Monday, January 7, 2019


 Russell Moore, of the SBC’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
If you don’t think the American Evangelical Intelligentsia would sell their birthright for a bit of peace and prosperity, you don’t know them. They are sniveling, weak, effeminate men without spinal columns, courage, or guts. They are shells of humanity, with the good stuff taken out and replaced with cream puffery.
When Pulpit & Pen discovered that the National Association of Evangelicals had secretly embraced an expansion of gay rights in exchange for promises of religious liberty, I thought I couldn’t see much worse. And then I saw the information I’m about to give to you and I saw that, as always, it could get much, much worse.
Let me give you a disclaimer. Of all my years following Russell Moore, the ERLC, and the progressive-liberal intellectuals who are subversively driving evangelicalism to the hard-left, this might be the worst thing I have seen to date. And given my knowledge of the ERLC and their chicanery, that’s saying something.
Coming across my Google alerts, I saw an article by Richard Ostling which highlighted what I feel to be the most over-looked news story of 2018. On November 29, a group of evangelicals led by the SBC’s Russell Moore and the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) president, Leith Anderson, joined with a group of non-Christians and cultists in the name of religious liberty. These include Seventh Day Adventists, Marc Stern of the American Jewish Committee, various Roman Catholics, Buddhists, Sikhs, and Hindus. Also partnering with Russell Moore and the NAE are President Sayyid Syeed of the Islamic Society of North America and Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, co-founder of Zaytuna College, Islam’s first accredited liberal arts college in America.
As Ostling points out in his article, the typical mainstream denomination leftists you would expect to lead the way in such ecumenical enterprises haven’t even signed onto the document yet. But Russell Moore and the NAE are leading the way.
Ostling points out that the document takes no stance on important ethical issues:
The charter has won a notably varied list of initial endorsers because it purposely avoids taking stands on the “sometimes bitter debates” over how to apply these principles, in particular clashes between religious traditionalists and the LGBTQ community. Think Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado. Says the charter, “although it is not always possible to uphold both non-discrimination and religious liberty claims in particular cases, both claims should be taken seriously, and both sides should seek common ground.”
What the “American Charter on Freedom of Religion and Conscience” does is – like the NAE document reported on earlier today – surrender our rights to act according to our religion for the concession to merely ideologically hold to our religion. It’s nothing short of treasonous.
The document basically says, “Make us do anything you want, as long as you let us believe what we want.”
The five-thousand-word document is available via pdf here.
The goal of the document, according to its introduction, is everything you would expect a feckless, cowering, ecumenical claptrap would be:
Their aim is to restore civility to public discourse on religion and freedom of religion and conscience in America; explore the meaning and value of freedom of religion and conscience as a foundation of American democracy and national and global prosperity; and build a multi-faith, non-partisan coalition working to affirm freedom of religion and conscience as a vital safeguard for people of all faiths and none.
The document’s goal is to promote a form of globalism by gutting America of its theological underpinnings, minimizing its Christian heritage and over-emphasizing its committment to pluralism. The document reads:

In a world of strong and undeniable diversity, all imposed absolutisms, coercive universalisms, and movements of religious and secular ideological cleansing are the open enemies of freedom, equality, and justice for all.
The document seems to emphasize secularism, and goes well beyond supporting a separation of church and state.
I’ve read this document thoroughly, and let me tell you, there is a 100% reason to assume that the signers of this statement – from everything written therein – would support both gay marriage and abortion in the name of “religious freedom.” Zero doubt…none.
No doubt the Islamists eagerly signed onto the documents because of statements like this one:

We are opposed, therefore, to any governmental policy that would discriminate against individuals or groups based on their religion. Likewise, we reject rhetoric and actions by governmental leaders and others that demonize individuals or faith communities based on their religion or that hold entire faith groups collectively responsible for the evil deeds of a few.
What’s in view, probably, would be policies like that threatened by President Trump, which would place a temporary moratorium on immigrants from primarily Islamic nations who want to destroy the United States. We know what side Russell Moore and the Soros-funded Evangelical Immigration Table were on in that debate, and they’re the same ones signing this document.
The document places oppressive religions like Islam in the same category as Christianity and credits them all with equal contributions to the American way of life:
In America, religion helped to spur the abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, and the Civil Rights Movement. We also acknowledge, however, that some have at times used religious claims in support of prejudice, oppression, or violence. But the majority of individuals and communities motivated by faith have provided an overall thrust in America toward grassroots civic renewal and progress. Throughout our history, people of faith have empowered robust charitable giving and caring, essential educational institutions and initiatives, and vigorous political criticism and reform. These acts of kindness, charity, and service have unleashed the power of social innovation and entrepreneurship and have enriched our civic life immeasurably.
The document is clearly the most ecumenical document I’ve ever read, and perhaps has ever been attempted in the history of man. It reads:
It does not attempt to ground unity and civility in enforced conformity concerning the substance of particular religious or secular doctrines. Rather, this covenant secures unity and civility on the basis of voluntary agreement on foundational moral and political principles—principles of human dignity and human rights.
Let me ask you, Christian reader, from where comes our belief in human rights? Is it not in the Imago Dei? Is that not a uniquely Christian doctrine altogether unshared by Buddhists or Sikhs? From where comes the concept of morality? Can you acquire morality without theism? Is there a “secular” foundation of ethics? If there was a coherent foundation of secular ethics, could Christians ever agree as to what was in substance ethical?
Refuse. Utter refuse.
The document has the gall to quote Jefferson, Madison, the Federalist Papers, and Alexis De Tocqueville. Ostensibly, this is to send the message to the undiscerning reader that their statement is just a continuance of some grand American tradition. It is not. This document is a great betrayal of the grand American tradition.
According to Tocqueville, America’s committment to Christianity is responsible for its national exceptionalism, saying, “There is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility and of its conformity to human nature than that its influence is powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth.”
He continued:
The safeguard of morality is religion, and morality is the best security of law as well as the surest pledge of freedom.
The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other.
Christianity is the companion of liberty in all its conflicts-the cradle of its infancy, and the divine source of its claims.
Alexis De Tocqueville
This, of course, is precisely the opposite sentiment of this horrible ecumenical document.
What the American Charter document demonstrates is that for Russell Moore and the Evangelical Intelligentsia, there are no limits on ecumenism. They will hold hands with anyone and everyone in the name of living a little bit longer under an oppressive globalist regime they’re personally helping to empower.
[Editor’s Note: Contributed by JD Hall]

