Monthly Archives: August 2022

Dear Editor:

From the 1700s through Jan. 6, our unorganized paramilitary groups have a poor track-record of meeting the intent of a well-regulated militia.

The next clause, being necessary for the security of a free State, makes it clear that risks were evident in the founders era, that states rights needed to be accommodated and secured.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed drumbeat has created a powerful lobby, an accommodating arms industry, which together, and in concert with targeted political rhetoric, has driven many to focus solely on this clause, and to armor up. It has also empowered mentally unstable, largely lone wolves, to wreak havoc.

Per the Constitution, Congress can provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining militias. And for each state to appoint their officers and have the authority to train their militias within congressional guidelines.

Not to the professional level, but with specific training, including attitudinal indoctrination, to systematically equip members with the tools needed to combat hate and discrimination, and to evaluate and critique online toxic propaganda. Each militia a team, promoting guardrails, watching for outliers.

Members of the Armed Forces and the National Guard, relieved of active duty, get your militia card, and keep and bear. Citizens, until the sign-up is implemented, no changes to arms acquisition. After which, patriots must first join before arming.

Were worried about troubled citizens, medically or emotionally shaky. Militias would provide an inclusive environment, dedicated to our states and nation. Will there be incidents? No doubt. Problems will arise and adjustments needed. But with the right approach, those who may stray toward the fringes just may have comrades who, seeing troublesome signs, have Got Your 6, and raise a flag.

The SCOTUS (5-4) ruling in the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm for self-defense, unconnected with militia service, minimized the first clauses, aka the prefatory.

Why cant Congress and each state implement the whole of the amendment?

Perhaps the idea of militias is worrying?

David Trigg

Ellsworth

Read the rest here:
Implementing all of the Second Amendment - The Ellsworth American

The Supreme Court last monthstruck down a New York lawthat effectively prohibited ordinary citizens from carrying handguns in public for self-defense.

As some New Yorkers joined gun control activists in decrying the decision as making them less safe, one young woman explained how, for her, the high courts opinion meant she was one step closer to sleeping soundly for the first time in months.

Laura Adkins, a liberal journalist living in New York City,described how, after a recent breakup, her ex-partners increasingly obsessive and harassing behavior made her fear for her life despite the temporary order of protection she got.

For weeks, Adkins said, she slept with a sheathed hunting knife under her pillow, fully aware that it would offer little protection against a man twice her size, but knowing she had few other readily available options for defending herself given the citys incredibly restrictive laws on handgun possession.

Despite her belief ingun control, Adkins came to understand that good policy is not just about preventing dangerous individuals from owning firearms. It also should empower vulnerable citizens to protect themselves.

Now, Adkins wants a gun. And she wants to carry it in public.

Adkins is not alone in this changed perspective. In the past two years,millions of Americanshave bought a firearm for the first time, many for the same reasons as Adkins: Theyve come to understand that the right to keep and bear arms offers the most meaningful defense of their inalienable rights.

Almost every major study on the issue has found that Americans use their firearms in self-defense between500,000 and 3 milliontimes annually, according to the most recent report on the subject by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

For this reason, The Daily Signal each month publishes an article highlighting some of the previous months many news stories on defensive gun use that you may have missedor that might not have made it to the national spotlight in the first place. (Read otheraccounts herefrom 2019, 2020, 2021, and so far in 2022.)

The examples below represent only a small portion of the news stories on defensive gun use that we found in June. You may explore more by using The Heritage Foundations interactiveDefensive Gun Use Database.(The Daily Signal is the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation.)

These stories underscore the reality that Adkins helps illustrate: The Second Amendment belongs to everyone, in every part of the country, facing any type of imminent threat to life, liberty, or property. And we dont always know when our otherwise peaceful lives will be interrupted by serious danger.

The Second Amendment helps ensure thatall potential victimswhether a 93-year-old widower in California defending his home, a father in rural Kentucky protecting his daughters, or a young woman in New York City afraid of her ex-partnerhave not just the theoretical right but the practical ability to act in self-defense when faced with sudden threats.

To Adkins and every other New Yorker on the cusp of exercising your constitutional rights for the first time: Let us be the first to say, Welcome.

This piece originally appeared in The Daily Signal

Excerpt from:
Second Amendment Protects Everyone, as 12 Examples of Defensive Gun Use Show - Heritage.org

AMAC Exclusive By Andrew Abbott

Ahead of the 2022 midterm elections, with rising violent crime a top concern for voters, the vast majority of Democrats are now working overtime to distance themselves from their prior support for the Defund the Police movement. Increasingly, however, it appears that theyre linking this professed newfound support for law enforcement to another pillar of Democrats far-left agenda gun control.

