Connect with us

Politics

Michelle Malkin calls “bullcrap” on Christine Blasey Ford and those surrounding her

Published

on

Conservative commentator and CRTV host Michelle Malkin has had enough with all the praise the left is laying on Christine Blasey Ford. Is she sincere? Did she do what she’s doing with no motivation other than the truth? Does everything being said about Ford add up?

Malkin asks and answers these and other questions in this short video.

“While so many others mindlessly coo and slobber over Dr. Ford’s sincerity, I call sincere bullcrap,” she said.

Facebook Comments
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture and Religion

Top 5 ‘assault weapon’ technologies that existed BEFORE the Constitution was written

Published

on

By

Top 5 assault weapon technologies that existed BEFORE the Constitution was written

Just a sample of some of the repeating firepower that existed long before the 2nd amendment.

Leftist lore has it that the only guns in existence at the time of the writing of the 2nd amendment were muskets that took 5 minutes to reload. This being exemplified by the New York Times in using an image of a musket contrasted with an assault rifle in an article on their usual obsession with gun confiscation. Or from a commercial from a liberty grabber group depicting the long, drawn out reloading of a musket. As is usually the case with leftist lore, this is a complete fabrication.

The fact is that multishot or repeating firearms existed long before the affirmation of the common sense human right of self-preservation in the US Constitution. We’ve already highlighted some of these technologies that predate the Constitution. However, for the sake of completeness, we shall fill out the list with the other fine examples.

Since there is no set definition of the term ‘assault weapon’ or ‘weapons of war’ or what ever farcical term the liberty grabber left has come up with to demonize ordinary firearms, we bestowed this term to these technology as some of the first ‘Assault Weapons’.

Repeating rifles of the early 1600s, predating the Constitution by 160 years

The Encyclopedia Britannica has a very informative article on this subject with this excerpt detailing the most important point:

The first effective breech-loading and repeating flintlock firearms were developed in the early 1600s. One early magazine repeater has been attributed to Michele Lorenzoni, a Florentine gunmaker. In the same period, the faster and safer Kalthoff system—designed by a family of German gunmakers—introduced a ball magazine located under the barrel and a powder magazine in the butt. By the 18th century the Cookson repeating rifle was in use in North America, having separate tubular magazines in the stock for balls and powder and a lever-activated breech mechanism that selected and loaded a ball and a charge, also priming the flash pan and setting the gun on half cock.

[Our Emphasis]

Please note that these multishot or repeating firearms existed almost 2 centuries before the writing of the Constitution, eviscerating the ‘Muskets only’ lie of the national socialist Left. For those who are numerically as well a factually challenged, this was also 370 years before the 21st Century.

The Lorenzoni repeating flintlock: Portable firepower that predated the Constitution by over 100 years

Our first video from the venerable website Forgotten weapons is of two London-Made Lorenzonis Repeating Flintlocks. This was a repeating flintlock developed in the early 1600’s that was able to fire multiple shots 160 years before the writing of the Constitution.

Early development of revolving cylinder firearms, predating the Constitution by over 109 years

Next on the Pre-constitutional timeline, we have One of the Earliest Six-shot Revolvers from the collection of the Royal Armory that we profiled in a previous article. The Curator of Firearms, Jonathan Ferguson notes that this wasn’t one of the earliest revolvers along with pointing out how the technology has ‘evolved’ over time.

This also brings up an important point, that arms and other weapons of self-defense were vitally important, a matter of life or death. Every living being is in a battle for survival, in the case of human society, these technologies determined its survivability. Thus it is a constant competition with these technologies constantly changing and evolving over time. Something that would have been known by the learned men that wrote the founding documents.

The Puckle or Defense Gun from 1718, was predating the Constitution by over 70 years

We have previously detailed the Puckle or Defense Gun invented in 1718 and demonstrated early ‘automatic weapon’ fire in 1721:

The Puckle Gun, or Defense Gun as it was also known, was invented and patented in 1718 by the London lawyer James Puckle.

