Category: Informational

NBC: Why You Should Avoid Public Phone Charging Stations

People who have attended the Groundrod class by Combat Studies Group will already be familiar with this, but this NBC article tells people why using public phone charging stations may just be getting your phone hacked. You can get data blocking USB attachments which will allow your phone to charge but block any access to data.

“Low phone battery.”

It’s a notification that can inspire a sense of dread for anyone on the go without an outlet in sight.

And while free public charging stations have provided some relief in those situations, experts warn that powering up could give hackers a way into your personal information.

“Depending on the vulnerability they exploit, they would have access to everything you would have access to on your phone,” said cybersecurity expert Jim Stickley.

The practice, known as “juice jacking,” occurs when people plug in to “juice” up their phones and hackers use malware in the charging station or USB cable to “jack” their information, such as phone numbers and passwords.

The scam has prompted local authorities, including the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, to alert the public to think twice about plugging in at places like airports or malls.

“You might have seen a public USB charging station at an airport or shopping center. But be warned, a free charge could end up draining your bank account,” Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Luke Sisak said in a video warning in November.

To find out just how easy it can be for a hacker to gain access to a charging phone, Stickley gave NBC News access to a simulation he set up along the Port of San Diego in Southern California. Through special hardware installed in a homemade charging station, Stickley was able to watch and record everything being shown on the screen of a connected phone.

IMAGE: Jim Stickley
Cybersecurity expert Jim Stickley demonstrates how a hacker could access a person’s phone through a public charging station.NBC News

NBC News correspondent Vicky Nguyen posed as the first victim.

“Now we get to the best part. She’s actually entering in her credit card number,” Stickley said as he watched Nguyen shop on Home Depot online.

In four hours, dozens of people stopped at the makeshift charging station to power up their phones. Some expressed shock when they were told it was a setup.

A woman who identified herself as Ruth gave NBC News permission to access her phone through the charging station and demonstrate the type of information being retrieved from her device. In a matter of seconds, her personal Facebook messages popped up on a separate monitor.

“It’s dangerous,” Ruth said…

Click here to continue reading at NBC news.

The Trumpet: The Spread of Coronavirus and Other Modern Plagues

This article from The Trumpet gives their biblical take on modern plagues.

Many of you are familiar with the pale horse of the apocalypse of Revelation 6:7-8: “[B]ehold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.” This shows that diseases like this virus are about to get worse, spreading like medieval pandemics and killing millions of people! Whether or not this specific outbreak will cause such ruin, this prophecy is sure.

You can find a related image in Zechariah 6. It is important to note the time frame. This chapter describes a dual crown being given to a man just before Jesus Christ returns—a prophecy that was recently fulfilled (request my free book The New Throne of David for an explanation). Before that takes place, though, four chariots emerge from between two mountains, symbolizing God the Father and Jesus Christ (verse 1). God sends these chariots. He gives specific commands about what these chariots are to do. This is explained in Chapter 7 of that book.

The black horses here symbolize violence, famine and pestilence. We are already in the preliminary stages of their ride. The coronavirus is only a small part of the overall picture. Other plagues are already spreading in our cities.

Many cities are facing a crisis of homelessness. In downtown Los Angeles, for example, is a little city of homeless people. The area is awash in drugs—and human feces, rats and every imaginable kind of filth. And even now, people are contracting tuberculosis and typhoid fever! Some of the policemen have contracted these Third World diseases! Rats carry disease and spread it everywhere. Some experts warn of the onset of bubonic plague—a disease that wiped out much of Europe in the 14th century! We are ignoring that history, and officials are permitting these conditions to ripen within some of our mightiest cities!

The same circumstances are true in Seattle and San Francisco. Some travel guides tell visitors to avoid portions of San Francisco and other big cities to avoid catching bubonic plague.

It is a most awful scene; we can hardly even stand to hear the news about it! Yet it is just a small foretaste of the plagues coming to America and Britain and Judah if people don’t repent before God!

…Where is this leading? We are already experiencing the preliminary stages of what the Bible terms “great tribulation,” in which one third of the populations in America and other Israelitish nations will die—before being directly attacked by foreign enemies!

These black horses—violence, famine, pestilence—are going to overtake the Earth! God is beginning to send a number of globe-rattling events our way! He is going to let the world see where their evil ways lead them.

God has a lot to accomplish with His people in the midst of an explosion of satanic chaos! He sends these angels out with specific jobs, all in preparation for the Great Tribulation, the Day of the Lord and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ! He is already preparing for that crisis of crises!

WA GOAL Legislative Update 2020-5, Feb. 7

From the Washington Gun Owners Action League:

GOAL Post 2020-5
Legislative Update from Olympia 7 February 2020

NEW BILLS FILED/FOLLOWED
FIRST POLICY COMMITTEE CUT-OFF
BILLS MOVE, BILLS DIE
PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED
REPEAT: ONLINE ACCESS FOR BILL COMMENTS
STILL NEED VOLUNTEERS

Well, they noticed you at the capitol rally! Rep. Senn (D-41) has filed a bill (HB 2925) prohibiting firearms on the Capitol Campus. This has been tried before and failed, but this year is different. They’re more afraid of citizens with guns this year than they have been in the past. On the other hand, Sen Fortunato (R-31) has also filed SB 6673 to protect firearm rights. The bill reaffirms the right to keep and bear arms under both the federal and state constitutions and repeals much of the restrictive language contained in Washington firearms code, RCW 9.41. Don’t hold your breath waiting for this to pass. With today being the policy committee cut-off and no public hearing scheduled, short of extraordinary action, this one is DOA.

Between e-mail problems (ongoing), a heavy holiday and beyond travel schedule and overlapping Washington and Florida legislative sessions (I’m also VP and Legislative Director of the Florida Sport Shooting Assn), I’ve missed a few important bills. HB 2367 and SB 6043 address the issue of “self-defense” coverage as offered by companies such as ACLDN and USCCA that our esteemed insurance commissioner declines to authorize. Both of these bills will be heard this week and also voted on in executive session on Friday.