After backlash to the defund movement contributed to dozens of House Democrats losing or facing closer-than-expected races in 2020, the party slowly began changing its tune on policing. While some, like Missouri Congresswoman Cori Bush, have continued their calls for dismantling police departments, the White House and Democratic leadership are now saying that they in fact support police and have always supported police even accusing Republicans, who spent all of 2020 and 2021 vigorously defending police from attacks by left-wing politicians and news outlets, of not supporting them.

As Axios reported late last month, Democratic candidates in Ohio, Georgia, Florida, and other states are spotlighting law enforcement to boost their credibility on fighting crime. Party strategists are now privately admitting that the defund debate damaged Democrats reputation on crime, and many fear a voter perception that Democrats dont recognize the problem with violent crime and dont respect the role police play in keeping communities safe.

But as part of their effort to mask their complete reversal of position when it comes to support for police, many Democratsincluding Biden himselfhave attempted to make the issue of rising crime about guns rather than policing, implying that support for the Second Amendment is incompatible with support for law enforcement.

Take, for example, a recent ad aired by a group aligned with Stacey Abrams, the Democratic gubernatorial nominee in Georgia. In the 30-second spot, a man identified as a former Deputy Sheriff accuses incumbent Republican Governor Brian Kemp of making us less safe for signing a constitutional carry bill into law earlier this year. The ad accuses Kemp of making it easier for criminals to carry loaded guns in public, at the movies, in church. The implication is that by signing the law, which allows Georgians who arent otherwise prohibited from owning a firearm to concealed carry without submitting to a tedious and sometimes expensive permitting process, Kemp is undermining public safety and making it more difficult for police to do their jobs.

Notably, however, more than 100 sheriffs have endorsed Kemps reelection bid, and the sitting governor has broad support from the law enforcement community. Abrams, who now proclaims to support pay raises for police, has in the past called for reallocating police resources. Moreover, Abrams still sits on the board of the Marguerite Casey Foundation, a group that has supported defunding and abolishing the police.

Abrams is far from the only Democrat attempting to employ this strategy. At the federal level, Democrats in Congress led by vulnerable incumbents like Abigail Spanberger of Virginia and Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey have pushed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to pass a number of supposed police funding bills that are intended to lend credence to Democrat claims to support law enforcement. But these efforts have all been tied to greater gun control measures, sending a clear message that Democrats view the two issues as inextricably connected.

The White House, meanwhile, has introduced a new initiative called the Safer America Plan, which purportedly increases funding for law enforcement. Once again, however, support for police is tied to gun control measures. In a fact sheet on the plan released by the White House, Biden calls for requiring background checks for all gun sales and banning so-called assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

But as Republicans have long pointed out, Democrats assertion that restricting gun ownership will automatically lead to less crime isnt supported by the facts. As economist John Lott argued in his work More Guns, Less Crime, empirical evidence actually points to the opposite conclusion. Recent examples, like the shooting at a mall in Greenwood, Indiana, where an armed bystander stopped a mass shooting in progress, also support the idea that responsible gun ownership can be an effective crime deterrent. A similar case occurred in West Virginia in May, when an armed woman stopped a man firing indiscriminately into a crowd at a birthday party. These incidents are just two of at least 21 such cases since the start of 2020. As Republicans continue to point out, laws making it more difficult for Americans to own and carry firearms wont stop criminals from doing so but will stop law-abiding Americans interested in protecting themselves and their families.

At the same time, even as they work to restrict legal gun ownership, Democrats seem to have largely given up on prosecuting illegal gun ownership. New York Citys stop and frisk policy was originally designed in large part to get illegal guns off the street, and was quite successful at doing so yet former mayor Bill de Blasio ended the practice anyway. Democrat soft-on-crime prosecutors have also allowed criminals caught with illegal guns back out onto the streets, in some cases to commit more gun crimes.

Democrats and the mainstream media, meanwhile, have construed Republican opposition to gun control measures as evidence that the GOP in fact does not support police, attempting to completely flip the script on the popular perception of the two parties records on public safety. As American communities continue to suffer the tragic consequences of the lefts two-year war on law enforcement, however, Democrats complicity in their suffering will be a difficult memory to erase.

Andrew Abbott is the pen name of a writer and public affairs consultant with over a decade of experience in DC at the intersection of politics and culture.

We hope you've enjoyed this article. While you're here, we have a small favor to ask...

Support AMAC Action. Our 501 (C)(4) advances initiatives on Capitol Hill, in the state legislatures, and at the local level to protect American values, free speech, the exercise of religion, equality of opportunity, sanctity of life, and the rule of law.

