Veterans of the People’s Liberation Army staged a massive protest this weekend in the eastern Chinese city of Pingdu against police beatings of former soldiers. Police beat some of the protesters during the demonstration, even though they were elderly.
Chinese reporters said the police were withdrawn from the streets after several violent confrontations out of fear a full-blown riot could erupt.
Provincial authorities are reportedly worried the protests will spread to other cities, especially if public anger over the beating of elderly demonstrators continues to mount.
The key issue for disgruntled PLA veterans is unpaid pensions. This weekend’s protests were inspired by the callous treatment given to 38 elderly veterans from Pingdu who journeyed to Beijing to state their grievances to the central government. The petitioners were sent home and beaten by the Pingdu police when they arrived.
____________________________________ things are going to get VERY interesting over there soon! Grumpy
Five-judge panel finds disgraced former AG Eric Schneiderman failed to demonstrate authority to prosecute the state’s first ever SAFE Act case
April 26, 2019 | BUFFALO, N.Y. – The New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department issued a crushing rebuke today to Albany’s far-left progressives seeking to legislate Second Amendment civil rights out of existence via imperial gun control edicts like the SAFE Act. In a unanimous decision, the State Supreme Court ruled that the New York State Attorney General’s Office, headed by the disgraced Eric Schneiderman at the time of initial legal action, failed to demonstrate legal authority to prosecute the SAFE Act violations originally levelled against Defendant-Appellant Benjamin Wassell.
In today’s decision, the Court stated: “Here, the stipulated record on appeal does not establish that the Superintendent of State Police requested that the Attorney General prosecute this case. Indeed, there is no letter from the Superintendent in the record (see id. at 134; cf. Rogers, 157 AD3d at 1002; Marketing & Adv. Servs. Ctr. Corp., 272 AD2d at 982), nor is there any other showing in the record that a request came from the Superintendent himself. Because the People failed to establish that the Attorney General had authority to secure the indictment and prosecute the case, we conclude that the judgment must be reversed and the indictment dismissed (see Gilmour, 98 NY2d at 135).”
The result of the Court’s decision is that Wassell’s indictment “is dismissed and the matter is remitted to Chautauqua County Court for proceedings pursuant to CPL 470.45.”
“The simple truth is that Second Amendment civil rights won today, and the agenda of unconstitutional gun control force-fed to Upstate New York by the progressive totalitarians occupying the imperial palace in Albany lost,” 2AWNY.COM Civil Rights Advocate Steve Felano said. “Attorney Jim Ostrowski, the mastermind behind Ben Wassell’s appeal, correctly pointed out to the Court that the New York State Attorney General failed miserably to demonstrate the legal authority required to prosecute Ben Wassell for SAFE Act violations, which are, themselves, unconstitutional in the first place. The Court agreed with Jim because his argument was spot-on and logically unassailable. Furthermore, disgraced former Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, likely because he wanted to insert himself into the first ever SAFE Act case for political gain, committed a massive error in failing to demonstrate the authority of his office to prosecute the Wassell case. As the AG’s office retreats to Albany to lick the wounds inflicted by this crushing defeat, its occupants should note 2AWNY is not giving up the fight to repeal the SAFE Act in total, and the assault against Albany’s imperial gun control regime will continue. Andrew Cuomo should likewise take notice.”
Because the New York State Supreme Court dismissed Wassell’s indictment due to a lack of prosecutorial authority, the judges who decided the case “do not address defendant’s remaining contentions.” Said remaining contentions, articulated in Jim Ostrowski’s prior brief to the Court, center on the unconstitutional nature of the SAFE Act. Ostrowski clearly, logically, and forcefully demonstrated that the SAFE Act should be nullified in total based on the following:
Unconstitutional
Void for vagueness
Due process violation
Lack of equal protection under the law
The above assertions regarding the SAFE Act are supported by a growing body of contemporary Second Amendment jurisprudence that has expanded in scope and prominence as recently as March 29, 2019. This is, of course, the date that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California decided Duncan v. Becerra. As a result of this case, U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez ruled that California’s draconian regulations and bans on firearms magazines accepting more than 10 rounds is unconstitutional under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. A similar fate, supported by the latest academic research from Boston University and Harvard researchers indicating that ‘assault weapons’ and magazine bans do not lower homicide rates, awaits the New York State SAFE Act. 2AWNY will not rest until that fate is secured.
To learn more about any of the above, please contact Steve Felano at (518) 852-1863 or sfelano@2AWNY.com.
