Friday, July 20, 2012

Media's War Against Individual Rights



In the early morning of July 20th, 2012, a gunman entered a showing of the latest Dark Knight movie and shot several people. It is a tragedy. The gunman is a criminal and mass murderer. When the actual person is captured, hopefully the evidence will lead to an apt punishment and swift justice. The families of the slain deserve nothing less.

However, the gunman most likely did not act at the behest of conservatives who support the Second Amendment. Sean Hannity did not tell people to go on shooting rampages. Rush Limbaugh did not go on the air and say "Somebody should shoot up a showing of a Batman movie". Neal Boortz did not come out and say "shooting people in a theater is patriotic".

TEA Party members, by and large, are law abiding citizens. The Second Amendment is intended for self-defense against would-be criminals and protection against government militias who may attempt to instill tyranny. The Second Amendment is for protection of self, life, family, and property. It is not a license to go on shooting rampages. TEA Party members live this philosophy. Yet, the media is attempting to blame this shooting on conservative and libertarian talk show personalities and on the TEA Party.

They did the same when a left-wing activist attempted to assassinate Rep. Gabby Giffords in Tucson, AZ. Immediately after the shooting, the media attempted portray the shooter as a "Right Wing Nut Job" who went nuts and shot up the town hall meeting. However, once the evidence came to light, the shooter turned out to be a left-wing activist (a socialist). Of course, once that evidence was revealed, you didn't hear a peep from the left-wing biased mainstream media.

When Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated JFK, the media did the same. They portrayed him as a right-wing activist. In truth, he turned out to be a Marxist.

Why does the media seem to get this wrong every single time?

Simple, they don't want people to know the truth. They wish to obfuscate the truth and lie to the citizens of the US, misleading them in an effort to frame those who love individual rights as evil. In other words, they despise the very basic ideals our country was founded upon. They support the Agenda 21 treaties that are design to steal US sovereignty and strip our citizens of our constitutionally protected individual rights.

Here are some truths the media failed to publish. The men who restrained the Tucson shooter and kept him from harming more people were all TEA Party members. They had concealed carry permits. (A couple of months later, no concealed carry permits were required in Arizona to carry concealed). They did not use their weapons because there was no way to shoot the criminal without endangering other lives. So they wrestled him to the ground instead. However, the shooter himself, not the brave men who stopped him, was the one the media labeled as being a TEA Party member.

The DC sniper(s) were left-wingers tied to Islamic extremist groups. They were not conservative Americans.

What are not reported are shooting incidents in places that ban firearms on their property. By and large, when these occur, those with concealed carry permits wish they had their weapons on them. However, being law-abiding citizens, they do not carry their firearms and are left defenseless. So are those around them that the concealed weapons carriers could have protected.

If the theater in Aurora, CO banned firearms on their property (it is their property and they have the right to do so), how many people did they prevent from having a means to stop this shooter? He shot 14. If they had allowed concealed carry, could one armed citizen have shot this murder after the first one or two and saved 12-13 lives in the process? Yes. However, the media seeks to vilify those law-abiding citizens who followed the rules and left their weapons locked up elsewhere instead of bringing them into the theater.

Criminals break laws. They have no regard for laws. They see laws as "morally relative" (like liberals and socialists see the US Constitution). They don't care if there is a "no firearms" sign posted. They will still bring the weapons in and use them. Such was the case in Chicago in 1990. Chicago had strict "no handguns" laws in city limits. Yet criminals still bought weapons, illegally, and brought them into theaters to conduct gang-related shootings. The gun restrictions didn't matter to them.

In states and municipalities that have lesser violations of Second Amendment rights, violent crime rates are much lower. It's a proven trend. 

I recently moved from Arizona. Arizona got it right. They passed a law allowing concealed carry without need for a permit. For decades prior, Arizona allowed open-carry without a permit. In my new state, I have to acquire a concealed permit. They would reciprocate Arizona's had I not let it lapse due to it no longer being necessary. More states need to follow Arizona's example. Arizona is a state that understands the full intentions of the Second Amendment. The amendment states "Keep" (own, posses) and "Bear" (carry, wear, have on one's person) "arms" (weapons, firearms). There is nothing in there that says "as long as somebody issues a permit". In fact, it says that the rights "will NOT be infringed". That means states issuing permits for concealed carry or restricting the carrying of a weapon are violating the Second Amendment.

