A WordPress Blog-THE CHURCH MILITANT Ephesians 5:11-"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them". This Christian News Blog maintains a one stop resource of current news and reports of its own related to church, moral, spiritual, and related political issues, plus articles, and postings from other online discernment ministries, and media which share the aims to obey the biblical commands to shed light on and refute error, heresy, apostasy, cults, and spiritual abuse. ALL CONTENT FROM HTTPS://RATHEREXPOSETHEM.BLOGSPOT.COM MOVED TO THIS NEW BLOG, MAY 2020
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research
New undercover video from Project Veritas shows two more Bernie Sanders field organizers out of South Carolina discussing how their far-left movement is embedded with radicals, and the violent measures they would take to implement their socialist vision for America.
In part 4 of Veritas’ #Expose2020 campaign, field organizers Mason Baird and Daniel Taylor discuss waging violence against their political enemies and promoting “extreme action” in the name of furthering socialism in America.
Baird discussed how the Bernie campaign attracts “truly radical” elements of the left.
“We do attract – I mean we attract, um, you know radical, like – truly radical people to the campaign,” Baird told the PV journalist. “That’s obviously not outward facing sort of.”
He added that a lot of people canvassing for the Sanders campaign “fall well outside of the American sort of norm.”
“So they’re Marxists-Leninists, they’re Anarchists, they’re these types of folks, and um, and they have more of a mind for direct action, for engaging in politics outside the electoral system.”
Baird even spouted alarming Communist rhetoric, speaking of “abolishing landlords” rather than killing them if Bernie wins the presidency.
“After we abolish landlords, we don’t have to kill them, you know what I’m saying?” he said. “But um….there were plenty of excesses in 1917 that I would hope to avoid. But like, I admire it.”
“It would, it’s gonna take, you know, it’s gonna take militancy…like a militant labor movement that’s willing to…strike, and if necessary, you know, just destroy property and things like that,” Baird added.
Taylor bragged about how socialism has become more mainstream in recent years, and how violent action may be necessary to implement it, using Antifa and Yellow Vest-type riots, but that’s being kept “on the back burner for now.”
“The whole socialist thing 4 years ago was a lot more toxic than it is today,” Taylor said. “I think people are starting to realize that maybe it’s not such a bad thing.”
“We don’t want to scare people off. So you kinda gotta feel it out first before you get into the crazy stuff.”
“We were talking about, you know, more extreme organizations and stuff like Antifa, you know you were talking about Yellow Vests and all that, but, you know we’re kinda keeping that on the back burner for right now.”
“It is unfortunate that we have to make plans for extreme action, but like I said, they’re not going to give it to us,” Taylor added.
Two weeks ago, we learned that American cities will go up in flames and cops and moderate liberals will be murdered if Bernie Sanders loses either the Democratic nomination or the general election.
That warning from a staffer in the elderly socialist’s Iowa campaign, and another from a worker in South Carolina, included a hint of what would come with a Sanders victory in November. Republicans will go to an American gulag. The rich will be guillotined.
Guerilla journalists for Project Veritas video-recorded those threats, and today published a fourth installment (video below) in which Sanders’ staff members elaborate on their plans for a Stalinist America should Sanders prevail.
Two New ConfessionsThis week’s video features two more staffers in the Palmetto State, Mason Baird and Daniel Taylor, who divulged plans for a communist uprising and “extreme action” if Sanders lands in the White House.
Admitting that “we attract radical, truly radical people,” Baird confessed that campaign staffers are “Marxist/Leninist” and “Anarchists” with “more of a mind for ‘direct action’ for engaging in politics outside of the electoral system.”
Sanders expects to assemble a “mass movement going after the election” that will completely alter American life as we know it, Baird explained, not least by nationalizing Google, YouTube, Facebook, and other social media to use “as education stuff goes.”