More here:
Democrats Lame Attempt to Flip the Narrative on Crime: Claiming 2nd Amendment is Anti-Police - AMAC

PRESS RELEASERegulated information

Paris, 4 August 2022, 6 pm

Availability of the second amendment to the 2022 Universal Registration Document

Societe Generale hereby informs the public that the second amendment to the 2022 Universal Registration Document filed on 9th March 2022 under number D.22-0080, has been filed with the French Financial Markets Authority (AMF) on 4th August 2022 under number D-22-0080-A02.

This document is made available to the public, free of charge, in accordance with the conditions provided for by the regulations in force and may be consulted in the Regulated information section of the Companys website (https://investors.societegenerale.com/en/financial-and-non-financial-information/regulated-information) and on the AMFs website.

Press contact:

Jean-Baptiste Froville_+33 1 58 98 68 00_ jean-baptiste.froville@socgen.comFanny Rouby_+33 1 57 29 11 12_ fanny.rouby@socgen.com

Societe Generale

Active in the real economy for over 150 years, with a solid position in Europe and connected to the rest of the world, Societe Generale has over 117,000 members of staff in 66 countries and supports on a daily basis 25 million individual clients, businesses and institutional investors around the world by offering a wide range of advisory services and tailored financial solutions. The Group is built on three complementary core businesses:

Societe Generale is included in the principal socially responsible investment indices: DJSI (Europe), FTSE4Good (Global and Europe), Bloomberg Gender-Equality Index, Refinitiv Diversity and Inclusion Index, Euronext Vigeo (Europe and Eurozone), STOXX Global ESG Leaders indexes, and the MSCI Low Carbon Leaders Index (World and Europe). In case of doubt regarding the authenticity of this press release, please go to the end of Societe Generales newsroom page where official Press Releases sent by Societe Generale can be certified using blockchain technology. A link will allow you to check the documents legitimacy directly on the web page.

For more information, you can follow us on Twitter @societegenerale or visit our website http://www.societegenerale.com.

Original post:
Societe Generale: Availability of the second amendment to the 2022 Universal Registration Document - Marketscreener.com

Chris Pritt owns his own law practice,Pritt Law, where he specializes in divorce, custody arguments and child support. But standing before the state legislature in West Virginia, his argument was a linguistic pretzel to justify eliminating all child support for the parent who gets custody of a child.

According to Pritt, there are fathers who don't want to be involved in the lives of their children.

"If she carries through with the pregnancy, he's going to have, possibly, some sort of child support obligation," said Pritt. "And, so, what he wants to do is, he wants to in a sense encourage her to go and find a way for her to get an abortion. Because he knows that a certain individual if he has any kind if familiarity with her, he knows that she might be of such a state of mind, she must be in such a vulnerable position that it's not worth everything that he's going to put me through to carry this pregnancy forward. It's going to be easier, it's going to be better, for me to just go and terminate this 'life.' So she goes over to Virginia or to some other state where she goes and gets the abortion. So, I think that's a really clear possibility if we enact the Second Amendment here, I don't want to be doing anything that is encouraging thugs to go and get an abortion."

"So, I think that's a really clear possibility if we enact the second amendment here, I don't want to be doing anything that is encouraging thugs to go and get an abortion," he said, referring to the second and competing amendment toHouse Bill 302.

See the video below:

Go here to read the rest:
WV GOPer wants to ban child support because it may lead to abortions - Salon

Republican Peter Lumaj is running to represent Connecticut in the U.S. Senate and has unsuccessfully run for statewide office three times.

Lumaj, 55, of Fairfield, is running for statewide office for the fourth time in 10 years. He dropped out of a Senate race before the primary in 2012, launched a campaign as the GOP nominee for secretary of state in 2014 and failed to qualify for a gubernatorial primary in 2018.

With a masters degree in law, Lumaj provides immigration services in New York, where he says he also invests in real estate with family.

During the 2018 race for governor, Lumaj told a Republican town committee he rejected an offer by the Trump administration to return to Albania as the U.S. ambassador, a claim the administration declined to confirm or deny.

Lumaj is an opponent of abortion and said he would not vote to codify reproductive rights in federal law.

He refused to say whether he would have voted for a gun safety bill Congress passed in response to the Uvalde, Texas, school shooting that requires enhanced background checks for gun buyers under age 21, among other things.

Pressed for an answer about how he would have voted, he repeatedly riffed on myriad aspects of gun control and crime, never quite landing on an answer.