– 30 – 2AWNY is a force multiplier for the numerous Second Amendment civil rights advocacy enterprises forming the backbone of Western New York’s vibrant gun culture. We act as a 2A news and information distribution, policy analysis, and organizational driver for the many interest groups seeking to defend and expand Second Amendment civil rights throughout the region. 2AWNY is dedicated to assisting in the organization, promotion, and funding of legal challenges to the unconstitutional New York State gun control regime. We seek to make Western New York the epicenter of New York State’s Second Amendment civil rights renaissance. Learn more at WWW.2AWNY.COM.
I ran across this on Facebook, and decided to clip and paste. I have said the same thing for the past 10+ years. It gives me hope that some of the younger generation does realize it. Unfortunately most of them don’t. They have been conditioned to believe that America is “Evil, Racist and the scrouge of the Earth.” I am hoping that the younger generation realized the gift and luck to be born in this country.
Thoughts from a hipster coffee shop…
My generation is becoming the largest voting bloc in the country. We have an opportunity to continue to propel us forward with the gifts capitalism and democracy has given us. The other option is that we can fall into the trap of entitlement and relapse into restrictive socialist destitution. The choice doesn’t seem too hard, does it?
I’m sitting in a small coffee shop near Nokomis trying to think of what to write about. I scroll through my newsfeed on my phone looking at the latest headlines of Democratic candidates calling for policies to “fix” the so-called injustices of capitalism. I put my phone down and continue to look around. I see people talking freely, working on their MacBook’s, ordering food they get in an instant, seeing cars go by outside, and it dawned on me. We live in the most privileged time in the most prosperous nation and we’ve become completely blind to it. Vehicles, food, technology, freedom to associate with whom we choose. These things are so ingrained in our American way of life we don’t give them a second thought. We are so well off here in the United States that our poverty line begins 31 times above the global average. Thirty. One. Times. Virtually no one in the United States is considered poor by global standards. Yet, in a time where we can order a product off Amazon with one click and have it at our doorstep the next day, we are unappreciative, unsatisfied, and ungrateful.
Our unappreciation is evident as the popularity of socialist policies among my generation continues to grow. Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently said to Newsweek talking about the millennial generation, “An entire generation, which is now becoming one of the largest electorates in America, came of age and never saw American prosperity.”
Never saw American prosperity. Let that sink in. When I first read that statement, I thought to myself, that was quite literally the most entitled and factually illiterate thing I’ve ever heard in my 26 years on this earth. Now, I’m not attributing Miss Ocasio-Cortez’s words to outright dishonesty. I do think she whole-heartedly believes the words she said to be true. Many young people agree with her, which is entirely misguided. My generation is being indoctrinated by a mainstream narrative to actually believe we have never seen prosperity. I know this first hand, I went to college, let’s just say I didn’t have the popular opinion, but I digress.
Let me lay down some universal truths really quick. The United States of America has lifted more people out of abject poverty, spread more freedom and democracy, and has created more innovation in technology and medicine than any other nation in human history. Not only that but our citizenry continually breaks world records with charitable donations, the rags to riches story is not only possible in America but not uncommon, we have the strongest purchasing power on earth, and we encompass 25% of the world’s GDP. The list goes on. However, these universal truths don’t matter. We are told that income inequality is an existential crisis (even though this is not an indicator of prosperity, some of the poorest countries in the world have low-income inequality), we are told that we are oppressed by capitalism (even though it’s brought about more freedom and wealth to the most people than any other system in world history), we are told that the only way we will acquire the benefits of true prosperity is through socialism and centralization of federal power (even though history has proven time and again this only brings tyranny and suffering).
Why then, with all of the overwhelming evidence around us, evidence that I can even see sitting at a coffee shop, do we not view this as prosperity? We have people who are dying to get into our country. People around the world destitute and truly impoverished. Yet, we have a young generation convinced they’ve never seen prosperity, and as a result, elect politicians dead set on taking steps towards abolishing capitalism. Why? The answer is this, my generation has ONLY seen prosperity. We have no contrast. We didn’t live in the great depression, or live through two world wars, or see the rise and fall of socialism and communism. We don’t know what it’s like not to live without the internet, without cars, without smartphones. We don’t have a lack of prosperity problem. We have an entitlement problem, an ungratefulness problem, and it’s spreading like a plague.
With the current political climate giving rise to the misguided idea of a socialist utopia, will we see the light? Or will we have to lose it all to realize that what we have now is true prosperity? Destroying the free market will undo what millions of people have died to achieve.
