Happen?
Conservative Inc. is committed to passing Red Flag Gun Laws. Regardless of one’s beliefs on the 2nd Amendment, one must conclude that one’s gun rights were safer under Barack Obama than they are under Donald Trump. These Disarmament Order Laws would revoke not only gun rights but also the most basic due process rights of people.
Red Flag Laws Would Lead to a Due Process Crisis
Many think these laws would only take guns from immediate dangers to society and/or themselves, but let’s think about the worst-case scenarios.
What if not trusting the government means you are a domestic terror threat? Transgender individuals have a 41% suicide rate which is much higher than the national average. Should the government take away guns from transgender individuals even though they are frequently the victims of violence and desperately need to be able to defend themselves?
What about demographics that are more likely to commit a crime? Should they be disarmed? What if the president is a racist? What if the president hates other ethnic groups so much that he demands they be disarmed. Just remember, you do not get to decide what constitutes a red flag; the government does.
Speaking of the president, what if he decides that members of the press who don’t like him should be disarmed? That totally wouldn’t happen, right? Right?
As it turns out, Donald Trump has no problem calling for the disarming of political opponents. If Obama did this, conservatives would be rioting, and rightfully so.
Your Gun Rights are in Immediate Danger
If you think Donald Trump calling for the disarming of Chris Cuomo is the end of it, you are oblivious. The only people who ought to be disarmed is the government agencies that would enforce these tyrannical laws. Red Flag laws are nothing more than a tool of the political class to disarm everyday individuals.
If you have a representative who supports these tyrannical laws, remove them from office, regardless of party.
These anti-gun policies will be enforced by government thugs who have no problem killing people in pursuit of disarming the people who believe in liberty.
Do not lose hope.
Free Speech Protects Professors, As Well As Students
Academia does not want faculty to realize this, but free speech protects professors and their ability to educate and explore ideas. I fight for freedom of speech on my campus as a representative for Students for Free Expression.
From experience on my campus, I see that censorship creates a culture of fear on campus, further polarizing our campus communities. If academia is honest in claiming they are training the leaders of tomorrow, then the leaders of tomorrow have lost the ability to partake in discourse.
The problem, however, extends beyond students. Professors have also seen that censorship is harming campus climates. In a study of the Association of American Colleges and Universities, less than 20% of college faculty strongly agreed with the following statement: “It is safe to hold unpopular opinions on this campus.” This perception has evidence to ensure its validity. Censorship has a horrific impact on university faculty as well. If one wishes to be an honest educator, they must stand up for free speech.
Free Speech Protects Professors from the Thought Police
The story of Jordan Peterson is a well-known one. Dr. Peterson is a professor at the University of Toronto who faced discipline from the university for his opposition to Bill C-16, an explicitly anti-free speech bill. But Dr. Peterson’s story is a dime a dozen. Take the story of Michael Rectenwald, a former NYU professor. Rectenwald, a Marxist, created a twitter account to confront political correctness on his campus. After he went public, he was shunned, bullied, and intimidated into paid leave, moving his office, and eventually, retirement. This bullying technique of the mob is one of many ways that the thought police suppress one’s ability to teach freely. Gale Isaacs was a professor at Shaw University. Isaacs lamented the hostile culture at the university. The university president proved her point by firing Isaacs. No politics took place in this case. Isaacs simply pointed out that Shaw University has a culture problem. This demonstrates the fragility of the culture on campus. Administrators inherently want power. They want the students and faculty to bend their knee. When a professor criticizes them, the people who censor act with swift retribution to show their power and disregard for free speech.Can I at least ask a question!?