 Planned Parenthood billboard Iowa
 planned parenthood iowa billboard
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
DES MOINES, Iowa — Planned Parenthood of the Heartland has announced that it has launched a billboard campaign in an effort to put faces to women who have had an abortion and aren’t sorry for it.
“I had an abortion, and I am not ashamed,” “I had an abortion, and I am not apologizing for it” and “I had an abortion, and it was just health care” the billboards read, and feature the faces of three women who ended the life of their unborn child.
The campaign is called #SayAbortion, and is meant to counter a bill that was passed last year that would ban abortion whenever a heartbeat is detected. The legislation has yet to be enacted as it is under injunction due to a lawsuit from Planned Parenthood.
“Planned Parenthood envisions a culture where abortion access is understood as a basic human right, an essential part of healthcare and a normal part of life,” Jill Meadows, the medical director for Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, said in a statement.
“Abortion is incredibly common, yet too often people who have abortions are made to feel like they can’t talk about it, or when they do speak up their stories and voices drowned out by the politics,” she remarked. “With the #SayAbortion campaign, we are putting a stop to the extreme anti-choice interest groups speaking over our patients.”
Planned Parenthood additionally outlines in its press release that “#SayAbortion is rooted in the fundamental facts that access to safe, legal abortion care is central to reproductive health, and that bodily autonomy is critical to achieving full equality.”
Billboards have currently been purchased in Des Moines, with advertisements also set to be displayed in Ames, Cedar Falls, Cedar Rapids, Council Bluffs and Iowa City.
Planned Parenthood has also set up a website for its #SayAbortion campaign, which includes videos of the women talking about their views on abortion and sharing their stories as to why they chose to abort.
“I want people to be able to talk about their abortions like they talk about their colonoscopies,” said campaign participant Rachel Goss. “[It’s] not something everybody wants to do, but sometimes we have to make decisions for our bodies or our health—mental health or physical health, whatever it is—to make us full, whole human beings.”
She stated that she personally obtained an abortion because she was single, in school and making minimum wage, and that it “was just not realistic” to be a mother at the time.
“If I would have been forced to raise a baby, I know for sure I wouldn’t be a nurse,” also said interviewee Amanda Hammon. “I wouldn’t have probably any of the kids that I have now. I probably wouldn’t have experienced the real joys of motherhood that are there. I probably would have been overwhelmed [and] stressed. … I look at my children now, and think I wouldn’t have any of them had I made a different decision.”
As previously reported, in the 1992 ruling of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, a Reagan appointee, opined in support of the availability of abortion, “The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.”
However, others note that a woman’s choice is made when she willingly chooses to engage in reproductive activity, and after a life is created from that decision, it is too late to undo the choice.
“[D]on’t forget that in 99% of all abortions, the woman having the abortion chose to have sexual intercourse. Therefore, it could just as easily be argued that these women already made their choice when they chose to engage in behavior that often leads to pregnancy,” writes the site
“Men and women are free to choose to abstain from sex or to use birth control or to do neither. But when a woman is pregnant, the choice she has made has produced a new human being. As one woman has pointed out: ‘After a woman is pregnant, she cannot choose whether or not she wishes to become a mother. She already is, and since the child is already present in her womb, all that is left to her to decide is whether she will deliver her baby dead or alive.'”
“Once the baby is born, the woman is again free to choose: She can keep the child or give him up for adoption. The choice pro-lifers oppose is the choice that takes an innocent life.”
1 Thessalonians 4: 3-8 reads, “For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication, that every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honor, not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God. … For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness. He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us His Holy Spirit.”
Jeremiah 8:12 laments, “Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? Nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush.”
 Non-Doctors Should be Allowed to Murder the Unborn, Say’s Planned Parenthood
SEE:;  republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

[Life News] Planned Parenthood is suing to force Idaho to allow nurses and midwives to abort unborn babies.
The abortion giant and Legal Voice filed the lawsuit Dec. 14, challenging a state law that requires that abortions be performed by doctors, the Post Falls Press reports.
Idaho is not unusual. Currently, 42 states require that a licensed physician perform abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Abortion activists even acknowledged that these laws were passed to protect women’s health.
However, they now claim that the Idaho law is unconstitutional because it unnecessarily restricts women’s access to abortion. Citing research by pro-abortion activists, their lawsuit argues that nurse practitioners, nurse midwives and physician assistants can “safely and effectively” perform abortions, according to the report.
The lawsuit is a new strategy of the abortion industry, which is hurting for doctors willing to abort unborn babies. There are similar lawsuits challenging laws in Maine and Montana.
Here’s more from the report:
Under the current law, women often have to travel long distances within a narrow window of time in order to receive an abortion, [Kim Clark, a senior attorney with Legal Voice] and others behind the lawsuit say.
There are five abortion-providing facilities in Idaho, including three Planned Parenthood clinics in Twin Falls, Boise and Meridian. A shortage of physicians in Idaho, particularly in rural areas, exacerbates accessibility-related challenges, the lawsuit’s plaintiffs say.
If the statute were changed to let advanced practice clinicians perform abortions, the lawsuit’s plaintiffs say, existing clinics could offer abortion services more days a week, with the potential for additional new clinics to open. Ninety-five percent of Idaho counties do not have a clinic that provides abortions, with 68 percent of Idaho women living in those counties, according to data from 2014.
In 2015, California passed a law allowing non-doctors to abort unborn babies. The new law has put countless women and their unborn babies in jeopardy. One study found that abortions done by non-physicians were twice as likely to have complications as those done by licensed physicians.
This new matter is a way the abortion industry hopes to prop up its life-destroying business. Abortion rates are dropping and abortion clinics have been closing partly because fewer doctors are willing to abort unborn babies.
[Editor’s Note: This article was written by Micaiah Bilger and originally published at Life News]
 Planned Parenthood Launches 
#SayAbortion Campaign in Iowa 

Dr. Jill Meadows, medical director for Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, said in a statement:
Planned Parenthood envisions a culture where abortion access is understood as a basic human right, an essential part of health care and a normal part of life. We are amplifying the voices of real people who have had abortions, we are talking about abortion care out loud, and we are shifting the narrative so all people can talk openly about abortion with sensitivity to the complexity of real-life individual experiences.