Today (Friday, 7 February) is the first policy committee cut-off date. Bills that have not passed out of their first policy committee (for most gun-related bills, House Civil Rights & Judiciary and Senate Law & Justice) are generally considered dead for the session. Bills that require additional funding must pass through one of the fiscal committees next week. As this is the short session, the train is moving fast.

Bills marked with an asterisk (*) in Bill Status below have presumably died for this session. Because HB 2925 (Capitol gun ban) was filed so late, don’t be surprised if they move it. Good news, both “assault weapon ban” boils died (HB 2241, SB 60760 but both magazine bans live on.) (In my opinion, the a/w ban bills died because the Democrat legislators don’t want to face the voters’ wrath in November. Look for an initiative to be filed.) Bad news? Lots. Of the two CPL training bills (HB 1315, SB 6294) the Senate version is the least harmful.

And “dead” doesn’t always mean “dead.” Let an incident occur that fits one of the “dead” bills and watch it get revived by the Democrat majority.

A close look at the Bill Status will show thirteen bills total awaiting a pull to the respective (House or Senate) chamber floor for a full chamber vote. Those that pass go to the other chamber for the same process. A couple more are also hanging fire in a fiscal committee until next Tuesday’s fiscal cut-off.

A public hearing is scheduled in Senate Law & Justice next Wednesday on HB 1010, destruction of forfeited firearms.

Can’t make it to Olympia? You can go to the following web site to submit your comments directly for any given bill. Just add the four-digit bill number (four numerals only, not HB or SB) right after …bill/ I can’t promise the comments will be read, but it’s YOUR opportunity to be heard. Be polite, be brief.

https://app.leg.wa.gov/pbc/bill/(four digit bill number)

The Washington Arms Collectors is seeking volunteers to work the voter registration table at the gun shows in Puyallup and Monroe, and possibly other venues. If you have the time, please see Jane Milhans or George Kelley at the shows. The 2020 elections, at all levels, are the elections of a lifetime. Please do your part. Think of your grandson sitting on your lap in 20-30 years, asking, “What did you do in the big gun wars, Gramps?”

BILL STATUS/GOAL POSITION:
HB 1010 WSP destruction of firearms Senn (D-41) S. L&J OPPOSE
*HB 1068 Magazine restrictions Valdez (D-43) H. CR&J OPPOSE
HB 1315 CPL training requirement Lovick (D-44) H. Rules OPPOSE
*HB 1374 Repeals state preemption of gun laws Macri (D-43) H. CR&J OPPOSE
*HB 1671 Confiscation of firearms Dolan (D-22) H. Rules NEUTRAL
*HB 2196 Raise standard for issue of a “red flag” order Walsh (R-19) HG. CR&J SUPPORT
*HB 2202 Exempts law enforcement from a/w training Klippert (R-8) H.PubSaf OPPOSE
HB 2240 Bans high capacity magazines Valdez (D-43) H. Rules OPPOSE
*HB 2241 Bans assault weapons and magazines Peterson (D-21) H. CR&J OPPOSE
HB 2305 Expands firearm prohibition re: protection orders Doglio (D-22) H. Rules OPPOSE
HB 2367 Self defense insurance Hoff (R-18) H. Rules SUPPORT
HB 2467 Centralized firearm background checks Hansen (D-23) H. Aprop NEUTRAL
*HB 2519 Ammunition background checks Walen (D-48) H. CR&J OPPOSE
HB 2555 Background checks for “other” firearms Goodman (D-45) H. Aprop OPPOSE
*HB 2569 Pre-trial detention for certain firearm offenses Wylie (D-49) H. PubSaf OPPOSE
HB 2622 Court order non-compliance, firearm surrender Kilduff (D-28) H. Aprop OPPOSE
HB 2623 Firearm prohibition, certain offenses Walen (D-48) H. Rules OPPOSE
*HB 2767 Recreation shooting areas on public lands Blake (D-19) H. CR&J SUPPORT
HB 2820 Firearms forfeiture/DV court order (correction) Klippert (R-8) H. Rules NEUTRAL
*HB 2925 Bans firearms on Capitol grounds and buildings Senn (D-41) H. CR&J OPPOSE
HJR 4210 Pretrial detention for certain firearm offenses Wylie (D-49) H. Pub Saf OPPOSE
SB 5434 Expands gun free zones to parks and day cares Wilson, C (D-30) S. Rules OPPOSE
*SB 6043 Self defense insurance Wilson, L. (R-17) S. L&J SUPPORT
*SB 6076 Bans assault weapons and hi cap magazines Kuderer (D-48) S. L&J OPPOSE
SB 6077 Bans high capacity magazines Kuderer (D-48) S. Rules OPPOSE
*SB 6161 Excise tax on ammunition Dhingra (D-45) S. L&J OPPOSE
SB 6163 Unlawful possession BEFORE conviction Dhingra (D-45) S.Rules OPPOSE
SB 6288 Office of firearm violence prevention Dhingra (D-45) S. W&M OPPOSE
SB 6289 Restoration of firearm rights Dhingra (D-45) S. L&J OPPOSE
SB 6294 CPL training requirement Saloman (D-32) S. Rules OPPOSE
*SB 6347 CPL validity seven years with training Wagoner (R-39) S. L&J SUPPORT
SB 6402 Use of a stolen firearm Rivers (R-18) S.Rules SUPPORT
SB 6406 Concerning firearms Wilson, L (R-17) S. Rules SUPPORT
SB 6584 Unlawful purchase of a firearm Zeiger (R-25) S. L&J SUPPORT
*SB 6673 Removes many existing firearm restrictions Fortunato (R-31) S. L&J SUPPORT

HB = House bill, SB = Senate bill. L&J = Law & Justice, CR&J = Civil Rights & Judiciary, PubSaf = Public Safety, HC = Health Care, H. K-12 = House Early education, Aprop = Appropriations, Fin = Finance, W&M = Ways & Means “S” before a bill number indicates Substitute (amended).