Now consider the story of Stephen Kershnar, who was denied a promotion at SUNY Fredonia. His performance as a professor played no role in decision-making. Rather, the university president denied him a promotion because he asked whether or not universities mistreat conservatives. To SUNY, even asking questions is not acceptable. This demonstrates how oppressive speech codes can really be.Professors are Victims of Censorship Too
When a professor promotes a view that is radically different from your own, rejoice. They have expressed themselves, demonstrating the existence of fundamental liberty. Instead of setting up Professor Watchlists, we ought to stand up to the bullies who censor professors and students. Tenure, after all, allows for professors to partake in their study with total freedom. Professors who are lucky enough to have their rights protected should be fighting to secure these rights for students. If a professor attempts to censor a student, there is another story. First and foremost, they are rejecting fundamental liberty. But above that, these professors are working against their own best interest. Many professors hold controversial opinions. They should be unashamed, unapologetic, and unafraid in expressing these views. In order to do that, however, students must also have these rights. By allowing for freedom of speech for all, we can see more discourse and better education. We owe it to ourselves to speak freely.Spider-Man: Far From Home is a Warning to Beware False Flags
Spoilers Ahead! Spider-Man: Far From Home has hit theaters, and it is a brilliant film with a mysterious lesson! As Peter Parker takes the mantle as the next Iron Man, he finds Mysterio, a potential ally in the fight. Mysterio, it turns out, is a shunned Stark employee who is looking to have all the power. Quentin Beck (Mysterio) uses Illusion Tech to commit false flag attacks using “the Elementals.” As the destruction ensues, Mysterio defeats the Elementals. While the damage is real, the attacker and the defenders are one and the same: weaponized drones that create visual effects that appear to be real.
Through these demonstrations, Mysterio gains fame and the trust of Nick Fury. Mysterio appears to be the hero, but he created the crisis. Spider-Man, nevertheless, eventually catches on and defeats Beck. This story, despite being a fictional movie, does have a very real lesson for us to consider.
Spider-Man: Far From Home: Beware False Flags
A false flag is a covert operation in which the responsible party for a particular action attempts to disguise the blame. To call something a false flag is not to claim that the attack never happened. What Mysterio did in Spider-Man: Far From Home is a perfect example of it. All of the “Elemental” attacks led to real damage and/or loss of life. The Elementals, however, were fake. They were Illusions that Mysterio created. He was responsible for the attacks all along. The power-hungry will engage in false flags as a means to gain public support. It is after a tragedy that the masses will urgently surrender their freedom. Despite their denial, and people on the ground disagreeing with the official narrative, Neocon allies like John Bolton and Mike Pompeo blamed Iran on the attack of a Japanese tanker. This led to the US increasing their engagement against the nation, putting us one step closer to John Bolton’s dream: war. Iran had no incentive to attack the ships, especially since the Japanese prime minister was meeting with Rouhani at the time. The US was simply trying to start another war, and truth would be this war’s first casualty.This is not the Only False Flag Attack
As disturbing as it may be to believe the US exploited this attack to appease the Military Industrial Complex, governments have a long history of doing this. The Lavon Affair, for example, was a 1954 plan in which Israeli agents would bomb multiple American and British civilian locations as a means to keep the British in Egypt. Israel was caught in the act. The US is not innocent either. Operation Northwoods was a US plan for the CIA to commit terrorist acts against US civilians and blame it on Cuba. This would inevitably lead to war against Cuba. President John F. Kennedy rejected the plan and it was sealed shut as a classified document. In 1997, Operation Northwoods was declassified along with several other documents pertaining to the assassination of JFK, but I’m sure that’s just a coincidence that the president who rejected a false flag attack was assassinated. What matters here is that the people must be skeptical of the official story. I have listed a few examples of false flag attacks that we know of for sure. But I’m sure you can think of a few others. If we know about these, imagine how bad it truly is. Do not listen to the siren song of the warmongers because they are liars. Ask yourself: “how will they benefit if I believe them?” Governments thrive in war. The next time “Iran” acts up, be a bit more skeptical, lest the government and Mysterio become one.Flag Desecration Bans Repeal the First Amendment
President Donald Trump has endorsed a bill that, if passed, would amend the constitution to allow Congress to ban flag desecration. Such a ban, however, goes against everything people claim the flag represents. To ban flag burning, in every sense, is to repeal the First Amendment. No person can truly justify such a ban while also claiming to be for limited government and American Values.