Maggie DeWitte, executive director of Iowans for Life and a founding member of a coalition of anti-abortion groups, said of Planned Parenthood and the billboards: “They are trying to bolster a larger movement in Iowa that they simply don’t have.”
She added, "Iowans care about families. They care about women, and they don’t want to see abortion in our state."
According to, abortion rates in Iowa have “tumbled more than 51 percent” in the past decade and 21 Planned Parenthood centers have closed between 2010 and 2017, leaving just eight remaining in the entire state. 
However, a Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa Poll last fall showed that 54 percent of Iowans believe abortion should be legal in most or all cases. 
 Russell Moore Takes Pelosi’s Side, Urges Trump 
to Give Away Your Taxes to Foreign Countries 
Amidst Shutdown
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
 President Donald J. Trump is resisting pressure to sign a Democrat-led House bill that would end the government shut-down but wouldn’t fund the border wall and would instead use tax dollars to fund abortions overseas. Russell Moore has recently joined with 24 other “faith leaders” to urge the president to not cut foreign welfare no matter what.
Moore, who also recently signed a statement in partnership with Muslims, Jews, Catholics, and Cultists claiming the apparent equality of all religions, signed this letter sent to the POTUS, begging him to continue funding “foreign assistance programs.”
Keep in mind that the current government shutdown has had a horrendous affect upon American farmers who rely upon the funding and expected payments by the USDA in exchange for their labor. Keep in mind the current government shutdown has adverse consequences on Americans in many different walks of life, and not just federal employees on holiday. While many feel the shutdown is necessary in order to strengthen our national sovereign borders, the delay of government funding still hurts.
Russell Moore and his associates in the liberal branch of evangelicalism have not gone to bat for you hurting Americans, urging Democrats in the House of Representatives to fund the border wall that was already approved by a lawful act of Congress. No, Moore and his associates have sent an aggressive letter to Donald Trump urging him to not help Americans, but remember to fund the same types of foreign aid that – in the past – have paid for abortions overseas.
According to CBN news, the letter was sent from Russell Moore, Leith Anderson (the president of the National Association of Evangelicals, which just officially agreed to an expansion of LGBTQ “rights”), NAR Apostle Sammy Rodriguez, former SBC President Ronnie Floyd, and others.
Most of the other signers are of the same Soros-funded and Soros-created group, Evangelical Immigration Table, of which Moore, Anderson, and Rodriguez are all members. And now, they’re pressuring the President to end the shutdown, even if it means funding the abortion provision bill by House Democrats.
Addressed to Trump, Pence, and National Security Advisor, John Bolton, the letter cited Jesus’ words from Luke in which Jesus said, “from everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded.”
The letter continued:
Our nation has been richly blessed, and we have the privilege and obligation to share some of those blessings with those in need around the world. We do this through our private missionary, development, and humanitarian programs. But our government also has an indispensable role to play in diplomacy and in poverty-focused assistance programs.
Of course, Moore, Rodriguez, and Anderson all represent powerful, influential, and wealthy evangelical groups that could spend millions of dollars on overseas poverty relief, should they be so inclined. The budget for the ERLC is 4 million dollars from the Cooperative Program of the SBC alone, not to mention the money passed under the table by leftist billionaires, James Riady and George Soros. Asking the government to fund foreign welfare but not asking them to secure our borders demonstrates the Beltway world these men live in.
The letter ended by expressing, “These programs help make the United States a great nation, and they also contribute to our security and continued prosperity.”
Of course, none of the aforementioned men are on record asking for a border wall to help our nation’s security and continued prosperity.
These evangelicals, led by Russell Moore, are tools of the Democratic left. Instead of lobbying Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer to urge them to end the government shutdown by funding previous congressional commitments – the border wall – they are insisting that Donald Trump end the shut down so he can continue using American tax dollars to strengthen every nation but America.
You can read the letter here.