This was an early ‘automatic weapon’ was capable of firing 63 shots in 7 minutes in 1721.

For those following along this missed the mark of being a 21st Century weapon by almost 300 years.

The multishot Girardoni Air Gun that predated the Constitution by 9 years.

This is another multishot weapon of war that existed before the Constitution.

Jover and Belton Flintlock Repeating Musket – 1786, this also predates the Constitution

Our last video of multishot or repeating firearms that predated the Constitution is the Jover and Belton Flintlock Repeating Musket from 1786. We’re trying to keep this as short as possible, thus we have left off other examples such as the Ribauldequin, Duckfoot or Nock gun.

Very much like the previous example, the Belton Flintlock Repeating Musket was known to the founding fathers because he corresponded with Congress on this weapon in 1777 [Again, before the drafting of the Constitution]. For those keeping score at home, 1786 is still is not of the 21st Century.

Leftist lies on this subject depends on a number of improbable fallacies and assumptions. The founding fathers would have known the history of technological developments and they would have expected those developments to continue. Thus rendering the fallacy that they could not have foreseen that weapons technologies wouldn’t of continued on to the point of absurdity.

The Takeaway

Unfortunately for the Liberty Grabber Left, firearms tend to be valuable historical artifacts, these videos show that multishot or repeating firearms existed well before the Constitution. Thus we have eviscerated the ‘musket myth’. It should also be evident that the violence problem hasn’t been caused by the ‘easy’ availability of guns or repeating firearms.

As is the case with most Leftist lies and prevarication’s, they depend on a lack knowledge of the subject to succeed. This is why is extremely important that everyone of the Pro-Liberty Right be apprised of these facts in engaging those of the Left who have little care for logic, science or truth. The fact that multishot or repeating firearms existed centuries ago should make it clear that the Left is lying about the subject of self-defense from beginning to end.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Foreign Affairs

Thanks to Trump, Americans still have free speech

Published

on

Thanks to Trump Americans still have free speech

In spite of what mainstream media says, Trump’s rejection of the “Christchurch Call” may spare Americans from the Orwellian censorship other Western countries have pledged their allegiance to

Using tragedies to push political agendas is nothing new.

While people are still reeling from some disaster, before they are thinking rationally again is the best time for the shrewd-minded to take advantage of the situation. These cunning individuals cite prevention of another catastrophe in order to pressure those soft hearts – yet to come down from the shock of recent horrific events – into taking rash, impulsive, immediate action.

This is exactly what happened on May 15, when several nations and big tech companies, such as Facebook, Google, Twitter, Amazon, and Microsoft, signed a pledge written up in response to the Christchurch mosque massacre which was live-streamed by the shooter on Facebook.

The “Christchurch Call To Action,” which can be read in its entirety here, outlined efforts to be taken in order “to eliminate terrorist and violent extremist content online,” including “strengthening the resilience and inclusiveness of our societies” and encouraging media to “apply ethical standards when depicting terrorist events online.”

Among the countries who signed the call were Britain, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Ireland, Italy, France, Germany, Spain, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, the European Commission, Japan, Senegal, Jordan, India, and Indonesia.

But not America.

President Trump saw through the guise of humanitarianism that the Christchurch Call hid behind and refused to get on board.

In a statement regarding the president’s decision not to sign the Call, the White House claimed,

”We continue to be proactive in our efforts to counter terrorist content online while also continuing to respect freedom of expression and freedom of the press. Further, we maintain that the best tool to defeat terrorist speech is productive speech, and thus we emphasize the importance of promoting credible, alternative narratives as the primary means by which we can defeat terrorist messaging.”

Unsurprisingly, Trump has received a lot of backlash from mainstream media accusing him of being a “white supremacist bigot” contributing to “hate” for not signing the Call, but in reality, Trump was wise to stand against the crowd on this one.

The Christchurch Call is framed as a means for combating terrorism, but the vague terms sprinkled throughout the reactionary document like “inclusiveness” and “ethical standards” leave too much open to interpretation. Such loosely defined words make plenty of room for government censorship of any dissenting opinions on the Internet.