However, the mainstream media wants people to fall in line with the tyranny of the government. They want people to look to government to feed, clothe, house, protect, nurse, nanny, and wipe their butts after they have a bowel movement. They want to be the only source of "information", determining what you will believe. They want to control what facts you receive. They want you enslaved to the statist, socialist, collectivist, "progressive", "liberal", Marxist, Marcusian masters.

There was a party in 1930s Germany called the "National Workers' Socialist Party". They took over and controlled the media, filtering facts and lying to the people. They greatly influenced the election of a man named Adolf Hitler to become their chief executive. They took away the guns because "the state will protect you, you don't need them", thus disarming those they wished to enslave. They then committed genocide under a party of tyranny that was intent upon world domination. It all started with the media telling people what to think and convincing them that the violations of their individual rights were for their "general welfare".

In the near future, the international "Small Arms Treaty" will be signed and forwarded to the Senate for ratification. It is part of Agenda 21. This shooting in Aurora, CO will be used to propagate that vile, evil, affront to individual rights. The left doesn't want you to have individual rights. To take them away, first they must take away your ability to defend them. That is what the media is attempting to facilitate.

The Media Research Center, a mainstream media watchdog group that reports and comments on accuracy (inaccuracies and biases) in the media published this video. It's worth the few minutes of time to watch.


6 comments:

  1. you make radical claims about the media. where's the proof? how do you know this is their plan? (from a curious and interested reader) ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ABC News jumped and reported that the current suspect in custody was a member of the TEA Party. They jumped on that right off the bat because they found somebody with a similar name who happened to be part of the TEA Party. However, the suspect and the TEA Party member proved to NOT be the same person. Other news sources such as MSNBC have reported the shooter had links to Hannity and Limbaugh. However, they have no proof of it. The only "link" found, so far, in the booby-trapped apartment that authorities still have not searched (except through a "snake-cam") is a poster for the comedy movie "Anchor Man".

      The reporting on the Gabby Giffords shooting was well documented. Since I lived in Giffords's district, I followed the case pretty closely. The evidence ended up showing that the shooter was more linked to Lisa Fithian than to the TEA Party. He also had piles of printed socialist and Marxist propaganda calling for violent anarchistic actions.

      The Small Arms Treaty portion of Agenda 21 is coming up for ratification vote soon.

      Given the obvious bias in the media, their support for Agenda 21 treaties is clear. Any shooting is blamed on guns and the Second Amendment. If possible, they attempt to link the criminals to Second Amendment support groups. Look at the Martin-Zimmerman case. The trial has yet to take place. If found guilty, Zimmerman will have acted outside the protections of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" laws. However, those laws are blamed. If found not guilty, then the laws will be blamed for allowing somebody to defend themselves.

      The cases are far too numerous to cover in a single article or comment.

      Delete
    2. Check the video from the MRC that I added to the article. More cases of the media spreading a false, anti-conservative message are contained and documented within.

      Delete
  2. AGENDA 21 sucks ! LOOK INTO IT ! ( DID YOU KNOW ONE OF THEIR MAIN GOALS IS TO REDUCE THE WORLD'S POPULATION TO 500 MILLION ? (SORRY i GOT STUCK ON CAPS LOCK) --- IT'S JUST THAT " THEY" WANT TO HAVE ALL OF THE GUNS ! they will force people into their already built " RETRAINING CAMPS " to get you to see their way. Or.. maybe that's why FEMA's bought millions of rounds of ammo.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agenda 21 is a blatant attempt to transfer our sovereignty to the control of the UN. They try to disguise it as human rights treaties, etc. In effect, though, they contain provisions that are against the very foundations of liberty we have proven necessary in a free country.

      If Agenda 21 really did want to help stop human suffering, they would allow sovereign nations that promote individual liberty, such as ours, to help stop international human trafficking, which is directly responsible for sex slavery (and other slavery). However, the UN just pays that lip service. They would want to arm potential victims, not disarm them and leave them defenseless.

      No, the UN is just seeking to take away the strength we as a nation built ourselves to be and give what we earned to those countries that have not. They want to give it to countries that have no desire to actually recognize individual rights (such as Iran, Rwanda, Cambodia, Somalia, Cuba, etc.).

      Delete
  3. that guy did a very thorough report. Keith Olberman ( SP? ) was /IS off the deep end ! ( It's sad there isn't mush " Middle of the road balanced reporting.) It seems " news" is just like TV shows and the movies: they have to involve "conflict" ( somebody's Always being a butthole...) to keep the viewers / readers / listeners engaged.. They feed off of making conflict. ( reminds me of an old star trek )

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.