Who are the Mass Shooters’ Support Groups (MSSG)? Organizations that promote safe zones for people planning Mass Shootings, doing it by campaigning for: Gun Free Zones Gun Control Laws Other similar deceivingly named actions and agendas. All significantly contribute to Mass Shooting, causing life loss by eliminating an immediate response and quick neutralization of mass murderers.
Why do we have MSSG? The human desire for limitless power and control is endless; Governments and Globalists must disarm the population to achieve such control. Governments and Globalists fear an armed population that can fight tyranny. Governments and Globalists spend billions of dollars to miseducate, misinform, create fear, and manipulate people to support MSSG.
How to fight the MSSG? Correct Information and Education. Expose the Governments and Globalists lies. Make the facts known; the controlled and biased propaganda channels will not do it. It is not enough to understand that a Mass Shooter will always prefer a Gun Free Zone to carry on his plan. It is not enough to understand that a potential Mass Shooter will have a second thought if he is guaranteed to find the targeted victims armed or defended by onsite armed guards and not at his mercy until the police arrive. The campaign by MSSG will Always ignore such logic and hide facts that destroy their narratives.
Fight the misinformation in the biased propaganda channels. Make the facts known Mass shootings in Gun Free Zones compare to Mass shootings in places with no restrictions on carrying a gun. Mass Shooter stopped by individuals BEFORE the police arrived fatality counts compared with fatality count where all targeted victims were unarmed. The adverse effects of establishing a Gun Free Zone are increasing, not decreasing, mass shootings.
This one story just destroyed the entire Gun Control Narrative.
Constitutional carry or Permit-less carry became legal in Indiana on July 1st, this shooting took place on July 17th, and Eli didn’t have a concealed carry permit; he was carrying based on the constitutional carry law that Indiana passed 17 days ago.
If not for Indiana making it easier for good people to carry firearms for protection, Eli likely wouldn’t have been carrying that day, and many people would have died.
This law allowed a citizen to keep other citizens safe because law enforcement couldn’t get there in time to stop the attack.
Greenwood Park mall, where this shooting happened, is a gun-free zone, and it didn’t stop the shooter from bringing his gun in to kill a bunch of people.
If Eli had obeyed the no-gun policy at the Mall, the shooter would have killed way more people.
And no, Eli did not break the law by ignoring the no-gun policy.
In Indiana, it’s not against the law to ignore a “no firearms” sign at a private business; you may commit criminal trespass for entering a business after you have been denied entry or have been asked to leave.
The House is trying to pass a bill that would limit law-abiding citizens to only having ten bullets in their gun.
It took Eli Ten shots to stop the shooters.
Imagine if Eli was limited to 10 rounds, and he needed one more shot to stop the shooter. This would be a very different story.
The king wanted to go fishing, and he asked the royal weather forecaster the forecast for the next few hours. The palace meteorologist assured him that there was no chance of rain. So the king and the queen went fishing. On the way, he met a man with a fishing pole riding on a donkey, and he asked the man if the fish were biting. The fisherman said, “Your Majesty, you should return to the palace. In just a short time I expect a huge rainstorm.” The king replied: “I hold the palace meteorologist in high regard. He is an educated and experienced professional. Besides, I pay him very high wages. He gave me a very different forecast. I trust him.” So, the king continued on his way. However, in a short time, torrential rain fell from the sky. The King and Queen were totally soaked. Furious, the king returned to the palace and gave the order to execute the meteorologist. Then he summoned the fisherman and offered him the prestigious position of royal forecaster. The fisherman said, “Your Majesty, I do not know anything about forecasting. I obtain my information from my donkey. If I see my donkey’s ears drooping, it means with certainty that it will rain.” So, the king hired the donkey. And so began the practice of hiring dumb asses to work in influential positions of government. And thus, the symbol of the Democrat Party was born. The practice continues to this day. Unknown author
America’s new generation is smart, cool, and innovative. Yet, I am sad watching a generation of irrational individuals changing America.
In the last 50 years, America was derailed and become unrecognizable.
From a nation built on the principle of Republic Govern by Laws, Patriotism America First, Free Speech, and Protection of Individuals’ Rights. Our Irrational new Generation changed America into a Lawless Social Democracy, replaced Patriotism with Globalism America Last, Replaced Free Speech with political correctness, and surrenders its individuals’ rights to government control.
This Irrational new generation was brainwashed from birth, raised as privileged individuals, entitled to all by simply being born. Loving parents forsook “Tough Love” to accepting rudeness, lack of discipline, and responsibility. Governments established laws and promoted shifting parenthood control from the parents to the government.
We are now governed by an “open-minded” administration that adds and supports sex classification such as Birth Sex Male, Birth Sex Female, Current Sex Male, and Current Sex Female. The same administration has no problem with accepting Female only Organizations, Female only Clubs, and Female only companies; but don’t dare you chauvinist pigs to have Male only Organizations, Male only clubs, or Male only companies. Immediately one face the issue of, will a Birth Sex Male who is a Current Sex Female, be welcome to join Female only Organizations, Female only Clubs, and Female only companies? It should be so, as the current administration supports a Birth Sex Male who is a Current Sex Female sharing bathroom facilities with Birth Sex Female. Seem complicated, is not it?
The same administration disguises itself as Anti-Racist, supporting Black only Clubs and Black only Organizations and classification as Black American; but how dare you White Supremacist and Racist to have White-only Clubs or White-only organizations.
The current administration, while hypocritically calling for unity, strives for the opposite.
The Social Democrats’ Goal is to transform America into an obedient member of the “World Government.” To achieve it, the Social Democrats must replace Patriotism and America First with Globalism and America Last.
For a decade, the Social Democrats worked hard to control the education system, the communication systems, TV channels, the Movie Industry, and anything that will enable influencing the masses and create what we have now; an Irrational new generation.
The Social Democrats achieved their Goal in the 2020 Election. Like any other Social Democrats, Communists, call them whatever you wish, they are moving swiftly to consolidate their power and domination. Ignoring all laws related to free speech and individual rights, the Social Democrats use their control over the Big Tech and influential industries. The American Social Democrats, like other Social Democrats before them, are silencing anyone that refuses to “unite” with them – meaning surrender to them.
The American Irrational new generation doesn’t understand that you can vote yourself into Socialism, which leads to total Government Control like was done lately in Venezuela, but you will have to shoot yourself out of it.
In the spring of 2001, my sixth-grade class at Cedarvale Community School took part in a special Canadian government program intended to preserve “Canadian heritage” by interviewing older people and recording their thoughts. My classmates and I visited a home for the elderly where we asked residents a series of questions and dutifully wrote down their responses. Though I doubt the historical utility of our crude reports, they were deemed sufficient to meet the criteria of the government program. For our efforts, my class was paid the princely sum of about $300. My teacher, Ms. Botham, who contin¬uously infused the curriculum with her anticapitalist perspective, asked our class to decide collectively where we would like to donate the money. An impassioned debate ensued. One girl proposed we donate to an ani¬mal shelter to save puppies. Another sug¬gested a food bank. One boy recommended a religious charity where he occasionally volunteered. Agreement seemed distant. Then I had an idea. With an oversized 1990s calculator I determined that if we divided the proceeds equally among our¬selves, we would each receive about $12. Ever the respectful and obedient student, I raised my hand to speak in the ongoing donation debate, waited my turn, and then shared what I thought was a real break¬through: “We don’t need to debate any longer!” I explained, immensely satisfied with my ingenuity and creative problem solving. “We can divide the money, and each can decide for himself what to do with his share,” I reasoned. Unfortunately, my proposal never stood a chance. Before it could be considered on its merits by my classmates, Ms. Botham interjected. I still remember her anger and indignation. “Absolutely not,” she roared. “How selfish!” (So much for democratic decision making.) Embarrassed, I countered that dividing the money did not imply that the funds would not be donated to charity, only that the funds could be donated by