My generation is becoming the largest voting bloc in the country. We have an opportunity to continue to propel us forward with the gifts capitalism and democracy has given us. The other option is that we can fall into the trap of entitlement and relapse into restrictive socialist destitution. The choice doesn’t seem too hard, does it?
https://youtu.be/c1nPImqmH_4
Sorry Mr EX President, but you really screwed the pooch there! As to Mr President Trump, revenge must be really sweet today, Well Done Sir!
Fed Judge: California’s ‘High-Capacity’ Magazine Ban Unconstitutionalby
2:02
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California ruled Friday that California’s ban on ammunition magazines holding more than ten rounds violates the Second Amendment.
On June 29, 2017, Breitbart News reported that U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez blocked the implementation of California’s “high-capacity” magazine ban two days before it was to go into effect. He noted that the ban could not survive the test of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), noting: “When the simple test of Heller is applied … the statute is adjudged an unconstitutional abridgment.”
On July 17, 2018, a three-judge panel from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld Benitez’s ruling, voting 2-to-1 against the ban and sending the case back to Benitez.
On March 29, 2019, Benitez again ruled against the ban, issuing an order barring California Attorney General Xavier Becerra from enforcing the ban.
Benitez again relied upon Heller, noting that “millions of ammunition magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds are in common use by law-abiding responsible citizens for lawful uses like self-defense. This is enough to decide that a magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds passes the Heller test.“
The case is Duncan v. Becerra, No. 2:17-cv-56-81 in the U.S. District Court for Southern California. AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. Sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.
Ads by Revcontent
Trending Today
Man Who Predicted Trumps Victory Makes New Stunning Prediction
Casey Research
Paige Spiranac, The Best New Female Athlete You Haven’t Heard About
Obsev.com
Pole Vaulter Allison Stokke is Finally Talking About the Photo Changing Her Life
Obsev
Doctor Issues Metformin Warning
Vibrant Health Network
They’re Finally Separated, Try Not to Gasp when You See Them Now
WoahWorld
Oncologists Are Freaking Out After True Cause of Cancer is Announced
Natural Health Solutions
Oprah Comes Clean About the Good for Nothing Son She Never Mentions
StyleGoop
These Photos Show a Side of Alexandria Ocasio-cortez Most Have Never Seen
Livestly
Horrifying Woodstock Photos That Were Classified
90s Kids Only
.
Please let us know if you’re having issues with commenting.
A Missouri bill which seeks to nullify virtually every federal gun control measure on the books, “whether past, present or future,” passed the Senate Thursday. SB613 would ban the state from enforcing virtually all federal gun control measures, and includes criminal charges for federal agents attempting to violate the right to keep and bear arms in Missouri.
The measure passed 23-10.
SB613 counts as what could be the strongest defense against federal encroachments on the right to keep an bear arms ever considered at the state level. It reads, in part:
All federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, and regulations, whether past, present, or future, which infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States I and Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution shall be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, shall be specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.
Federal acts which would be considered “null and void and of no effect” include, but are not limited to:
(a) Any tax, levy, fee, or stamp imposed on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services which might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
(b) Any registering or tracking of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
(c) Any registering or tracking of the owners of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
(d) Any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens; and
(e) Any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens
The legislation specifically bans all state employees from enforcing or attempting to enforce any acts running counter to the proposed law. Such a tactic is an extremely effective way to stop a federal government busting at the seams. Even the National Governors Association admitted the same recently when they sent out a press release noting that “States are partners with the federal government in implementing most federal programs.”
That means states can create impediments to enforcing and implementing “most federal programs.” On federal gun control measures, Judge Andrew Napolitano suggested that a single state standing down would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible to enforce” within that state.
James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” advised this very tactic. Madison supplied the blueprint for resisting federal power inFederalist 46. He outlined several steps that states can take to effective stop “an unwarrantable measure,” or “even a warrantable measure” of the federal government. Madison called for “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” as a way to successfully thwart federal acts. FRIENDLY FIRE
The bill passed despite strong opposition from the law enforcement community. According to a Report from the Institute of Justice, Missouri law enforcement cashed in to the tune of $34,462,153 in forfeiture from 2001 to 2008. They only get this money if they do the bidding of the federal government.
The NRA also came out against the legislation due to a proposed amendment. Anti-gun Senator Jamilah Nasheed added language requiring gun owners to report a stolen firearm to police no more than 72 hrs after the discovery of the theft. The NRA claimed the amendment also included penalties.
“Those who are unable to report a lost or stolen firearm within this arbitrary amount of time, would be subject to penalties including: a $1,000 fine, Class A misdemeanor and the loss of their Right to Carry Permit.”
