Category: Anna L. Stark

Why the Second Amendment?


Once again and on cue, the gun-control zealots are calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment.  Former Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens parroted the gun-grabber narrative in his recently published New York Times article: “[t]he demonstrators should seek more effective and lasting reform.  They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.”  He further bloviates that the Second is a relic of the 18th century.  It’s a sorry state of affairs when a Supreme Court justice who was tasked with upholding the U.S. Constitution – including the Bill of Rights – must be reminded why the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  You’d think a constitutional scholar would know these things.  It’s also proof positive that advanced age and wisdom are not necessarily synonymous.

The Bill of Rights Institute provides an excellent brief background on the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution.  Simply put and stated eloquently, “[t]he Bill of Rights is a list of limits on government power.”  Unfortunately, not only are there those in favor of surrendering their Second Amendment right, but these same people believe that government forces are incapable of oppression, subversion, coercion, or any number of other forms of tyranny.  My advice to this particular group of naïve, nattering nabobs?  Pick up any American history book and revisit why America’s Founding Fathers were familiar with government oppression – they lived it, and many gave their lives fighting it.  As history has shown time and time again, tyrants conquer the populace by instilling fear.  They rely on killing or sinister threats of harm and injury to control the masses.  Heinous killing sprees and wretched oppression of the citizenry are the result of a people unable to defend themselves.  

Naysayers and doubters are quick to counter with claims that nothing of the sort could happen in the 21st century.  History proves otherwise.  A quick review of the 13 most monstrous tyrants of the 20th century will reveal one thing in common: hundreds of millions of dead people who were hopelessly unable to rise up with arms and overthrow their oppressors.  In most cases, outside forces and circumstances were required to bring each of these dictators to an inglorious end, but not before millions were sacrificed, state resources and treasuries looted, and generations of survivors beaten down to pathetic shells of human beings.  A third-generation dictator still lords it over North Korea, aided and abetted by a 21st-century media machine that would make Adolf Hitler’s minister of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, proud.  An excellent accounting of exactly how Hitler disarmed an unsuspecting German public can be found in Stephen P. Halbrook’s book, Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming the Jews and “Enemies of the State.”  There’s no need to rehash the history of Germany’s most notorious monster and the atrocity that occurred not only in Germany, but all across Europe.  In fact, Mr. Halbrook’s book ought to be on the required reading list in all American high school civics classes.

Categorically and in harsh condemnation of Justice Steven’s opinion, the Second Amendment is by no means an 18th-century relic.  Far from it.  The Second Amendment ensures that people elected to public office uphold their sworn oath to defend the U.S. Constitution and abide by the Bill of Rights.  Without the Second Amendment, how easy would it be for someone or a group of people opposing democracy to usurp the American government?  Do the words “fundamental transformation” ring a bell?

Keep in mind that a slick and sophisticated media machine is already in place and operates as the progressive liberal purveyor of propaganda.  It is not simply a coincidence that the group of people who are working feverishly to rescind the Second Amendment are the same group of people opposed to free speech.  They demand stifling regulation (suppression) of media outlets opposed to their agenda.  They have recruited moneyed supporters willing to expend millions of dollars in order to achieve their nefarious goal – divesting law-abiding citizens of their firearms.

Constitutional preservationist speaker and author Michael Badnarik put it bluntly: “[t]he Second Amendment is our emergency cut-off switch for a government run amok.”  I agree.

Once again and on cue, the gun-control zealots are calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment.  Former Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens parroted the gun-grabber narrative in his recently published New York Times article: “[t]he demonstrators should seek more effective and lasting reform.  They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.”  He further bloviates that the Second is a relic of the 18th century.  It’s a sorry state of affairs when a Supreme Court justice who was tasked with upholding the U.S. Constitution – including the Bill of Rights – must be reminded why the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  You’d think a constitutional scholar would know these things.  It’s also proof positive that advanced age and wisdom are not necessarily synonymous.

The Bill of Rights Institute provides an excellent brief background on the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution.  Simply put and stated eloquently, “[t]he Bill of Rights is a list of limits on government power.”  Unfortunately, not only are there those in favor of surrendering their Second Amendment right, but these same people believe that government forces are incapable of oppression, subversion, coercion, or any number of other forms of tyranny.  My advice to this particular group of naïve, nattering nabobs?  Pick up any American history book and revisit why America’s Founding Fathers were familiar with government oppression – they lived it, and many gave their lives fighting it.  As history has shown time and time again, tyrants conquer the populace by instilling fear.  They rely on killing or sinister threats of harm and injury to control the masses.  Heinous killing sprees and wretched oppression of the citizenry are the result of a people unable to defend themselves.  

Naysayers and doubters are quick to counter with claims that nothing of the sort could happen in the 21st century.  History proves otherwise.  A quick review of the 13 most monstrous tyrants of the 20th century will reveal one thing in common: hundreds of millions of dead people who were hopelessly unable to rise up with arms and overthrow their oppressors.  In most cases, outside forces and circumstances were required to bring each of these dictators to an inglorious end, but not before millions were sacrificed, state resources and treasuries looted, and generations of survivors beaten down to pathetic shells of human beings.  A third-generation dictator still lords it over North Korea, aided and abetted by a 21st-century media machine that would make Adolf Hitler’s minister of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, proud.  An excellent accounting of exactly how Hitler disarmed an unsuspecting German public can be found in Stephen P. Halbrook’s book, Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming the Jews and “Enemies of the State.”  There’s no need to rehash the history of Germany’s most notorious monster and the atrocity that occurred not only in Germany, but all across Europe.  In fact, Mr. Halbrook’s book ought to be on the required reading list in all American high school civics classes.

Categorically and in harsh condemnation of Justice Steven’s opinion, the Second Amendment is by no means an 18th-century relic.  Far from it.  The Second Amendment ensures that people elected to public office uphold their sworn oath to defend the U.S. Constitution and abide by the Bill of Rights.  Without the Second Amendment, how easy would it be for someone or a group of people opposing democracy to usurp the American government?  Do the words “fundamental transformation” ring a bell?

Keep in mind that a slick and sophisticated media machine is already in place and operates as the progressive liberal purveyor of propaganda.  It is not simply a coincidence that the group of people who are working feverishly to rescind the Second Amendment are the same group of people opposed to free speech.  They demand stifling regulation (suppression) of media outlets opposed to their agenda.  They have recruited moneyed supporters willing to expend millions of dollars in order to achieve their nefarious goal – divesting law-abiding citizens of their firearms.

Constitutional preservationist speaker and author Michael Badnarik put it bluntly: “[t]he Second Amendment is our emergency cut-off switch for a government run amok.”  I agree.



Source link

Meals on Wheels Learns: Fake News Is Profitable!


Several weeks ago, mainstream media ratcheted up the national hysteria meter shortly after President Trump’s first draft of his 2018 budget was released.

CNN was first, announcing, “The preliminary outline for President Donald Trump’s 2018 budget could slash some funding for a program that provides meals for older, impoverished Americans.”  Automatically and in harmony, the rest of the alphabet network cabal jumped on the bandwagon, going so far as to announce that seniors across America would starve to death, thanks to President Trump.  Adding to the maelstrom, Meals on Wheels national spokeswoman Jenny Bertolette said, “It is difficult to imagine a scenario in which they will not be significantly and negatively impacted if the President’s budget were [sic] enacted.”  Was it difficult for Ms. Bertolette to imagine the forthcoming windfall bestowed upon Meals on Wheels, thanks in part to fake news reporting?  

First, and in the interest of full disclosure, I am a regular, weekly volunteer at Meals on Wheels (MOW) in the city where I live.  I believe that it’s important to divulge this information for two reasons: 1) I was inundated with questions from and asked for my opinion by family and friends, who are aware of my MOW association, and 2) I took the time to point-blank ask the fund developer (a paid staff member) at the MOW kitchen where I volunteer if there is actually any shred of truth to what the media were reporting.  I also did some in-depth research about Meals on Wheels funding, not only on the national level, but locally, too.

Of course, and as it is with most hysterical news these days, the truth can usually be found somewhere in the fine print, twisted in translation, or buried at the bottom of the page.

This particular episode of fake news hysteria was born out of the preliminary 2018 budget draft, in which Trump proposed to trim the pork-riddled program at the Department of Housing Development – specifically, the Community Development Block Grants program, which does provide a fraction of funding for some Meals on Wheels groups across the country.

It’s important to note that not all MOW kitchens receive these funds, as I found out when I visited with the fund developer where I volunteer.  As a matter of fact, the MOW kitchen in my city receives absolutely no community block grant funding.  It does receive about 7% of its annual funding from a local non-profit community group that raises funds year round and then portions out those funds to numerous non-profits across the city.  The rest (93%) of the MOW annual budget is derived from the direct sales of meals, private donors, corporate grants, food vendors (who donate food/funds or both), and an annual, local fund raising event during the December holiday season.

Investor’s Business Daily editors provided a detailed and more accurate explanation:

What Trump’s budget does propose is cutting is the corruption-prone Community Development Block Grant program, run out of Housing and Urban Development. Some, but not all, state and local governments use a tiny portion of that grant money, at their own discretion, to “augment funding for Meals on Wheels,” according to the statement. … So what’s really going on? As Meals on Wheels America explained, some Community Development Block Grant money does end up going to some of the local Meals on Wheels programs. But it’s a small amount. HUD’s own website shows that just 1% of CDBG grant money goes to the broad category of “senior services.” And 0.17% goes to “food banks.” … All of this information was easily available to anyone reporting on this story, or anyone commenting on it, which would have prevented the false claims about the Meals on Wheels program from spreading in the first place. But why bother reporting facts when you can make up a story…?

Surprisingly, and as it applies to the media-fueled “starving senior apocalypse” across America, Meals on Wheels has been the inadvertent winner, thanks to the intentional attempt to personally blame and prosecute Trump for budget cuts.  Not only has the MOW organization where I volunteer seen a 20% uptick in private donations, but, as Investor’s Business Daily noted:

[T]his fake budget-cutting story ended up revealing how programs like Meals on Wheels can survive without federal help. As soon as the story started to spread, donations began pouring into Meals on Wheels. In two days, the charity got more than $100,000 in donations – 50 times more than they’d normally receive. Clearly, individuals are ready, willing and eager to support this program once they perceive a need. Isn’t this how charity is supposed to work, with people donating their own time, money and resources to causes they feel are important, rather than sitting back and expecting the federal government to do it for them?

Moral of the story?  Americans can be assured, without any doubt, that the media purveyors of fake news will go to every effort to exploit and distort President Trump’s policymaking decisions for the purpose of hysterical extortion.  And as the Investor’s Business Daily editors noted, “Why bother reporting facts when you can make up a story[?]”

As the Meals on Wheels  organization found out, fake news is big business; in fact, it’s a profitable business, especially when it comes to raising funds without even lifting a finger, sending out donor requests, or making a phone call.  All non-profit fund developers, please take note.

Several weeks ago, mainstream media ratcheted up the national hysteria meter shortly after President Trump’s first draft of his 2018 budget was released.

CNN was first, announcing, “The preliminary outline for President Donald Trump’s 2018 budget could slash some funding for a program that provides meals for older, impoverished Americans.”  Automatically and in harmony, the rest of the alphabet network cabal jumped on the bandwagon, going so far as to announce that seniors across America would starve to death, thanks to President Trump.  Adding to the maelstrom, Meals on Wheels national spokeswoman Jenny Bertolette said, “It is difficult to imagine a scenario in which they will not be significantly and negatively impacted if the President’s budget were [sic] enacted.”  Was it difficult for Ms. Bertolette to imagine the forthcoming windfall bestowed upon Meals on Wheels, thanks in part to fake news reporting?  

First, and in the interest of full disclosure, I am a regular, weekly volunteer at Meals on Wheels (MOW) in the city where I live.  I believe that it’s important to divulge this information for two reasons: 1) I was inundated with questions from and asked for my opinion by family and friends, who are aware of my MOW association, and 2) I took the time to point-blank ask the fund developer (a paid staff member) at the MOW kitchen where I volunteer if there is actually any shred of truth to what the media were reporting.  I also did some in-depth research about Meals on Wheels funding, not only on the national level, but locally, too.

Of course, and as it is with most hysterical news these days, the truth can usually be found somewhere in the fine print, twisted in translation, or buried at the bottom of the page.

This particular episode of fake news hysteria was born out of the preliminary 2018 budget draft, in which Trump proposed to trim the pork-riddled program at the Department of Housing Development – specifically, the Community Development Block Grants program, which does provide a fraction of funding for some Meals on Wheels groups across the country.

It’s important to note that not all MOW kitchens receive these funds, as I found out when I visited with the fund developer where I volunteer.  As a matter of fact, the MOW kitchen in my city receives absolutely no community block grant funding.  It does receive about 7% of its annual funding from a local non-profit community group that raises funds year round and then portions out those funds to numerous non-profits across the city.  The rest (93%) of the MOW annual budget is derived from the direct sales of meals, private donors, corporate grants, food vendors (who donate food/funds or both), and an annual, local fund raising event during the December holiday season.

Investor’s Business Daily editors provided a detailed and more accurate explanation:

What Trump’s budget does propose is cutting is the corruption-prone Community Development Block Grant program, run out of Housing and Urban Development. Some, but not all, state and local governments use a tiny portion of that grant money, at their own discretion, to “augment funding for Meals on Wheels,” according to the statement. … So what’s really going on? As Meals on Wheels America explained, some Community Development Block Grant money does end up going to some of the local Meals on Wheels programs. But it’s a small amount. HUD’s own website shows that just 1% of CDBG grant money goes to the broad category of “senior services.” And 0.17% goes to “food banks.” … All of this information was easily available to anyone reporting on this story, or anyone commenting on it, which would have prevented the false claims about the Meals on Wheels program from spreading in the first place. But why bother reporting facts when you can make up a story…?

Surprisingly, and as it applies to the media-fueled “starving senior apocalypse” across America, Meals on Wheels has been the inadvertent winner, thanks to the intentional attempt to personally blame and prosecute Trump for budget cuts.  Not only has the MOW organization where I volunteer seen a 20% uptick in private donations, but, as Investor’s Business Daily noted:

[T]his fake budget-cutting story ended up revealing how programs like Meals on Wheels can survive without federal help. As soon as the story started to spread, donations began pouring into Meals on Wheels. In two days, the charity got more than $100,000 in donations – 50 times more than they’d normally receive. Clearly, individuals are ready, willing and eager to support this program once they perceive a need. Isn’t this how charity is supposed to work, with people donating their own time, money and resources to causes they feel are important, rather than sitting back and expecting the federal government to do it for them?

Moral of the story?  Americans can be assured, without any doubt, that the media purveyors of fake news will go to every effort to exploit and distort President Trump’s policymaking decisions for the purpose of hysterical extortion.  And as the Investor’s Business Daily editors noted, “Why bother reporting facts when you can make up a story[?]”

As the Meals on Wheels  organization found out, fake news is big business; in fact, it’s a profitable business, especially when it comes to raising funds without even lifting a finger, sending out donor requests, or making a phone call.  All non-profit fund developers, please take note.



Source link