each to a cause according to his own conscience. Ms. Botham ignored my retort—and probably sensed that it was disingenuous. Indeed it was. I didn’t think we should have to donate our share if we didn’t want to. I thought that if we worked for those funds, then we had earned them, and we should be free to use them as we pleased. There was no reason the choice should be collective. Most students in my class came from very affluent families, sported the trendiest win¬ter jackets, the brightest gel pens, and the most buzzworthy lunchtime snacks (remem¬ber Spice Girls lollipops?), but others were from the “wrong side of the tracks” and seldom enjoyed these little luxuries. Why shouldn’t they use the funds they earned to indulge in a gel pen, or a lollipop, or whatever else their eleven-year-old hearts desired? Even socialist “logic” could have supported dividing the money in the name of increasing such opportunities for the poorer students among us. Besides, Ms. Botham made much more money than we did, and we didn’t vote on the allocation of her salary. We didn’t mandate that she donate all (or even a por¬tion) of her money to charity. In fact, my elementary school education was regularly interrupted by teachers’ strikes. It was a little rich for a teacher (rightly or wrongly) to demand higher wages for herself and then deny us a paltry sum that could have made a meaningful difference in our lives. I still remember, clearly, how Ms. Botham couldn’t wait to share her disdain for my individualist proposal. A couple of hours after Ms. Botham embarrassed me for raising the prospect that my classmates and I be paid individually for our work, the other sixth-grade teacher, Ms. Levitt, dropped in. Ms. Levitt and Ms. Botham were friends, and these visits were common. “Can you believe,” Ms. Botham asked loudly, so everyone could hear, “that Julian actually divided it up to see how much he would get?” Then both teachers cackled about how selfish I was. Not only did Ms. Botham rush to embar¬rass a student—not only did she respond with an argument from intimidation instead of reason—not only did she miss an oppor¬tunity to “help the poor” among her own students—she also missed an opportunity to teach us the value of work. Those eleven- and twelve-year-old students in my sixth-grade class are today part of the much-troubled millennial gen¬eration—a generation that is substantially confused about the relationship between effort and reward. Most of my generation, myself included, barely worked until late in our high-school careers, if then. I wonder how much better off my classmates might be today if, at that tender age, they were taught about earning money and spending it according to their own values—rather than about making sacrifices in the name of “virtue.”
A Civil War is going on in the USA. For years, it was going on, but burst into full-scale war on January 6, 2021, when the Globalist sealed their Election Victory.
This war has two irreconcilable philosophies. The “Globalists” – The upcoming government, with Joe Biden as the president, the Democrat Party, and a significant part of the Republican Party. The “America First” – President Donald Trump’s supporters and a part of the Republican Party
The “Globalists,” which from now on I will call “America Last,” won a significant battle, the 2020 election. There is no fraud, fair, or cheating in a war only a loser and a winner. In this battle, “America Last” is the winner and “America First” is the loser.
Following its great success, “America Last” went into a full-scale war for which “America First” was unprepared. This war does not use guns, but a much more powerful weapon, control of communication and information, “America Last” has won in Weaponizing the Internet.
With their allies, the “Big Tech” such as Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Apple, “America Last” managed to destroy “America First” channels of communications. Again, it makes no difference if it is right, wrong, legal or not. It is a war; the final winner will decide what was correct and lawful.
“America First” did not see it coming.
“America Last” is celebrating their victories, and “America First” is licking their wounds and trying to re-group.
I belong to “America First.” I believe that this full-scale war only started, and “America Last” is making a huge mistake by underestimating the resilience and dedication of “America First.”
What is Astroturf: Creating the impression of public support by paying people in the public to pretend to be supportive. The false support can take the form of letters to the editor, postings on message boards in response to criticism, and writing to politicians in support of the cause. Astroturfing is the opposite of “grassroots”, genuine public support of an issue.
Award winning investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson shows how Astroturf, or fake grassroots movements, funded by political, corporate, or other special interests very effectively manipulate and distort mainstream media messages.