PUBLIC HEARINGS SCHEDULED:
12 Feb Senate Law & Justice Committee, Senate Hearing Room “1,” JAC Bldg
9:00 am SHB 1010

LEGISLATIVE HOT LINE: You may reach your Representatives and Senator by calling the Legislative Hotline at 1-800-562-6000. Toll free!!! The hearing impaired may obtain TDD access at 1-800-635-9993. Also toll free!!!

1-800-562-6000 TDD 1-800-635-9993

OTHER DATA: Copies of pending legislation (bills), legislative schedules and other information are available on the legislature’s web site at “www.leg.wa.gov“. Bills are available in Acrobat (.pdf) format. You may download a free version of Adobe Acrobat Reader from Adobe’s web site (http://www.adobe.com). You may also obtain hard copy bills, initiatives, etc, in the mail from the Legislative Bill Room FREE OF CHARGE by calling 1-360-786-7573. Copies of bills may also be ordered toll free by calling the Legislative Hotline at (800) 562-6000. You may also hear floor and committee hearing action live at http://www.tvw.org/ (you need “RealAudio” to do this, available free at the TVW web site).

By reading the House and Senate “bill reports” (hbr, sbr) for each bill, you can see how individual committee members voted. By reading the “roll call” for each bill, you can see how the entire House or Senate voted on any bill. The beauty of the web site is that ALL this information is available, on line, to any citizen.

Upcoming WAC gun show(s):
Monroe 28-29 March
Puyallup Pavilion 4-5 April

Download GOAL Post 2020-5 pdf for easy printing

“The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.”

Article 1, Section 24
Constitution of the State of Washington

Tenth Amendment Center: Ignoring the Constitution

A couple days ago we posted an article that Jacob Hornberger had written for the Future of Freedom Foundation on the First Amendment. In Ignoring the Constitution at the Tenth Amendment Center, he reminds us of other parts of the Constitution that have been eroded and ignored over time. A constitution exists as a conveyance of authority to a government from the people it governs. It strictly limits the powers exercisable by that government. Some people believe that a constitution should be “a living document” in that the words should be re-interpreted over time to mean whatever the rulers think it should mean in the present day. This is the same as having no constitution at all. It means nothing to write things down on paper if it then becomes okay for people to “re-interpret” the text as the opposite of what was written. This is what we have today in the United States. We have a Constitution, but it has been ignored, re-interpreted, and swept under the rug. There are effectively no limits on the power of the US federal government. If you haven’t already noticed this, you haven’t been paying attention.

Constitutional violations have become so commonplace in American life that when they occur, the reaction among many Americans is ho-hum.

There are two classic examples of this phenomenon: the declaration of war requirement and gold and silver as legal tender.

Article 1, Section 8, enumerates the powers of Congress. It states in part: “Congress shall have Power To declare war.”

Article 2, Section 2, enumerates the powers of the president. It states in part: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.”

Thus, while the president is given the power to wage war, he is not given the power to declare war. The decision on whether to go to war lies with Congress. Unless Congress declares war, the president is constitutionally prohibited from waging war.

Yet, we all know that presidents ignore this constitutional restriction with impunity. They exercise both the power to declare war and wage war. There has never been a constitutional amendment authorizing this revolutionary change in our governmental structure.

Moreover, the change has come with the full knowledge and implicit consent of Congress, which has never impeached a president for illegally abrogating Congress’s power to declare war.

Additionally, despite the oath that U.S. military personnel take to support and defend the Constitution, they all blindly obey the president’s order to wage war without the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war.

Article 1, Section 10, states in part: “No state shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.

It goes without saying that every state in the Union blithely ignores that constitutional provision. Rather than making gold and silver coin legal tender, they all have made paper Federal Reserve notes, which promise to pay nothing, legal tender.  Many Americans, including state and federal judges, act like that constitutional provision doesn’t exist.

Article 1, Section 8, states in part: “The Congress shall have Power To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof.” There is no power given to Congress to print paper money.

Yet, here we are, living under a monetary system that is based on irredeemable paper notes issued by the federal government. Many Americans, including state and federal judges, act like all this is perfectly normal, as if these restrictions on power within the Constitution don’t matter or don’t really exist.

If public officials are empowered to ignore constitutional provisions whenever they want, then what’s the point of having a Constitution? When the Framers used the Constitution to bring the federal government into existence, their aim was to establish a limited-government republic, ones whose powers were limited to those enumerated in the document. The reason they did that was to ensure that federal officials could not destroy or abridge the freedom of the American people. The Constitution was intended as a higher law that the American people imposed on their government officials. If public officials wanted to change or expand such powers, they would be required to secure an amendment of the Constitution.

Federal officials expect us to comply with their laws. Why shouldn’t they be expected to comply with our law, the law of the Constitution?

Organic Prepper: Off-Grid Cooking Without Electricity

Resilience homesteader Kara Stiff has written a nice article for The Organic Prepper – Off-Grid Cooking Lessons: How to Prepare Food Without Using Electricity – in which she writes of the effort made to reduce electricity use in order to make going off-grid affordable, and how she cooks during winter and summer.

Much of the remaining usage is cooking, so we got set up to cook mostly off-grid.

I say mostly because we still have a crockpot, a toaster oven, and an electric kettle to help us integrate our schedule with that of the outside world. The wage-earner can have his tea when he leaves before the morning fire. The family can have a hot dinner after a day away, or simmer broth overnight. These are convenience devices; we don’t rely on them for our main cooking needs.

Winter off-grid cooking

For winter cooking we use our wood stove, a Vermont Bun Baker. It has an oven and a cooktop. Ours is also set up to make hot water in an open-vented thermosiphon loop. That heat is transferred to the pressurized plumbing through a setup that works surprisingly well, though it was prohibitively expensive. I was nervous about planning a house with a wood cookstove because while I’d cooked on a few, I hadn’t lived with one long-term. But there wasn’t room in our 725-square-foot house for two stoves nor was there room in our tight budget. It was one or the other.

In reality, I adjusted to cooking on a wood stove fairly quickly and easily. The oven only gets good and hot when the stove runs for a while, so I only bake in the coldest months, which is fine because I’m not really into baking. Shorter fires are enough to roast peanuts for homemade peanut butter, or eggshells to crush for the chickens.

Surprisingly, I burn dinner less often on the woodstove than I did on electric or gas stoves, probably because it just takes as long as it takes. There’s no way to impatiently turn the heat way up like on an electric, only to regret it when the food blackens. It doesn’t really take longer to make dinner, though, because I use the heating-up time well. I also burn myself on it less often, probably because the woodstove is hot not just on the top but down the front as well, so it’s impossible to forget that it’s hot. The children have great respect for it and have not come close to even a minor burn.

If you care about environmental damage as we do, a wood stove is not the most environmentally-friendly choice. I did some math and discovered that the one and a half cords of home-grown and salvage wood we burn per year is definitely environmentally worse than using electricity to accomplish the same tasks, but not by that much (see a more in-depth discussion here). Though my family carefully considers environmental concerns in every decision we make, we also care a lot about resilience. In the end, resilience won out for the critical tasks of winter heat and cooking…

Washington Examiner: How Big Tech Reshaped Politics Through Censorship

From the Washington Examiner, Blacklist Valley: How Big Tech reshapes politics by censoring conservative ideas another tale of internet censorhip.

FEA.BigTech.jpg

For better or worse, social media is the new public square. Of adults, 68% use Facebook, 73% use YouTube, and a quarter use Twitter. The numbers are much higher for adults under 50. Two-thirds of adults and roughly 4 in 5 under 50 use social media to consume news. Three-quarters of Facebook users are on the site every day, and Twitter users have a disproportionate influence on the media because so many journalists are on the service.

The size and scale of social media companies exploded primarily because they presented themselves as open platforms — blank slates. Google, Facebook, and Twitter all characterized their products as engines for social improvement. “We think of Twitter as the global town hall,” said former Twitter CEO Dick Costolo. “We are the free speech wing of the free speech party.”

Costolo was Twitter’s chief executive from 2010 until 2015 and the immediate predecessor of current CEO Jack Dorsey. Twitter’s general manager in the United Kingdom, Andy Yang, likewise described Twitter as the “free speech wing of the free speech party” in March 2012. Google became a multibillion-dollar company by offering a portal for free, unrestricted information to anyone with access to the internet; famously, its original motto was “Don’t be evil.” An internal Facebook memo circulated in June 2016 stated that at Facebook, “we believe in connecting people so deeply that anything that allows us to connect more people more often is de facto good.”

The public has given these three tech companies (and others) enormous power to select the information we read, share, and discuss with our neighbors and friends. We’ve gotten so accustomed to the role they play in our lives that we fail to notice that Big Tech is sifting through the available information and narrowing, and prioritizing, our choices. Although Facebook, Google, and Twitter once touted themselves as bastions of democracy and free speech, they are now openly moving toward direct censorship and media manipulation — and specifically targeting conservative ideas and personalities.

They have already acquiesced to their new censorship fetish. In March 2018, Google circulated an internal memo that instructed employees on the benefits of censorship. In the memo, which was titled “The Good Censor,” Google conceded that while the internet was “founded upon utopian principles of free speech,” free speech is no longer en vogue. “Tech companies are adapting their stance towards censorship” in direct response to “the anxiety of users and governments.” The memo said that “tech firms have gradually shifted away from unmediated free speech and towards censorship and moderation” but framed that shift as a positive development. One major way that tech companies are “stepping into the role of moderator” is by “significantly amping up the number of moderators they employ — in YouTube’s case increasing the number of people on the lookout for inappropriate content to more than 10,000.” It argued that censorship was necessary partly because of users “behaving badly.”

The most alarming part of the missive, however, was that it spoke approvingly of foreign governments that were censoring online speech. Google framed the acts as “taking steps to make online spaces safer, more regulated, and more similar to their offline laws. Protected from hate speech on the street? Now you are on the net too …” Twitter has completely and publicly abandoned its brand as the “free speech wing of the free speech party,” with Dorsey claiming the whole “free speech wing” thing was one giant “joke.” His company, once seemingly devoted to the free expression of its users, now says it is prioritizing making users feel safe from others’ speech. Facebook, too, is openly rebranding itself as a benevolent censor. Here’s what Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg told the Senate Commerce and Judiciary committees in April 2018 (emphasis added):

Overall, I would say that we’re going through a broader philosophical shift in how we approach our responsibility as a company. For the first 10 or 12 years of the company, I viewed our responsibility as primarily building tools that, if we could put those tools in people’s hands, then that would empower people to do good things. What I think we’ve learned now across a number of issues, not just data privacy, but also fake news and foreign interference in elections, is that we need to take a more proactive role and a broader view of our responsibility. It’s not enough to just build tools. We need to make sure that they’re used for good. And that means that we need to now take a more active view in policing the ecosystem and in watching and kind of looking out and making sure that all of the members in our community are using these tools in a way that’s going to be good and healthy.

Three forces are driving Big Tech’s online censorship. Two are external and related: market pressures and de-platforming campaigns by liberal activists and journalists. The third pressure is internal: Silicon Valley is staggeringly one-sided politically. Profit margins and market pressures are crucial levers that left-wing ideologues use to pull tech giants and other corporations in the direction of censorship. Companies want to avoid controversy, and, in the era of outrage mobs, that means avoiding offending the Left, which controls most of the cultural institutions in America. That’s part of the reason why massive companies are embracing left-wing politics in advertising, such as what Gillette did with its “toxic masculinity” ad. Left-wing activists amplify those pressures with smear campaigns and boycotts intended to rattle advertisers and investors, forcing the hands of tech companies. If you convince corporate marketing agencies that advertising on Facebook is risky, you can be certain that Facebook will take some form of action to shed controversy and reassure investors.

The external pressures of left-wing activists are compounded by the internal pressures of the companies’ employees, who want Big Tech to embrace censorship against nonliberal opinions as a moral and political necessity…

Click here to read the entire article at Washington Examiner.

Charles Carroll Society: Spokesman Review Hit Piece on Candidate Alex Barron

Candidate Alex Barron

This article was written for the Charles Carroll Society by Idaho Senate candidate Alex Barron.

Shawn Vestal is a Spokesman-Review opinion columnist. He wrote a hit piece about me this Sunday. Shawn Vestal constantly savages President Trump, Washington Representative Matt Shea, Idaho Representative Heather Scott, and most other conservative Republicans. He defends the violent actions of the communist black shirts known as Antifa, and other Democratic Socialists fringe groups…

Last Tuesday, 20JAN2020, 25,000 people showed up in Virginia to protest the tyrannical local government attempt to take their firearms…

I was asked to speak about gun rights and decided to talk about how this tyrannical nation attacked the gun rights of Americans of African descent for many, many years. I spoke about the truth that Martin Luther King requested “permission” to carry a firearm for self-defense. Because his State did not have Constitutional Carry, his local sheriff was able to deny his request. As all know, he was later murdered.

I spoke about how the Black Panthers (and yes they had communist ties, but they were still American citizens) carried long rifles to protect their communities from a tyrannical government, and that both Democrats and Republicans got together to pass gun control to remove the ability of those black men to carry firearms in public (open carry). A Republican governor signed that gun control Bill. And it is still in place today.

My speech is on the web, and you can listen to it directly. When Shawn Vestal heard that I had spoken about many black leaders and our desire to be as armed as possible, including noted abolitionist Fredrick Dongles who said the “Every slave hunter who meets a bloody death in his infernal business is an argument in favor of the manhood of the black race”, Shawn Vestal, socialist authoritarian progressive, was not pleased.

On Twitter, Shawn Vestal said to me, “Yes, you’ve really intelligently grasped the spirit of the day and of the great man himself. Got it. The RWNJ attempt to co-opt MLK is unassailable!” Then he followed up with “…I bet you’ve got a *super* wise take on Malcolm X, though.” [Bard Note: What is RWNJ anyone?]

I was like: this white, communist progressive is lecturing me about my own black history? This white progressive is calling me stupid? I do not need to take one word of advice from a white progressive about my own culture and history. See, “I is be able to read and stuff.” My walk through life is much closer to our great black icons than this arrogant progressive fool. My walk through life has proven to me that autocratic progressives and their failed policies have led the black community (and in more general terms all poor people) to death and destruction. This is why I am such a motivated and passionate fiscal and social conservative Republican. I want to try to take a different route. And I told him as much. Shawn Vestal told me to shut up.  The other white progressives online thought that was funny.

Thus Shawn Vestal decided he was going to “show this uppity negro” a thing or two. Remember these leftists, who claim to value diversity, hate diversity of opinion. All they care about is attempting to “get a scalp” on the wall. Shawn Vestal, the Democrat progressive, decided he was going to use the power given to him by the Spokesman-Review to take that “arrogant conservative negro” down a peg or two. And thus, a few days after this heated Twitter exchange, this socialist, in cooperation with liberals from both Spokane and North Idaho, writes this hit piece. Expect more. Understand that liberals inside and outside of the Republican Party will share this article and try to define me and my campaign in the most negative way possible…

This is not the first time black veterans have to fight white-owned newspapers. After War World, I, the KKK, and other violent Democratic groups savaged returning black veterans. They felt men who had stood up to protect their nations were particularly dangerous to the American Apartheid system (Jim Crow). “Many of the city’s white-owned newspapers fanned the flames of terror, reporting on fabricated instances of black men assaulting white women. In one case, The Washington Post ran a front-page story advertising the location for white servicemen to meet and carry out further attacks on black people in the city. Now punks like Shawn Vestal and the Spokesman-Review continue this pattern of “fanning the flames” against minorities who walk off their racist progressive modern plantation of decay, single-parent homes, poverty, welfare, death, and destruction. They now use terms like “Look, a dangerous and potentially violent negro is among you. FEAR!”

“Black people [formed] ad hoc self-defense organizations to try to keep white folks from terrorizing their communities,” says Simon Balto, a Professor of African American History at The University of Iowa and author of Occupied Territory: Policing Black Chicago from Red Summer to Black Power. “Black veterans were instrumental in that.”

Black veterans were a large part of what made the summer of 1919, in the words of historian David F. Krugler, the year that African Americans fought back. “This is the country to which we Soldiers of Democracy return. This is the fatherland for which we fought!” W.E.B DuBois, a civil rights activist and prominent intellectual, wrote in Crisis Magazine in May 1919, a month after the earliest event of the Red Summer, a riot in Georgia where six people—two white officers and four black men—were killed at a church: “But by the God of Heaven, we are cowards and jackasses if now that that war is over, we do not marshal every ounce of our brain and brawn to fight a sterner, longer, more unbending battle against the forces of hell in our own land.” Veterans in Chicago formed militias to defend black homes, neighborhoods, and families, when the police and government refused. In the time following Williams’ death, one group of black veterans broke into an armory and stole weapons. They then used them to beat back a white mob. “Because many of them have actually seen battlefield combat, they are willing and capable of using violence for the purpose of self-defense,” says Balto…

Click here to read the entire article at Charles Carroll Society.