 The National Red Flag Bill By Marco Rubio The Bill, S7, will be here: 
Red Flag Bill from LAST session of Congress: 
Gun Gripes #176: National Red Flag Laws
Published on Jan 14, 2019
"Bipartisan Background Checks Act 
of 2019"

 Rep. MikeThompson gets the ball rolling on imposing California-style citizen disarmament on the rest of the Republic as Gabby Giffords, Shannon Watts and Nancy Pelosi look on approvingly. (Congressman Mike Thompson/Facebook photo)

 House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif., center, speaks accompanied by gun violence victim former Rep. Gabby Giffords, left, Rep. Lucy McBath, D-Ga., and Shannon Watts, who founded Moms Demand Action, second from right, to announce the introduction of bipartisan legislation to expand background checks for sales and transfers of firearms, …

New ‘Bipartisan’ Gun Grab Built on Lies


SEE:; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

 U.S.A. – -( “The introduction of the bipartisan background checks bill in the House today marks a critical first step toward strengthening America’s gun laws and making our country a better place to live, work, study, worship and play,” Gabby Giffords claimed in a Tuesday press release. That brief statement holds two lies and a true threat that exposes another lie.

The first lie is that this latest assault on “shall not be infringed” is any kind of “first step.” NFA ’34, GCA ’68, FOPA ’86. The Brady Act, the Clinton gun ban, the Bush import ban, and thousands of state and municipal diktats later, and the gun-grabbers are still parroting old talking points like this one from 45 years ago:
“We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily — given the political realities — going to be very modest. . . . [W]e'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.”
Gabby’s second lie is that such checks will somehow make things “better.” No less an authority than the National Institute of Justice admitted in its “Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies”:
Effectiveness depends on the ability to reduce straw purchasing, requiring gun registration…
And that effectiveness would only apply to the “law-abiding,” of course.
Gabby then makes a true threat that exposes another lie: Yes, the gun-grabbers will never be satisfied until they control all guns, something Nancy Pelosi admitted when she inadvertently contradicted another old lie by advocating for a “slippery slope.” That’s something the antis had previously ridiculed as “gun lobby” paranoia.
So it’s hardly a surprise that the bill itself, starting with its purpose, is a lie:
The purpose of this Act is to utilize the current background checks process in the United States to ensure individuals prohibited from gun possession are not able to obtain firearms.
That’s an impossibility and they know it, as evidenced by Baltimore, Chicago, etc.  The very people causing most of the problems won’t be affected. How can a party running interference to allow (ensure) millions of illegal aliens to disperse throughout the country even pretend to be able to shut down a black market that will only grow more lethal under “progressive” rule?
Besides which, many of the acts of violence the “commonsense gun safety advocates” (another lie) exploit happened in spite of “background checks,” sometimes because signals had been ignored and others because information already obtained was withheld, first from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and then from a Freedom of information Act request that required a lawsuit to obtain compliance.
Then there’s the title of the bill, another lie, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, When used in this sense, “bipartisan” means:
specifically : marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties
A handful of rogue political opportunists does not a party make. In this case, Republicans who betrayed their oaths of office, Peter King, Brian K. Fitzpatrick, Brian J. Mast, Fred Upton and Christopher H. Smith, need to not only be known, but retired. The GOP needs to understand that it will need to provide better choices to gun owners if it expects to win a district. It won’t take too many losses for them to get the message and by not turning out the turncoats, there is no incentive to change. Doing otherwise is what has led us to this mess.
For now, the bill has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Expect to see great media fanfare as it advances through the stages to a floor vote, and then hold the Republican-controlled Senate’s feet to the fire.

And in the meantime, consider the greatest lie of all—that this is about “background checks.”