Here is the full transcript of Sharyl Attkisson’s TEDx Talk: Astroturf and Manipulation of Media Messages at TEDx University of Nevada conference.
Consider this fictitious example that’s inspired by real life: say you’re watching the news, and you see a story about a new study on the cholesterol-lowering drug called cholextra. The study says cholextra is so effective that doctors should consider prescribing it to adults and even children who don’t yet have high cholesterol.
Is it too good to be true? You’re smart, you decide to do some of your own research. You do a Google search, you consult social media, Facebook, and Twitter. You look at Wikipedia, WebMD, a non-profit website, and you read the original study in a peer-reviewed published medical journal. It all confirms how effective cholextra is. You do run across a few negative comments and a potential link to cancer, but you dismiss that, because medical experts call the cancer link a myth and say that those who think there is a link, they are quacks, cranks, and nuts.
Finally, you learn that your own doctor recently attended a medical seminar. The lecture that he attended confirmed how effective cholextra is, so he sends you off with some free samples and a prescription. You’ve really done your homework.
But what if all isn’t as it seems? What if the reality you found was false; a carefully-constructed narrative by unseen special interests designed to manipulate your opinion? A Truman Show-esque alternate reality all around you? Complacency in the news media combined with incredibly powerful propaganda and publicity forces mean we sometimes get little of the truth. Special interests have unlimited time and money to figure out new ways to spin us while cloaking their role.
Surreptitious astroturf methods are now more important to these interests than traditional lobbying of Congress. There’s an entire industry built around it in Washington.
What is astroturf? It’s a perversion of grassroots, as in fake grassroots. Astroturf is when political, corporate, or other special interests disguise themselves and publish blogs, start Facebook and Twitter accounts, publish ads and letters to the editor, or simply post comments online to try to fool you into thinking an independent or grassroots movement is speaking. The whole point of astroturf is to try to get the impression there’s widespread support for or against an agenda when there’s not.
Astroturf seeks to manipulate you into changing your opinion by making you feel as if you’re an outlier when you’re not. One example is the Washington Redskins’ name. Without taking a position on the controversy, if you simply were looking at news media coverage over the course of the past year, or looking at social media, you probably have to conclude that most Americans find that name offensive and think it ought to be changed.
But what if I told you 71% of Americans say the name should not be changed? That’s more than two-thirds. Astroturfers seek to controversialize those who disagree with them. They attack news organizations that publish stories they don’t like, whistleblowers who tell the truth, politicians who dare to ask the tough questions, and journalists who have the audacity to report on all of it.
Sometimes, astroturfers simply shove intentionally so much confusing and conflicting information into the mix that you’re left to throw up your hands and disregard all of it, including the truth; Drown out a link between a medicine and a harmful side effect say, vaccines and autism, by throwing a bunch of conflicting paid-for studies, surveys, and experts into the mix, confusing the truth beyond recognition.
And then, there’s Wikipedia — astroturf’s dream come true — Built as the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, the reality can’t be more different. Anonymous Wikipedia editors control and co-opt pages on behalf of special interests. They forbid and reverse edits that go against their agenda. They skew and delete information in blatant violation of Wikipedia’s own established policies with impunity. Always superior to the poor schlubs who actually believe anyone can edit Wikipedia only to discover they’re barred from correcting even the simplest factual inaccuracies.
Try adding a footnoted fact or correcting a fact error on one of these monitored Wikipedia pages, and poof! sometimes within a matter of seconds you’ll find your edit is reversed. In 2012, famed author Philip Roth tried to correct a major fact error about the inspiration behind one of his book characters cited on a Wikipedia page, but no matter how hard he tried, Wikipedia’s editors wouldn’t allow it. They kept reverting the edits back to the false information.
When Roth finally reached a person at Wikipedia – which was no easy task – and tried to find out what was going wrong, they told him he simply was not considered a credible source on himself.