As well,Baird envisionederecting a Maoist state of trial and error — or trial and terror:
We would need a federal government and labor union movement that is working together to strip power away from capitalists and preferably directing violence toward property. At the end of the day, this kind of stuff will come out through practice, through the work and it’s hard for me to talk about it in the moment we live in ’cause I think China today is not what Mao envisioned, right it was through the practice of Chinese people doing the work to create the China today.... A lot of these answers are going to come through practice — we’re going to try things — things aren’t going to work — we’re going to move on to the next thing, and we’re going to try to be as conscious and intentional about those things, but when you get into a certain level of detail, and depth, it’s like, that’s kind of my ‘cop out’, it comes through the work, you know. The answers come through the work.
Whether guillotines and burning cities are the “things” Baird and his cohort will try is anyone’s guess, but he did promise “militancy” and a violent labor movement that will crack skulls — “a militant labor movement that’s willing to ... strike, and if necessary, you know, just destroy property and things like that.”
And if the “militant labor movement” doesn’t succeed, “other means” will be tried.
After we abolish landlords, we don’t have to kill them, that’s my feeling I think it’s damaging to the soul, but um, there were plenty of excesses in 1917 I would hope to avoid. Labor, I think that’s a big source of power for us, and just try to gain as much leverage and power in the short time that we have. You know, Lenin didn’t have the internet, they were a peasant society, and I mean it was like, so you know I would hope that like, that we would — we’d have — we’d be doing a bunch of prep work before the capitalists got hip to what we were doing, I guess. That’s my best uh, I’m not excited about the prospect of armed struggle.
Americans can rest easy though, because “the Gulags and the persecution of the Kulaks and things like that are exaggerated.”
We don’t want to scare people off, you first have to feel it out before you get into the crazy stuff.... You know we were talking about more extreme organizations like Antifa, you were talking about, Yellow Vests, all that but we’re kinda keeping that on the back-burner for now..
In other words, Antifa goon squads will be ready to enforce Sanders’ edicts. “It’s unfortunate that we have to make plans for extreme action,” Taylor warned, “but like I said, they’re not going to give it to us even if Bernie is elected.”
For the record, three Sanders campaign staff members have promised the following after the election:
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research
Arizona -(Ammoland.com)- Individuals have been making their own firearms for the entire history of the United States and before. Homemade guns are not as popular as factory-made guns, because factory-made guns are easily and cheaply available in the United States. The Second Amendment has guaranteed that right.
It is a part of the right to keep and bear arms to be able to procure arms. A basic and fundamental way to procure arms is to make your own. Most home manufacture of firearms is for hobby or experimental purposes, although considerable homemade guns are produced in localities with extreme restrictions on the ownership of guns.
Delaware is in the process of passing a statute to make it illegal to make your own firearms or to even possess a piece of metal that is intended to be used to make a receiver. From the proposed statute, HB 277:
( ) “Unfinished firearm frame or receiver” means a firearm frame or receiver that requires further machining or molding in order to be used as part of a functional firearm, and which is designed and intended to be used in the assembly of a functional firearm.
( ) “Untraceable firearm” means an unlawfully manufactured firearm for which the sale or distribution chain from a licensed retailer to the point of its first retail sale cannot be traced by law enforcement officials.
The law makes it illegal to make your own firearms:
§ 1463 Untraceable firearms; Class E or D felony.
(a) A person is guilty of possessing an untraceable firearm when then person knowingly possesses an untraceable firearm.
(b) A person is guilty of manufacturing an untraceable firearm when the person knowingly manufactures, assembles, causes to be manufactured or assembled, sells, or transfers an untraceable firearm.
(c) A person is guilty of manufacturing or distributing a firearm using a three-dimensional printer when the person does any one of the following:
(1) Uses a three-dimensional printer or similar device to manufacture or produce a firearm, firearm frame or receiver, magazine, or major firearm component when not licensed as a manufacturer.
(2) Distributes by any means, including the internet, to a person who is not licensed as a manufacturer, instructions in the form of computer-aided design files or other code or instructions stored and displayed in electronic format as a digital model that may be used to program a three-dimensional printer to manufacture or produce a firearm, firearm frame or receiver, magazine, or major component of a firearm.
(d) Possession of a untraceable firearm is a Class E felony.