We need to go after illegal guns in this country, he said. And if there are mental illnesses and problems of people out there, we should absolutely go after these things. On the other hand, the Second Amendment is the Second Amendment. I believe in the Second Amendment. And the reason why I believe in that, my family was persecuted severely in the country that we didnt have a Second Amendment.

Lumaj opposed giving permanent legal status to the 800,000 young adults living in a legal limbo for a decade under DACA, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.

Lumaj said he would support arming teachers, if they were trained.

Lumaj is a fan of Trump and free enterprise who views opponent Leora Levy as a conservative poseur, opponent Themis Klarides as an establishment Republican, and Blumenthal and Democrats as threats to capitalism.

Im a true conservative. I believe in God, family and country. I believe in the Constitution. I believe in the founding documents of this country, Lumaj said. Im pro life, Im pro Second Amendment. And these are things that I bring to the table that no one else does.

Lumaj has zinged fellow senate GOP candidates Themis Klarides and Leora Levy, as well as Sen. Richard Blumenthal.

During the senate GOP primary debate on July 26, Lumaj claimed to be the only true conservative. Im not afraid to be a Republican, he said.

When Klarides suspended active campaigning to mourn the death of her 89-year-old mother, Lumaj urged an end to attacks on her at least until after the funeral.

Klarides and Levy have largely ignored Lumaj, though Levy has suggested that, of herself and Lumaj, theres only room for onein the primary.

At the debate, Klarides central argument was that Lumaj (and Levy) may be more conservative, but are not electable in a state that last elected a Republican senator in 1982.

More here:
Who is Peter Lumaj? Conservative running for U.S. Senate in CT - The Connecticut Mirror

Commentary

Free speech is under assault.

Yes, The Epoch Times was wrongly censored on Twitter.

But thats only a symptom. The problem goes so much deeper.

This isnt a revelatory statement, nor is it particularly controversial. Any honest individual, regardless of political leanings, will admit as much. The only people who would argue otherwise are either a) the ones who are doing the censoring or b) those who disagree with the viewpoints that are being censored, and, therefore, see no problem.

For the most part, we primarily know the motivations of the people in the first category: they are actively curating the news to support their specific political narrative, which provides a pretext for justifying their own hold on power.

But it is those who fall into the second category that are actually the more worrying ones. They often have been convinced that the views they disagree with arent just a difference in perspective or analysis, but rather that the opposition poses a real and tangible threat to themselves and others.

Once you can get someone to go along with that proposition, theres no limit to where you can lead them.

In reality, though, the two groups are inextricable from one another, and the former is primarily responsible for the existence of the latter.

It isnt enough to make the obvious statement that the majority of news outlets operate from a specific political bias. It needs to be understood that the process of information distribution is in itself a tool of control by those who seek to maintain authority over us.

What follows is a barebones explanation of how maintaining authority works:

The U.S. government is dominated by an unelected bureaucracy (e.g., the State Department, executive and regulatory agencies, the intelligence bureaus, high-ranking military officers, etc.) that seeks to aggrandize and consolidate their own positions.

At the same time, they are heavily influenced by specific interest groups (e.g., contractors, business conglomerates, nongovernmental organizations, academia, and think tanks). One only needs to look at the revolving door between senior intelligence officials and military leaders with high-level positions at weapons manufacturers, private intelligence groups, and government-affiliated multinational corporations, to get a picture of that cycle of succession.

In addition, Congress works in conjunction with, and is often beholden to, these groups. In this way, legislators are able to secure electoral support and financial backing in return for voting the right way, presenting advantageous policy, and ensuring favorable oversight.

All of the above works both explicitly and implicitly in conjunction with corporate media to present a specific picture of the world thats conducive to a larger political agenda.

Unsurprisingly, that agenda just so happens to accrue substantial benefits, in terms of both money and power, to the various players involved in this process. The entire apparatus is thereby able to create, direct, and alter public support, often for positions or initiatives that the population would otherwise be hesitant to support.

Thats what President Dwight Eisenhower was alluding to in his 1961 farewell address, when he warned Americans of the military-industrial complex. Others may also be familiar with the concept of the iron triangle, which is the policy-making relationship among congressional committees, the bureaucracy, and interest groups.

The Epoch Times has provided one of the most impressive accounts of this phenomenon through its various correspondence with retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynnone of the few who was able to see firsthand into the depths of this anti-American underworld, experience its depravity and corruption, and live to tell the tale. If you watch only one thing this week, watch the Aug. 1episode of Facts Matter with Roman Balmakov, which does a deep dive into the issue.