It’s not. It’s about ending private sales so government can identify gun owners and what they have.  
It's about setting the stage to take advantage of new edicts, like that idiot Marco Rubio’s proposed “red flag” bill, to enable and abet future confiscations.
Ditto for if they ever get that other “first step” passed, another “assault weapon” ban, they won’t need to guess who’s not complying, like they’ll currently have to with “bump stocks.”
Here’s how you can prove that’s the goal for yourself—if all Pelosi & Co. wanted was to make sure transfers were cleared and “prohibited persons” weren’t getting guns (through the system), they’d be proposing a system like BIDS, the Blind Identification Database System, which would green light a “good” transfer but then leave no record of who bought what. That proposal has been around for years, but the rice bowl gun groups appear to be vested in the status quo.
True, BIDS would still be a form of prior restraint “gun control,” so I would still oppose it. But inarguably, it would serve the same purpose as “universal” NICS without the danger of creating records that could later be compiled into a registration tool (and you know the Democrats will be going after that prohibition in the next round of budget negotiations).
As with all such schemes, the criminals and the terrorists won’t be slowed down one bit. And since we're talking about chronic and habitual liars, I find a memorable scene from the classic Witness for the Prosecution strangely appropriate.

About David Codrea:David Codrea
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.
He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regular featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
 Thompson Introduces Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019
 FPC Firmly Opposed to Federal Gun Control, 
Including Red Flag Laws
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
WASHINGTON, D.C.-( Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) responded to announcements of several pieces of federal gun control legislation that would further infringe on the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms and other constitutional rights:
FPC has always opposed so-called “red flag” laws, sometimes characterized as “Extreme Risk Protection Order” or “Gun Violence Restraining Order” laws, on practical, policy, and constitutional grounds. These “red flag” laws stand for the proposition that people are guilty, and can be disarmed, unless they can prove their way out of an accusation. In fact, in some jurisdictions, a court may consider evidence of recent acquisition of firearms, ammunition, or weapons as evidence to support the issuance of a “red flag” disarmament order. In other words, if someone recently exercised their Second Amendment rights, that constitutionally-protected conduct could be used to support their being prohibited from possessing firearms, and even lead to a warrant for the seizure of their property. As we know all too well, the only real recourse in these cases is for the accused to hire an attorney, at the cost of thousands of dollars, and hope that the court gives them a fair hearing. Worse, in an ex parte situation, the subject of a “red flag” order might not even know about the hearing or the order until armed law enforcement officers show up at their home to seize property, or them. “Red flag” laws are unconstitutional and dangerous, as FPC’s own research and countless reports have shown. If the government does not have enough evidence to investigate or charge a person with a crime, or even to hold them for a mental health evaluation, then the government has not met its burden for taking someone’s rights and property by force and violence.
FPC also strongly opposes so-called “universal background checks,” one of three core elements of the modern gun control agenda. Put simply, politicians and billionaire-backed special interests wish to constructively repeal the Second Amendment through transactional records, algorithms, and ever-expanding laws banning people and property. They refuse to acknowledge the true agenda of their “universal background check” legislation, which is to create a statutory framework from which they can bootstrap the other elements of their disarmament aims, including Minority Report-style “pre-crime” laws, government-sanctioned confiscation, and incremental, attrition-based bans on weapons, parts, ammunition, and more. As we know from our direct experience in hostile, anti-rights states like California, the modern gun control schema relies on background check-based transactional data as a framework to bootstrap the forced registration of people and property, later expanding or creating new categories of prohibited persons and items—including through “predictive model” gun control statutes, like “red flag” laws, that rely on speculation rather than real due process and proper adjudication of crimes or mental health conditions—overreaching law enforcement programs, like California’s “Armed and Prohibited Person System” and others like it, where the government sends armed police officers to seize persons and property that were forced into government databases.
FPC is also strongly opposed to using taxpayer dollars for unrestricted advocacy of gun control, whether through the Center for Disease Control, or elsewhere. No American taxpayer should be funding policy advocacy cloaked in the guise of “research”.
As we have said before, history shows that gun control is a one-way ratchet, with so-called “compromises” resulting only in more laws that affect law-abiding people and fewer ways to exercise Second Amendment rights. And there is no textual, circumstantial, or emotional exception to the Constitution’s guarantee that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Those who seek to implement more and stronger restrictions on Second Amendment freedoms have offered gun owners nothing in return for these false and malicious “compromises.” It should be no surprise, then, that gun owners have been and remain unwilling to participate in a “compromise” that isn’t. Indeed, there cannot be any compromise on our Constitution and the rights it protects.
Even if others’ lack of principles or conflicting political priorities may have allowed, or even encouraged, such legislative atrocities to be enacted as the National Firearms Act, the Federal Firearms Act, the Gun Control Act, the Undetectable Firearms Act, the Hughes Amendment, and many other gun control statutes, FPC stands firm in its commitment to the Constitution, the People, and individual liberty.
FPC calls on every member of Congress to not only oppose and vote against these and other gun control bills, but to immediately introduce and pass important legislation to protect and advance the Second Amendment rights without further delay. FPC also encourages President Trump to demand pro-Second Amendment legislation with the same fervor that he does other, far less important issues. That is the job they were elected to do, and that is the basis upon which we and American voters will measure them.
Individuals who wish to combat federal gun control can tell the House and Senate leadership, as well as their representatives, to oppose these gun control bills using FPC’s grassroots Action Tools at and