(e) Manufacturing an untraceable firearm or manufacturing or distributing a firearm using a three-dimensional printer is a Class D felony.
The law, if passed, will be challenged in court, on both First and Second Amendment grounds. The law applies to people without any criminal record. People with felonies are already forbidden from owning firearms. This law is to prevent people who are not criminals from making their own firearms.
It is a very new law to forbid law-abiding individuals from making firearms for their own use. Such a law has only been passed in the last two years, to my knowledge.
It is a direct violation of the First Amendment to forbid the transmission of knowledge on how to make firearms with digital code.
This sort of law is common in countries without a Bill of Rights to limit the power of the government. It is an easily followed path of logic. The government forbids most people from buying guns. The people start to make their own. Then the government forbids the buying of gun parts. Then it forbids the buying or transfer of information on how to make guns. It may forbid the ownership of machinery that can be used to make guns. Some raids in India, for example, show confiscated drills, welders, and files.
Nothing in the Second Amendment allows the government to create a registry of guns or to require them to be traced to the first retail sale. Such a thing is of virtually no use in solving crimes. Its sole purpose, it appears, is to pave the way for a registration system.
If Delaware passes this law, it will be following the steps of California (requires state serial number and following state manufacturing requirements), New Jersey (flat out ban), New York (firearm parts may only be sold to authorized buyers), Washington (bans “undetectable” guns), Connecticut (requires a state-issued serial number). These five states, and Delaware, if it passes the law, are all treading new ground with laws passed in the last two years.
The Washington state law may not be precisely in this group, as the law bans “undetectable guns”. Almost all homemade guns are easily detectable.
I have yet to see any court challenge to these laws. There was a court challenge on the legal ability to make your own machine guns, in Arizona, in the 1990s. The Ninth Circuit upheld that right, and the Supreme Court refused to hear the case. However, the case was complicated by other factors, and the Supreme Court had not yet decided Heller.
It is not surprising the five states above, sans Washington, all heavily infringe on the exercise of Second Amendment rights, by refusing to allow the legal carry of firearms by most of the population. They all have “may issue” laws, aggressively preventing most people from carrying firearms for self-defense.
About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30-year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.
To request information for financial institutions for the purpose of developing an advisory about the identification and reporting of suspicious activity … relating to how homegrown violent extremists and perpetrators of domestic terrorism procure firearms … for the purpose of carrying out “lone actor” or “lone wolf” acts of terror within the United States.
Said Wexton when introducing her bill:
Banks, credit card companies, and retailers have unique insight into the behavior and purchasing patterns that can help identify and prevent mass shootings. We know that financial intelligence can be an effective tool to combat gun violence in the same way it is for money laundering, human smuggling, and fentanyl trafficking.
Financial institutions have a legal obligation under the Bank Secrecy Act to have programs in place to detect and report suspicious financial activity, but they have to know what they are looking for, and FinCEN [the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network] can be a valuable partner. The red flags are there — someone just needs to be paying attention.
Red flags are, indeed, raised when looking at Wexton’s background. She is one of several liberal House Democrats who replaced conservative pro-gun Republicans in Virginia in the 2018 mid-term elections. Her campaign against a pro-Second Amendment incumbent was largely financed by Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety. Her voting record in the House has earned her a rating of just 12 out of 100 in the Freedom Index — a measure of how closely her voting record hews to the limits of the U.S. Constitution, published by The John Birch Society.
The first question must be: Why would she want the government to have this sort of information? Terrorists generally don’t buy weaponry from retail gun stores using credit cards. And any “home-grown lone-wolf” planning an attack, once he learns that credit card issuers are likely to alert federal authorities, will use cash instead.
That leaves law-abiding gun owners as the primary target. And financial institutions such as banks and credit card companies would more than likely spread a wide net around anyone using credit to purchase firearms, just to be sure they don’t fall afoul of the feds’ new requirements if Wexton’s bill becomes law. Translation: Any gun owner making a purchase sufficiently large to arouse the suspicions of anonymous bureaucrats lurking in the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) will be targeted.