Yakima Senior Symposium, Feb. 20, 2020

From Rep. Dan Newhouse:

You are invited to join me and a panel of experts in Yakima at the 2020 Senior Symposium on Thursday, February 20th! 

There are many resources available for seniors, but navigating the systems can be difficult. I welcome you to attend the 2020 Senior Symposium if you or a loved one have questions about health and retirement benefits, identity theft and tax filing, or veterans issues. This event is free and open to all seniors and their families in the 4th Congressional District.

Date: February 20, 2020
Location: Harman Senior Center, 101 North 65th Avenue, Yakima
Time: 9:00AM – 12:00PM

Health & Benefits Panel (9:00AM – 10:00AM)
Tax & ID Theft Panel (10:00AM – 11:00AM)
Veterans Panel (11:00AM – 11:30AM)
Question & Answer Session (11:30AM – 12:00PM)

Click here for Senior Symposium details & participating panelists.

Staff and volunteers will also be on-site to interview for the Library of Congress’ Veterans History Project. If you are a veteran interested in archiving your stories of military service for future generations, please contact my Yakima office at (509) 452-3243 to arrange an interview at the Senior Symposium.

I hope you will join our panelists and me on February 20th for this fun and informational event! Constituents are encouraged to pre-register for the event here. Pre-registration is not required for attendance, but it will speed up the check-in process on the morning of the event.

Sincerely,

Dan Newhouse
Member of Congress

FFF: Do We Need the First Amendment?

Do We Need the First Amendment? is a simple article by former trial attorney and professor Jacob Hornberger over at the Future of Freedom Foundation. The topic of where our rights come from, though, is vital and people constantly need to be reminded. There are both conservatives and liberals who think that our rights are from and/or are limited to the Constitution’s Bill of Rights. Some incorrectly believe that if we amend the Constitution to remove one of the listed rights, then we have done away with that right. Others wail and complain if the Supreme Court decides there is a right in existence not listed in the same Bill of Rights.

One must remember that the US Constitution gave form to the government, but perhaps more importantly it listed every power that the federal government was delegated by the people. When some people complained that the proposed Constitution didn’t originally list any protected rights, the framers said “Look, we didn’t give the government to abridge any rights. See? That power isn’t listed anywhere.” But people demanded a Bill of Rights just to be extra sure that it was clear that the government had no power to legislate in those areas. Again, some people said, “But if we write down a list, then some day people might think that only the listed the rights are protected” and people replied “We didn’t give the government that power! But here’s a ninth amendment that says you keep all of those, too.” Unfortunately, people didn’t pay attention, and the government has slowly, at times, and by leaps and bounds, at other times, has encroached everything.

Many years ago, I was giving a lecture on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to a class at a public high school here in Virginia. During the course of my talk, I made the following statement: “The First Amendment does not give people the right of free speech.”

I asked the students whether my statement was correct or incorrect. Everyone immediately told me that I was wrong. They said the First Amendment did in fact give people the right of free speech.

I held my ground. I said it didn’t, and I pressed the students to figure out why I was maintaining my position. They were just as steadfast in their position, until a girl raised her hand and said, “Mr. Hornberger is right. The First Amendment does not give people rights. It prohibits the government from infringing on rights that preexist the government.”

She was absolutely right.

The First Amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Notice that the Amendment does not give people rights. Instead, it prohibits Congress from enacting laws that abridge people’s rights.

But what is that all about? Why did our ancestors deem it necessary to enact such a prohibition? Isn’t Congress our friend? Isn’t it composed of people who we elect to represent us? We often hear that we should trust the government. It doesn’t sound to me that the people who enacted the First Amendment had much trust in elected representatives.

After all, the only reason for enacting such a prohibition is the concern that in the absence of such a prohibition, Congress would enact laws that abridge freedom of speech and other fundamental rights. That sounds like Americans believed that the members of Congress needed to be told that they were prohibited from doing so.

The First Amendment and the other amendments in the Bill of Rights reflect how leery people were of Congress and the rest of the federal government. They were convinced that if they approved the Constitution, the federal government they were calling into existence with the Constitution would destroy their rights and their freedom.

That was also why Americans opposed enormous, permanently standing military establishments. Given their conviction that the federal government would destroy their rights, they understood that the way governments historically had done that was through their military forces.

After all, how else to enforce a law, say, that prohibits people from criticizing the president or Congress? Sure, it would be possible to arrest, indict, convict, and incarcerate them but what if dissent became widespread among the citizenry? That’s where a massive military establishment would come into play — to use massive military force to put down dissent with round-ups, assassinations, killings, torture, executions, and other things that militaries historically have done to oppress people. That’s why all totalitarian regimes have large, permanent, powerful military establishments.

Thus, there is no possibility that our American ancestors would have approved the national-security state form of governmental structure under which we live today, a structure consisting of the Pentagon, the CIA, the NSA, and a vast empire of domestic and military bases. If the Constitution had proposed that form of governmental structure, Americans would have summarily rejected the deal and simply continued operating under the Articles of Confederation, another type of governmental system, one in which the federal government’s powers were so weak that the federal government wasn’t even given the power to tax.

The Constitution called into existence a limited-government republic, a type of governmental system that gave the federal government very few powers. There was an army, but it was relatively small — large enough to defeat Native American tribes but not large enough to threaten the American people with massive tyranny.

In fact, that’s why our American ancestors enacted the Second Amendment. It was designed to ensure that people would retain their right to keep and bear arms as a way to fight against any federal army or national police force that the Congress or the president might employ to enforce their destruction of free speech and other rights and liberties.

Thus, whenever you hear someone lamenting the lack of trust that many Americans today have in the federal government, it might be worth reminding them that the federal government was called into existence under a cloud of mistrust among our American ancestors. And they were right to have that mistrust!

Liberty Blitzkrieg on Social Media Censorship

While the title of the article is Zerohedge’s Twitter Account is Permanently Banished this article by Michael Krieger of Liberty Blitzkrieg is more about why censorship, especially a lifetime ban, is egregious for any social media platform. Today Twitter also suspended conservative journalist James O’Keefe for reporting on some Bernie Sanders campaign supporters.