About the Firearms Policy CoalitionFirearms Policy Coalition
Firearms Policy Coalition ( is a 501(c)4 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, especially the fundamental, individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. FPC advocates on a wide variety of important constitutional, legal, policy, and social issues, including free speech, due process, separation of powers, limitations on government action, and others. FPC works to advance individual liberty through programs including strategic litigation, legal action, direct and grassroots advocacy, research, education, and outreach.
 Dianne Feinstein's Assault Weapons Ban of 2019
Published on Jan 10, 2019
 Here we go again, the left and their continued attack on law-abiding citizens ownership of typical firearms in this country. This is a never-ending battle we must be strong. We must stick together.

 Senate Democrats Unveil the Assault Weapons Ban of 2019
Senate Democrats Introduce
 Assault Weapons Ban of 2019
SEE:; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

Washington D.C.-( Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) have introduced the “Assault Weapons Ban of 2019.”
“Last year we saw tens of thousands of students nationwide take to the streets to demand action to stop mass shootings and stem the epidemic of gun violence that plagues our communities. Our youngest generation has grown up with active-shooter drills, hiding under their desks—and now they’re saying enough is enough,” said Senator Dianne Feinstein. “Americans across the nation are asking Congress to reinstate the federal ban on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. If we’re going to put a stop to mass shootings and protect our children, we need to get these weapons of war off our streets.”
The ban would prohibit the sale, manufacture, transfer or importation of 205 rifle models by name. The Senators refer to these firearms as “military-style assault weapons.” The bill does have a grandfather clause. Current owners of these guns would be able to keep them.
According to Senator Feinstein's twitter, this legislation considers any rifle that uses a detachable magazine and has a pistol grip, a forward grip, a barrel shroud, a threaded barrel or a folding or telescoping stock as an “assault weapon.”

Feinstein's clarifies her Assault Weapons Ban
Feinstein clarifies her Assault Weapons Ban

The bill would also ban any magazine that is capable of holding more than ten rounds. The law states that the magazine ban is due to the given ability to increase the rate at which a person can continue to fire their rifle/pistol. Like the now would-be banned firearms, owners would be able to keep the magazines that they currently own.
“Assault weapons and high-capacity magazines are deadly and dangerous weapons of war that belong on battlefields—not our streets. They have no purpose for self-defense or hunting, and no business being in our schools, churches and malls,” said Senator Richard Blumenthal. “By passing this legislation, Congress can honor the memory of the beautiful lives cut short by military-style assault weapons in Newtown, Parkland, Las Vegas, San Bernardino and far too many other American cities. This is the year for my colleagues to turn our rhetoric into reality and finally end America’s gun violence epidemic.”
Part of the bill would be universal background checks on all transfers of grandfathered guns. The requirement would also apply to firearms that are gifted to family members. It would be a felony to transfer a gun without a background check, even if it is to an immediate family member.
However, magazines that hold more than ten rounds would not be transferable after the law would go into effect. This prohibition on the transferring of the magazines would even include giving the magazines to immediate family members. Only the current owner of the magazines at the time that the ban goes into effect would be able to own them.
Owners of these guns would have to keep the now-banned firearms in a secure storage container or install a trigger lock. This requirement would apply to everyone, even those who live alone and have no reason to lock their firearms.
The Senators also want to ban foldable and telescoping stocks. They believe that an adjustable stock's purpose is to make it easier to conceal the firearm. This point is incorrect. Shooters use adjustable stocks to find the most comfortable position to fire their guns.
Pistols are not immune from this bill. It would ban any pistol that weighs over 50 ounces unloaded. This measurement is a little over 3 pounds and would ban almost all pistol ARs and AKs. Other guns like the CZ Scorpion would also be prohibited.
The legislation would also ban stabilizing braces such as the ones sold be SB Tactical. The Senators think that by adding a brace to a pistol it turns the pistol into an “assault rifle.”
“She needs to appeal to her base, but the reality of it is that she doesn't even know what a stabilizing brace is,” Alex Bosco, The CEO of SB Tactical, told AmmoLand. “I would be interested to understand why prohibiting a product that allows individuals who are disabled and have limited mobility to fire a weapon more accurately should be outlawed.”
Thordsen's featureless stocks are also not immune from this bill. Gun owners have used these stocks to be in compliance with state laws that currently ban pistol grips on rifles such as California, New York, and Maryland.
Gun rights advocates point out that the “assault weapons” ban of 1994 that was in effect until 2004 was infective at stopping gun violence. The Clinton era Justice Department found that the ban had little to no impact on crime or gun deaths. Other studies have found similar results since the law expired.
In a statement released by Michael Hammond, legal counsel for Gun Owners of America reads:
“Dianne Feinstein's new unconstitutional gun ban follows in the “Feinstein tradition” of blindly attacking guns for no particular rational purpose.
The 1994-2004 less-repressive predecessor to the Feinstein bill was found by the Department of Justice to have been totally ineffectual. As a result, in 2013, only 39 other senators voted to support her semi-automatic ban — in a Senate controlled by Democrats. And, finally, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has just declared, as unconstitutional, California's magazine ban, which is similar to the one contained in Feinstein's bill.
So Feinstein's insistence of “doubling down on failure” may make her — and the loony Left — feel good. But no sane legislature is actually going to vote for her bill.”
Hammond points out that the magazine ban in the bill almost mirrors the prohibition that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declared unconstitutional. The court case was from Feinstein's home state of California.
The odds that the bill will make it to the floor of the Senate are long. Republicans control the Senate, and just like Feinstein's previous bills, The Senate leadership will probably table the bill and not let it come to the floor for debate.
Even if this bill makes it to the floor for a vote, it would need 60 votes to prevent a filibuster. That would mean that 13 Republican would have to cross party lines which seems unlikely.

About John CrumpJohn Crump
John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. He is the former CEO of Veritas Firearms, LLC and is the co-host of The Patriot News Podcast which can be found at John has written extensively on the patriot movement including 3%'ers, Oath Keepers, and Militias. In addition to the Patriot movement, John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and is currently working on a book on leftist deplatforming methods and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, on Facebook at realjohncrump, or at
 Feinstein Ban on Semiautos Deliberately Undermines ‘Security of a Free State’
"Feinstein and her co-conspirators know this, of course, and they know that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure “the security of a free State.” They also know that stands in the way of their goal of attaining unchallengeable power, what German political economist Max Weber endorsed as a “monopoly of violence.”"



 "Trump Shut-Down" May Last YEARS, 
President Confirms

 Will Trump Declare A National Emergency 
To Build The Wall?
 Infowars reporters Millie Weaver and Kaitlin Bennett discuss the likelihood President Trump declares a state of emergency in order to build the controversial wall along the southern border. Alex Jones breaks it all down here (video link):