An additional consequence — perhaps intended by anti-gun Wexton — could be that banks and credit card companies will refuse to allow gun owners to use credit cards to purchase firearms or their accessories altogether.
As pernicious as Wexton’s bill is, it pales when compared to the infringements of personal privacy already taking place at FinCEN. Established in 1990 by order of the Secretary of the Treasury, it was made an agency of that department with passage of the PATRIOT Act after 911. The agency states that “the primary motive of criminals is financial gain, and they leave financial trails as they try to launder the proceeds of crimes or attempt to spend their ill-gotten profits.”
Since September 2012, FinCEN regularly generates four reports that offend the Fourth Amendment, including its “Suspicious Activity Report.” FinCEN shares that information with dozens of intelligence agencies including the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) and the IRS. FinCEN does not disclose how many of those “Suspicious Activity Reports” result in investigations, indictments, or convictions, and no studies exist on how many innocents are ensnared in that report for merely exercising their freedoms. But the information is available to federal investigations without regard to niceties such as the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches.
What Wexton is doing is what politicians typically do when they don’t feel constrained by either their oaths of office or the Constitution they swore to uphold and defend. In the present case, her bill is a perfidious back door attack on Second Amendment rights guaranteed in the very document she promised to defend.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Virginia’s hard-left Democrats are so terrified of the commonwealth’s conservatives, moderates, and sane liberals they want to criminalize criticism of anti-gun, pro-infanticide Governor Ralph Northam and other top officials.
The proposal to stamp out free speech is buried in a package of amendments to the state code that at first glance seems innocent enough, and would severely punish threats of death and physical harm to the governor, and, again, other state officials.
But the Democrats think more is required to protect themselves from the barrage of criticism they will surely get as they administer the state with a majority in the General Assembly and a governor for the first time in two decades.
Thus will they punish critics who they deem to be “harassing” them with “obscene” speech.
Shut Up and Do What You’re Told The proposed “harassment by computer” law would punish those who exercise their constitutional right to protest the government.
If any person, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass any person, shall use a computer or computer network to communicate obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language, or make any suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature, or threaten any illegal or immoral act, he is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. A violation of this section may be prosecuted in the jurisdiction in which the communication was made or received or in the City of Richmond if the person subjected to the act is one of the following officials or employees of the Commonwealth: the Governor, Governor-elect, Lieutenant Governor, Lieutenant Governor-elect, Attorney General, or Attorney General-elect, a member or employee of the General Assembly, a justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, or a judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia.
The question is who decides what constitutes using a computer to “coerce, intimidate, or harass any person,” or what constitutes “vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language.” And, again, one has to wonder what the Democrats would consider beyond the pale given their affinity for such language.
Anyway, the law will likely get a First Amendment challenge from either the leftist American Civil Liberties Union or a conservative legal outfit.
Why the Law? The RedState website succinctly explained why the Democrats want to ban free speech.
“Virginia’s current leadership wants to be able to pass wildly unpopular, unconstitutional laws without getting any push back,” RedState writer Bonchie explained. “They don’t want people to organize online campaigns against them or express their displeasure in a way that may animate others to follow suit. This law would be used to harass anyone who steps out of line and it’s ironic that it’s spun as an anti-harassment law protecting high ranking state officials.”
The most dangerous and frightening of those laws is the totalitarian “red-flag” proposal that would allow the capricious seizure of guns from those deemed to be dangerous.
That law “creates a procedure by which any attorney for the Commonwealth or any law-enforcement officer may apply to a general district court, circuit court, or juvenile and domestic relations district court judge or magistrate for an emergency substantial risk order to prohibit a person who poses a substantial risk of injury to himself or others from purchasing, possessing, or transporting a firearm.”
Within 14 days, a court must convene a hearing to determine whether a substantial risk order should be issued that could disarm the individual for six months. Giving a gun to a disarmed person is a felony, and “the bill creates a computerized substantial risk order registry for the entry of orders issued pursuant to provisions in the bill.”
The red-flag confiscation bill and the other anti-gun laws will likely face court challenges.