This post will cover three main issues. First, the fact that Twitter and other social media companies have essentially created a caste system when it comes to engagement on their platforms. Second, the question of whether or not a lifetime ban from social media platforms is an ethical concept. Third, the dangers of Twitter essentially throwing the entire timeline of a banished account into the memory hole.

As the internet and social media started gaining traction, the idea of the “citizen journalist” grew increasingly popular and the public discovered how all sorts of previously unknown people can bring a great deal of hidden information and interesting perspectives to the table. This led to competing narratives on all sorts of topics, and we all basically agreed it’s best to treat people like adults and let them sort things out for themselves. That is, until Hillary Clinton lost an election.

At that point, a certain segment of the population went completely mental and started demanding social media companies fight and censor “fake news.” This anti-liberal perspective, largely promoted by self-proclaimed liberals, deeply affected how social media executives think about and treat platform content in the subsequent years. The result has been that Twitter and other tech giants have effectively created a caste system on their platforms. Though they won’t explicitly admit it, the executives at these companies now seem to believe certain people and organizations should be given priority to shape the national narrative, while others should be diminished. While they tolerate the latter group until they become too influential and disruptive, the former class exists at a level entirely above Twitter’s terms of service. Certain people and organizations are permitted to do whatever they like on the platform, while others are subject to increasingly arbitrary and subjective bans. It’s rapidly becoming an intentionally rigged system designed to reallocate narrative control in a certain direction.

Ask yourself, do you think there’s anything CNN could do to get banned from Twitter for life? I don’t. I genuinely think the news organization CNN can do absolutely anything it wants on or off Twitter and never be considered for a lifetime ban. Why? It’s a protected organization. CNN is above the Twitter law, and as such exists at the very top of the social media caste system. It’s not just CNN of course, there are many individuals and organizations simply not subject to Twitter’s terms of service in the way you or I are. A politician calling for mass government violence abroad (war) is another example. This sort of thing happens regularly without any consequences. Why? Twitter has determined advocating for preemptive government violence is considered reasonable. They’ve determined advocating for one form of violence (war) is fine, but advocating for other kinds of violence is not. Nobody asked for any of this, but here we are.

The next thing I want to discuss is the entire concept of a lifetime ban from a dominant social media company like Twitter. The more I think about it, the more ethically indefensible this practice appears to be. Just as we shouldn’t jail a person for life except under the most extreme circumstances, we shouldn’t be comfortable flippantly banning people forever on large social media platforms. Such action assumes people can’t and don’t change, but Twitter doesn’t seem to be looking at the enforcement of its terms of service from a fundamentally fair or ethical point of view. Executives are increasingly utilizing this most extreme form of punishment, the lifetime ban, at the drop of a hat for minor or misunderstood violations. There are many other ways Twitter could deal with what it deems to be serious violations. You can have three month, six month or even year long bans, but a lifetime banishment is an extreme and indefensible position in almost all cases I’ve observed in recent months.

As such, it’s become clear to me Twitter isn’t using this tool in order to enforce its terms of service, but rather its terms of service exist to provide an excuse to eliminate anyone or any account executives or Brooklyn-based corporate bloggers deem unpalatable…

Click here to read the entire article at Liberty Blitzkrieg.

Seattle Times: Dems Introduce Bill Banning Firearms on Capitol Campus

This Seattle Times story incorrectly states that the protestors were on the Capitol campus for a rally for Rep. Matt Shea, when they were actually there for the Rally 4 Ur Rights, gun rights rally at which Shea was a speaker. Rep. JT Wilcox is the alleged Republican representative who suspended Rep. Matt Shea after a Democrat hit piece was distributed in the guise of a report. Wilcox enjoys a good relationship with house Democrats because he is so compromising and attentive to their wishes.

Washington state Rep. Tana Senn, D-Mercer Island, on Monday introduced a bill  to ban firearms on the Capitol campus after lawmakers and staff were left shaken Friday when more than 100 armed demonstrators showed up to apparently protest the treatment of Rep. Matt Shea.

The protesters, some carrying long guns and tactical gear, did not have a permit to demonstrate on the site. They were there attempting to speak with House Minority Leader J.T. Wilcox, R-Yelm, according to House officials…

Friday’s demonstration is not the first to included armed protesters rallying at the Capitol for Shea — and denouncing Wilcox. The Washington State Patrol began investigating potential online threats made against Wilcox in the run-up to a gun-rights rally last month where Shea spoke.

On Friday, Wilcox was away, but the demonstrators allegedly berated his legislative aide, using profanity.

“Obviously we’re concerned about what happened,” said House Chief Clerk Bernard Dean. “They were here specifically for Shea and they verbally abused Rep. Wilcox’s legislative assistant…”

The appearance of armed demonstrators at the Capitol building and another legislative building used for House hearings upset children and staffers, according to Senn…

He said he doesn’t agree with Senn’s House Bill 2925 to ban firearms at the campus, saying, “We’ve had decades of peaceful Second Amendment rallies” at the Capitol.

 

Amateur Radio Technician License Class, 2/22 & 3/7

An amateur radio technician license exam preparation class will be held in the boardroom of the Benton REA, Prosser building at 402 7th St (entrance at the rear of the building). The class will take two full days to present and will be held on the Saturdays of Feb. 22nd, 2020 and March 7th, 2020 from 8:30 am until 5:00 pm each Saturday. There is no fee for taking the class. While we do not currently plan to hold a test session on the last day of class, there is an exam session being held by the Tri-Cities Amateur Radio Club on March 15th at the Boy Scouts office on 8478 W Gage Blvd, in Kennewick at 1:45 pm.

If you have questions about the class, you can send email to lyvarc@gmail.com.

Colion Noir: Bloomberg Says Ban Guns Holding More than 3 Rounds

Billionaire Tyrant Mike Bloomberg
Billionaire Tyrant Mike Bloomberg

This will come as no surprise to local readers, but presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg is a tyrannical idiot. In the video below, vlogger Colion Noir comments on clips from a recent interview given by Bloomberg in which the candidate shows that he knows nothing about 1) the second amendment, 2) the 1994 assault weapons ban, 3) hunting, nor 4) firearms. But he’s super excited to legislate on an issue on which he is clueless. Bloomberg gives a vague definition of assault weapons which he would ban: “if it can fire a lot of bullets very quickly.” When pressed to give a better definition he says if you can’t hit the deer in three shots you’re a lousy shot and you don’t need more.

Forward Observer: An Introduction to the Area Study

The intelligence guys at Forward Observer have an introduction to the area study posted. Having knowledge of your area is critical in any emergency situation. Being familiar with your area is more than just knowing a few streets along your normal routes. If you’re worried about a pandemic, some questions you may have might include: how many doctors are in my area; where are all of the medical facilities near my home/work; who will enforce a mandatory quarantine in my area; does my work/city/county have a pandemic response/preparedness plan;can you continue to work if you are quarantined to your home? If you wanted to be ready for political civil unrest, you may have an entirely different set of questions for your area study.

Chances are good that you and I have a lot in common.

We’re both concerned about the future of this country. Natural disasters, a financial crisis, economic decline, disruption to the power grid, a pandemic, political violence, a full-on Boogaloo… the list goes on and on.

From a risk and intelligence perspective, all of these are very valid concerns.

Americans purchase and acquire a lot of things in order to prepare for these events, but information is often overlooked as a critical component of preparedness.

I’m here right now to convince you of one thing: the absolute need for localized intelligence when any of these events occur.

The stuff you own isn’t going to produce intelligence for you.

No amount of beans, bullets, and band-aids will allow you to collect real-time intelligence during an emergency.

No amount of beans, bullets, and band-aids will reduce your uncertainty about what happens in the future.

No amount of beans, bullets, and band-aids can drive your decision-making during an emergency.

Only intelligence can do that.

Only intelligence can give you a more accurate picture of what’s happening now and a more accurate expectation of what could happen in the future.

And when we have accurate expectations of the future, we can be better prepared.

So what’s the best way to get started with local intelligence?

The Area Study.

During an emergency, we’re going to have blind spots. Another term for blind spot is an “intelligence gap,” or something that we don’t know but need to know. You are going to have lots of intelligence gaps.

One of the best things about doing an Area Study is that we can identify these intelligence gaps before an emergency event happens…

Click here to read the entire article at Forward Observer.

FO: How to Build an Area Study for Emergencies and Community Security

FO: The Area Study: Disaster Intelligence (Part One)

 

ABC Australia: Amateur Radio Skills Prove Useful During Bushfire Emergencies

From ABC Australia, this article details how amateur radio operators have provided communications in areas where the local communication infrastructure has been damaged by fires.

Amateur radio enthusiasts have proved themselves useful during the recent bushfires after traditional telecommunication channels broke down.

Amateur radio, also known as ham radio, is a skill and international hobby whereby enthusiasts use specific radio frequencies to communicate with each other.

In Australia, users must complete an exam to obtain a license through the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).

It was volunteers with these skills who were called in to assist during the recent New South Wales bushfires.

Neil Fallshaw is vice-president of WICEN NSW Communications, a group of volunteers with amateur radio licenses who can help in emergency situations.

He said about 30 members provided a temporary radio system in the Bega, Cobargo, Narooma, and Bermagui areas after some of the local radio infrastructure was damaged or had lost power.

A man sits at a desk operating a radio
Photo: Neil Fallshaw says radio operators were able to step in when mobile phones went down. (Supplied: Neil Fallshaw)

“We deployed one of our radio repeaters on the mountains. We put a radio repeater system on that mountain to cover a portion of the south coast,” Mr Fallshaw said.

He said that radio system assisted the NSW Volunteer Rescue Association and Bega Valley Shire Council staff to communicate from bushfire-affected towns like Bermagui and Cobargo.

“They normally use just mobile phones, but the mobile phones in the area were down because of fire damage,” Mr Fallshaw said.

Members of WICEN NSW also provided support operating regular radios at fire control centres in towns like Glen Innes, Port Macquarie, and Kempsey.

“They needed people who would be able to operate the radios in a communications environment which can get pretty hectic,” Mr Fallshaw said…

Tony Falla, an amateur radio user in central Victoria, said ham radio skills could be particularly useful when there were significant power outages.

For example, like that on the NSW south coast on New Year’s Eve when mobile coverage, the national broadband network, and the local ABC radio transmitter all dropped out.

“What I think amateur radio people have going for them is their ability to contact people outside the threatened area when there’s no contact inside the threatened area and pass on messages of a health and welfare nature,” Mr Falla said…

Mr Falla believes amateur radio skills could become more useful with the increased likelihood of extreme weather events leading to power outages.

“Amateur radio is considered old fashioned; why would you want a radio when you’ve got the internet?” he said.

“We have proved this year that the situations in place right now aren’t adequate in the extreme.”

Three people on the phone in a call centre.
Photo: WICEN operators also help with answering calls at the RFS headquarters in Sydney. (Supplied: Neil Fallshaw)

Mr Morley said there were some within emergency services in Victoria who were unaware of the skills amateur radio enthusiasts could provide.

“You have a lot of different staff coming in during emergencies, and while some people know what WICEN can do, probably many don’t,” he said.

Mr Gibson said the small size of WICEN NSW limited their ability to assist, but the work they had been doing was excellent.

“Since November 9, the WICEN group has completed 2,900 hours of radio communications, and that was only done by 30 members,” Mr Gibson said.

“WICEN, as a communications network, you won’t get any better.”