A few weeks later, there was a huge scandal when Wikipedia officials got caught offering a PR service that skewed and edited information on behalf of paid publicity-seeking clients, in utter opposition to Wikipedia’s supposed policies. All of this may be why, when a medical study looked at medical conditions described on Wikipedia pages and compared it to actual peer-reviewed published research, Wikipedia contradicted medical research 90% of the time. You may never fully trust what you read on Wikipedia again, nor should you.
Let’s now go back to that fictitious cholextra example and all the research you did. It turns out the Facebook and Twitter accounts you found that were so positive, were actually written by paid professionals hired by the drug company to promote the drug. The Wikipedia page had been monitored by an agenda editor, also paid by the drug company.
The drug company also arranged to optimize Google search engine results so it was no accident that you stumbled across that positive non-profit that had all those positive comments. The non-profit was, of course, secretly founded and funded by the drug company. The drug company also financed that positive study and used its power of editorial control to omit any mention of cancer as a possible side-effect.
Once more, each and every doctor who publicly touted cholextra or called the cancer link a myth, or ridiculed critics as paranoid cranks and quacks, or served on the government advisory board that approved the drug, each of those doctors is actually a paid consultant for the drug company.
As for your own doctor, the medical lecture he attended that had all those positive evaluations was in fact, like many continuing medical education classes, sponsored by the drug company. And when the news reported on that positive study, it didn’t mention any of that. I have tons of personal examples from real life.
A couple of years ago, CBS News asked me to look into a story about a study coming out from the non-profit National Sleep Foundation. Supposedly, this press release coming out said the study concluded we are a nation with an epidemic of sleeplessness, and we don’t even know it, and we should all go ask our doctors about it.
A couple of things struck me about that. First, I recognized the phrase “ask your doctor” as a catch phrase promoted by the pharmaceutical industry. They know that if they can get your foot through the door at the doctor’s office to mention a malady, you’re very likely to be prescribed the latest drug that’s marketed.
Second, I wondered how serious an epidemic of sleeplessness could really be if we don’t even know that we have it. It didn’t take long for me to do a little research and discover that the National Sleep Foundation non-profit, and the study which was actually a survey not a study, were sponsored in part by a new drug that was about to be launched onto the market, called Lunesta, a sleeping pill.
I reported the study, as CBS News asked, but of course, I disclosed the sponsorship behind the non-profit and the survey so the viewers could weigh the information accordingly. All the other news media reported the same survey directly off the press release, as written, without digging past the superficial. It later became an example written up in the Columbia Journalism Review, which quite accurately reported that only we, at CBS News, had bothered to do a little bit of research and disclose the conflict of interest behind this widely reported survey.
So now you may be thinking, “What can I do? I thought I’d done my research. What chance do I have separating fact from fiction, especially if seasoned journalists with years of experience can be so easily fooled?”
I have a few strategies that I can tell you about to help you recognize signs of propaganda and astroturf. Once you start to know what to look for, you’ll begin to recognize it everywhere.
First, hallmarks of astroturf include use of inflammatory language such as “crank”, “quack”, “nutty”, “lies,” “paranoid”, “pseudo”, and “conspiracy”. Astroturfers often claim to debunk myths that aren’t myths at all. Use of the charged language test well: people hear something’s a myth, maybe they find it on Snopes, and they instantly declare themselves too smart to fall for it.
But what if the whole notion of the myth is itself a myth, and you and Snopes fell for that? Be aware when interests attack an issue by controversializing or attacking the people, personalities, and organizations surrounding it rather than addressing the facts. That could be astroturf.
And most of all, astroturfers tend to reserve all of their public skepticism for those exposing wrongdoing rather than the wrongdoers. In other words, instead of questioning authority, they question those who question authority. You might start to see things a little more clearly; it’s like taking off your glasses, wiping them, and putting them back on, realizing, for the first time, how foggy they’d been all along.
I can’t resolve these issues, but I hope that I’ve given you some information that will at least motivate you to take off your glasses and wipe them, and become a wiser consumer of information in an increasingly artificial, paid-for reality.