The Flag-Burning Ban is a Repeal of the First Amendment
Texas vs. Johnson (1989) confirmed that burning the flag of the United States is a form of speech. With that in mind, it becomes clear that the freedom of speech does include nonviolent expressive actions. Because all forms of expressive conduct is protected speech, one has the right to burn the flag of the United States. The amendment that Donald Trump supports would not overturn this. Rather, it would overturn the idea that all forms of expressive conduct is protected. The amendment states the following: “The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.” In other words, Congress has the power to restrict expressive conduct. While this Amendment only pertains to the flag, it is a repeal of the First Amendment. It artificially eliminates the freedom of expression. With this in mind, everyone who supports this Amendment is directly opposed to free speech. While Donald Trump has signed an executive order to protect the First Amendment rights of students, this is in vain if he chooses to endorse this Amendment. It shows that any action he has taken is nothing more than hollow lip service to the fundamental of freedom of speech. You cannot be pro-free speech and anti-flag burning at the same time.Flag Desecration is a Property Rights Issue
If I buy a piece of cloth in the design of the flag of the United States, I own that cloth. It is my right to fly it, tear it, burn it, or whatever I want with it. It is mine. The Fifth Amendment specifically recognizes your right to private property. This Amendment would also repeal that right. Can I burn the flag on the private property of someone else who has not consented? Absolutely not. If someone wants to prohibit flag desecration on their property, that is their right as well. Do not be mistaken, as Trump calls for the banning of flag-burning, he is burning the Constitution. He is burning your natural rights. You have this right no matter what the law says. It is a spat in the face of fundamental liberty that we must protect. Consider this piece to be a defense of freedom. I have never burned a flag. I doubt I ever will. I will, however, always defend one’s freedom of speech, even when I disagree with them.Louisville Police Stands Against Gun Rights With Moms Demand Action
On June 7, 2019, the Louisville Police joined Moms Demand Action to rally against our right to bear arms. Perhaps this will be a learning moment for the readers of this article.
Hopefully, the people realize that police overwhelmingly support disarming you and will take your guns if given the order to do so. There is enough precedent to back this. Just last year, police in Maryland killed a man after they tried to disarm him without due process.
Louisville Police Stands Against Your Rights; Don’t Stand for Them
When I reached out for comment from Louisville Metro, I asked the following questions: “A post you all made showing that one of your officers spoke at a Mom’s Demand Action rally has been brought to my attention and I am writing an article on this. First, who is the officer that spoke on y’all’s behalf? Second, do the positions of Moms Demand Action represent the positions of Louisville Metro Police Department? Third, did any of LMPD’s budget go toward this event, whether it be for sponsorship or for the speaker (even if she was on duty)? Fourth, what gun control and/or citizen disarmament policies does LMPD support beyond the platform of Moms Demand Action?”
Louisville Metro gave the following response: “First, who is the officer that spoke on y’all’s behalf? Lt. Col. LaVita Chavous. Second, do the positions of Moms Demand Action represent the positions of Louisville Metro Police Department? No. However, the LMPD does support a reduction in any violent crime. Third, did any of LMPD’s budget go toward this event, whether it be for sponsorship or for the speaker (even if she was on duty)? No. We were invited by Councilwoman Barbara Sexton Smith and asked to speak once there. Fourth, what gun control and/or citizen disarmament policies does LMPD support beyond the platform of Moms Demand Action? The LMPD supports and enforces the 2nd Amendment and KY state law.”
While LMPD claims that Moms Demand Action does not align with the department, one must remember that the police department actively spoke against Permitless Carry this February. Moms Demand Action is another group that stood against this common sense pro-gun legislation. This alone precludes Louisville Police from claiming to support the Second Amendment.
The claim that they “support a reduction in any violent crime” is rhetoric to distract you from the group they just rallied with. Moms Demand Action is VERY pro-violence. It takes government force to enforce their anti-liberty agenda. While Moms Demand Action doesn’t have a public platform, we can draw conclusions based upon their “victories.” Based upon this list, there is not a single restriction on the right to bear arms that Moms Demand Action doesn’t support. Anyone who allies with them is not on the side of liberty.
The Police Will Confiscate Your Guns
While many mainstream conservatives “Back the Blue,” remember that the Blue is the violent wing of the government. They are the ones who will revoke your guns if a gun ban passes. The police enforce unjust laws right now via the failed war on drugs; there is no reason to believe they wouldn’t do the same with a war on guns. If you believe in gun rights, there is little one can do to reconcile that belief with support for police, especially now that multiple police departments are explicitly teaming up with radical anti-gun organizations.
The folk at Louisville Metro are modern Redcoats who are enthusiastic in their stand against your rights. One would think that Louisville Police would stand for freedom especially since they are from Kentucky, a rather conservative state. But this police department went as far as testifying against the fight for Constitutional Carry this year. They support revoking your rights, all of them.
When it comes down to it, remember that an oath to the constitution means nothing to these people in the pursuit of power.