But the actual text of the amendment included no such language. (read it here)
Bill author Sen. Brian Nieves and Nasheed agreed to reconsider and the amendment was removed earlier this week, removing the source of NRA opposition. PENALTIES
In what many legal experts consider a controversial move, the Missouri bill also includes criminal charges for any federal agent who violates the state law. Under the law, state and local law enforcement would have “discretionary power” to determine determine if they will press charges. Inside sources say this was done to alleviate concerns from Missouri Law Enforcement organizations who actively lobbied against the effort in 2013, citing a requirement to arrest “federal law enforcement partners in the field” as a primarily concern.
While constitutionally valid within the original understanding of the Constitution, “legal experts” and federal courts won’t likely support this provision. Even so, every bill in Missouri is severable. That means if a court finds part of it unconstitutional, the rest remains. And the main provision calling on the entire state to stop enforcing federal gun control measures stands on solid legal ground under the anti-commandeering doctrine. Court precedent going from 1842 to 2012 holds the feds simply cannot require state to help them violate your rights. And the feds don’t have the manpower to do it themselves. STATE CONSTITUTION
Also today, a measure supporters say will work hand-in-hand with SB613 passed the Senate. Senate Joint Resolution 36 (SJR36) proposes an amendment the Missouri state constitution with text obligating the state government to uphold the right to keep and bear arms. It passed the Senate today by a vote of 29-4. If passed by the House, it will go to Missouri voters for approval this fall.
According to Missouri First, as a constitutional amendment to the Missouri Constitution’s existing Article I, Sec. 23, SJR 36 does these things:
Elevates the right to keep and bear arms to “unalienable rights” status. While you and I would and should maintain that a “right is a right”, the courts don’t look at it that way. The courts give more weight to some constitutional rights than others. Government actions infringing on what they consider lesser rights are not scrutinized as closely as the “weightier” rights. For example, when a citizen claims his rights are being violated by some law, the courts can “test” the law against two basic standards of review. The least strict standard is often referred to as the “Rational Basis Test”, and the tougher standard — the one that best protects your rights — is the “Compelling State Interest Test”.
The Second thing SJR36 does is “obligate” the state to protect the right to keep and bear arms from all infringements — including those from the federal government. Coupled with the “unalienable” provision, this clause will also help to defend any bills like SB613 to nullify unconstitutional federal gun control laws if those bills are challenged in state courts. This is an important provision that helps to empower state nullification of unconstitutional federal edicts.
It adds “ammunition and accessories” as explicitly constitutional protected. And adds the phrase “any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny” to the state Constitution. This phrase reinforces the concept in (1), above, which is a tremendous help in keeping the courts from redefining our gun rights.
SB613 and SJR36 now move on to the state House, where it will first need to pass out of committee before the full House can consider it.
For me at least, this series about the History of Technology was a real eye opener to me. Hopefully you might enjoy them also! Grumpy
Western Civilization documentaries: The day the universe changed by James Burke
Click here for a link list of Kenneth Clark’s Civilisation series as well as James Burke’s connections 1. The day the universe changed is also created by James Burke and follows a similar style as that documentary. In this one, though, it tends to focus on how the development of a revolutionary big idea has tended to shape our understanding of the world and/or universe.
Hence the title. Honestly, the concept for the series leans a little too relativist in that respect for my liking, but not in an extreme way that is common in post-modernism.
Its true enough that new data can change your perceptions about reality, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t or wasn’t an objective reality that doesn’t give two cents for what you happen to be perceiving, right or wrong.
I would think that Burke himself would basically agree with this point, while also stating that for us, at least, these changing perceptions have had very important consequences. True.
Anyway, it is a mainstream documentary so it tends to have the same problems you can expect from most of those, but since its old (1985), generally pro-western civilization, and vaguely conservative leaning, as a result, it is quite easy to look past that and enjoy a well produced documentary the likes of which you are unlikely to find produced today. Please enjoy the ten episodes linked below:
Episode 1: The way we are: It started with the greeks.
Episode 2: The light of the above: medieval conflict – faith and reason
Episode 3: Point of view: Scientific imagination in the renaissance.
Episode 4: A matter of fact: Printing transforms knowledge
Episode 5: Infinitely reasonable: Science revises the heavens
Episode 6: Credit where its due: The factory and marketplace revolution
Episode 7: What the doctor ordered: Social impact of new medical knowledge
Episode 8: Fit to rule: Darwin’s Revolution
Episode 9: Making waves: The new physics – Newton revised
Episode 10: Worlds without end: Changing knowledge, changing reality
blob:https://www.dailymotion.com/d58f2d77-c69c-4965-9950-9eb9d718e54a
by
Click here for a link list of 
Please let us know if you’re having issues with commenting.