It should begin to become clear why the rise of Donald Trump, a political outsider reliant on no one and beholden to no one, was such a threat to the American status quo. It also logically implies why the forces of entrenched power that currently pull the strings in places such as Washington, New York, and even Brussels responded as they did to his candidacy, presidency, andshould it come to behis candidacy once again.

For the entire process of political control to be viable, one necessary condition must be present: an acquiescent population that is either actively in support of a policy agenda or ignorant of what is actually going on. Corporate media and large newspapers in major metropolitan areas previously held a monopoly on information distribution. No more.

The rise of the internet, social media, podcasting, and streaming blew up the old business modelnot only for those who deliver the news but also, more importantly, for those who create it.

For the first time, it became possible to truly understand the moral and ethical bankruptcy of those who wield institutional power over us. We understood that our political ruling class was not, nor previously had been, acting in the interests of the American people.

As it turns out, the exact opposite was often the case.

More than that, it became apparent that those of us who didnt buy into the narrative being professed by our corrupt rulers werent alone. Individuals who had well-articulated viewpoints, but didnt agree with the reigning orthodoxy, suddenly had a way to make our voices heard, and people who it would resonate with.

The increasing hunger for news that wasnt just a propaganda mouthpiece of interest groups in Washington paved the way for outlets such as The Epoch Times. Likewise, so did the desire for politicians who didnt have to live under the yoke of interest groups and pretend to support the radical ideology of the urban elite. We were just waiting for a self-sufficient patriot to walk into the breach.

Enter Trump and the Make America Great Again movement.

But if you think that the malicious self-serving power-holders endemic to our system of government were going to simply sit back and allow this to happen, you were wrong.

The constant attack on not only Trump but also anyone who wasnt actively burning an effigy of Trump in their front yard became a staple of the nations political discourse. The intent of all liberal mainstream media coverage became to attack the 45thpresident as an illegitimate figure motivated by hate.

This has been the story since Day One. We saw it from the moment Trump came down the escalator in Trump Tower, up until now, and on to the indefinite future: through the stolen election lie, the Russian collusion lie, the very fine people lie, the quid-pro-quo lie, the ongoing insurrection lie (manifested in both another impeachment and the present show trial of the Jan. 6 commission), and undoubtedly into countless lies in the future.

Is this article meant to be an ode to Trump? No. Its only to say that Trump clearly was (and is) the most pressing threat to business as usual for the U.S. ruling class. Everything was a deflection on the part of the latter from that they were desperately losing their grip on power, and had to subsequently manipulate the American people to maintain narrative control.

Just like with Trump, the attack on particular media that didnt stick to the prescribed script had to be heightened. Dissenting viewpoints became equal to hate speech. Disagreeing with the government approach to the COVID-19 virus or medical treatment options became paramount to killing fellow citizens. The list of censorship is endless, but the point here is only to say that we in America have been blessed, thanks to our rights enshrinedin the First Amendment.

The people who are in favor of ceding their rights due to scientific consensus or hate speech unknowingly advance the cause of authoritarianism; they do this under the grounds that, ironically, free speech is actually a threat to freedom. Thats how you get individuals such as Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)saying that Canada is freer than the United States.

Canada seemingly has become more or less an authoritarian regime in its crackdown on free speech and peaceful protest. This conception of freedom that leftists refer to is defined by a centralized government authority forcefully mandating their accepted radical ideology, while eliminating all contrary viewpoints; the latter is necessarily equated with harming other individuals in order to morally justify the suppression.

Thats obviously contrary to the concept of freedom that the United States was founded upon, in which freedom of conscience is unalienable, even if (perhaps especially if) someone is offended by its expression. And thank God. One only needs to look across the pond and recount a UK veteran being arrestedrecently by a group of police officers for reposting a meme that poked fun at the ruling classs LGBT ideological orthodoxy.

Anyone in the United States should justifiably be shocked by the scenario. Yet, we should also take solace in the fact that our wise founders foresaw this exact progression. They knew that free speech was so integral to any free society that they made it the most prominently presented, and firmly enshrined, right when laying down the foundations of this society. They also knew that it would, subsequently, be the first target for anyone who would seek to upend that society, and end that God-given freedom.

The First Amendment is absolutely, unequivocally essential, and must remain uninfringed upon for this republic to survive.

And that, of course, is why the founders immediately followed it with the Second Amendment.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

Follow

Dominick Sansone is a PhD student at the Hillsdale College Van Andel Graduate School of Statesmanship. He is a regular contributor to The Epoch Times, and has additionally been published at The American Conservative, The Federalist, and the Washington Examiner.

Read the original post:
Long Live the First Amendment, Now and Forever - The Epoch Times