Other western countries are already sliding down the slippery slope towards an Orwellian future.

Just after the Christchurch shooting, New Zealand criminalized the video of the assailant’s livestream and his manifesto. Now, several citizens of New Zealand have been arrested and are facing up to 14 years of imprisonment just for sharing the video.

Some New Zealanders have also reported receiving visits from local police, who asked questions regarding their political views, such as if they liked Trump or not.

In Scotland, a man was fined £800 for making this video in the spirit of comedy:

Several U.K. citizens have been arrested, fined, or had the police visit them for criticizing Islam on social media.

While Americans like Alex Jones have questionably been banned from platforms like Facebook and Youtube, this is the worst it gets in the United States.

In America, government involvement in silencing online political dissidents through arrests and fines is unheard of. In declining to sign the Christchurch Call, Trump made a statement displaying his commitment to preserving his people’s right to voice their opinions, no matter how controversial.

While the Trump administration still stands, America will remain the land of freedom of speech.

Sources

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

How Alabama’s abortion law sets President Trump up to be a pragmatist

Published

on

How Alabamas abortion law sets President Trump up to be a pragmatist

One of the favorite tactics for both major political parties is to paint opposing candidates as extremists. This is particularly true when it comes to presidential candidates; if you don’t recall, every Republican candidate since Ronald Reagan has been painted as a bigot by Democrats. But whether or not the people fall for the extremism play is usually based, at least to some degree, on reality.

That may not be the case in the 2020 election as both media and the expressions of the people seem to be favoring extremism as a reality rather than just a label. The President is a far-right bigot in the eyes of Democrats while every Democratic candidate (with the possible exception of Joe Biden) is a far-left socialist in the eyes of Republicans. Meanwhile, mainstream media is engaged in confirmation bias to appease their audiences. One need only look at coverage of the Mueller report to see how this is unmistakably true.

On the issue of abortion, the Democratic candidates have made no attempts to appeal to the middle. As each is either asked for or volunteers their perspective on abortion, invariably they are pushing no restrictions whatsoever. This is a far cry from the days when the Clintons thought abortions should be safe, legal, and rare. Today, abortions are to be embraced as far as Democrats are concerned, and any attempt to push for adoption or to fight for the rights of the child in the womb is considered bigoted. One by one, every Democratic candidate is adopting abortion extremism as their stated stance.

But President Trump did something yesterday that makes sense from a political perspective. I may disagree with his stance, but it’s a winning strategy for his reelection campaign. He said he is pro-life with exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother. This stance was once considered to be an extreme position for the right, but with the Alabama abortion bill removing exceptions for rape and incest, the President has the luxury of being closer to the middle than any of his opponents (again, with the possible exception of Biden – we’ll find out soon enough).

Thankfully, the President of the United States has very little they can do when it comes to abortion other than pick pro-life judges and act as the leader of their party. Executive orders on abortion would be certainly struck down regardless of what they say, so it comes down to ideological purity. With Democrats taking on abortion-on-demand as their stated radical stance, it’s hard to argue that the President is the extremist when even he doesn’t directly support the Alabama bill. He didn’t call it out, but by stating his personal position he established that he’s not as far to the right as the Democrats are to the left.

Today, the Democrats must embrace their primary voters, many of whom are the radical progressives “shouting their abortions” and pushing for a socialistic Dystopian future for America. Meanwhile, the President has the luxury of being more pragmatic with his approach since he’s already in general election mode. He doesn’t need to appeal to his base very much because they either stand behind him out of adoration or they fear the Democrats too much to consider going against him. Even most #NeverTrumpers are having a hard time reconciling their hatred for the President with the current batch of hardline hyper-leftists vying for the Democratic nomination.

We can argue the nuances of being pro-life and having exceptions, but as long as the Democrats are all onboard for on-demand abortions, the President’s less extreme stance on abortion will help him next November.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending