Children across South Australia are venturing into the bush to connect with land and Aboriginal culture as part of an ongoing program that turns the outback into a classroom. Kids on Country, run by the Nature Foundation SA, takes students to Hiltaba or Witchelina nature reserves for week of culturally appropriate conservation activities and hands-on learning with Aboriginal elders, Indigenous rangers and science educators.
Native peoples from tribes across the country gather to celebrate their unique cultures and traditions at Seattle Center Festl: Spirit of Indigenous People. All are invited to attend and partake in activities on Saturday, June 9 from 11:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. in Seattle Center Armory and Mural Amphitheatre Stage.
It looks like we are in for a long hot summer in America. I am one who does not like extremely hot humid weather. It is even more painful when the prospects of ignorant, indoctrinated Soros paid gumps may seek to riot in American streets this summer. The reason for such plans are always the same tired excuses given by bitter useful idiots who don’t know anything and got that mixed up when it comes to justice, freedom, liberty and reparations. To this day, many black Americans who stupidly call themselves African Americans do not even understand how reparations are designed to be carried out.
Just recently in Seattle, white patrons at a certain bar were required to pay for the drinks of black female patrons. The reason given “it was a form of reparations for slavery.” That makes about as much sense as white shoppers being forced to buy groceries for black grocery store patrons as a form of reparations. It is stupid and victimizes people who had nothing to do with slavery and gives a false sense of gotcha to those receiving reparation drinks or whatever.
Black Americans would be better served by the example of other people groups who have dealt with cruel and unfair treatment. After the Empire of Japan bombed Pearl Harbor during World War Two, it was not long before Japanese residents in the United States suffered a major ordeal. They were rounded up and systematically tossed into concentration camps. The reason given is were at war and the Japanese might carry out war activities within the continental United States. After all, it was the Japanese who fooled America into thinking they wanted to be our friend by signing a peace agreement with our republic. They had even given beautiful Flowering trees to cities like Washington D.C. and Cleveland which annually bloom every spring.
The Japanese residents in America suffered in concentration camps and had faced racist treatment prior to the Peal Harbor attacks. But they took it in stride and like the Chinese who also immigrated to the United States received shabby treatment. But rather steep themselves of a caldron of bitterness, the Japanese and Chinese immigrants patiently learned how to succeed economically. They supported businesses in their respective communities and gradually became highly successful, despite whatever white Americans thought of them at the time.
In addition, although the Japanese could have been very bitter, but to the immeasurable embarrassment and chagrin of those who tossed Japanese into concentration camps, they enthusiastically mobilized their sons and sent them into the American armed forces to volunteer their services. The Japanese regiments were among the more highly decorated in World War II. Although they went into the military ranks under suspicion and resentment, they came out as heralded heroes.
But of all the ethnic groups in America it seems that Black Americans have had the most difficulty securing their place as assimilated. Many early political leaders including Abraham Lincoln expressed concerned over the ability of Blacks to adjust because of the slavery culture in which the first few generations were raised. Despite apprehensions, freedom and education brought tremendous hope and optimism to Black Americans within three generations. After three generations, many blacks were overcoming the culture gap. In time Blacks in every other nation on earth saw their ethnic counterparts in America experiencing a higher standard of living than Blacks in any other part of the world. In fact, by 1970 a black high school student in Alabama or Mississippi had a higher chance at obtaining a collegiate education than a white student in Great Britain.
Great Americans like Frederick Douglas, Booker T. Washington and George Washington Carver all believed that hard work, an education and faith in God would ensure a pathway to success and blaze a trail for following generations to follow. Still others like W. E.B. Dubois and white democrats fought to instill a level of bitterness and hatred for America in Blacks and conned them into expecting government gratuities as a main source of revenue. Experience has proven that such a mindset has corrupted and debilitated Black Americans socially, economically and most horribly in family life where females now run over 70 percent of all Black American households.
Many tend to uphold the Black female as morally superior to the Black man. Yet they fail to answer the question that if Black females are morally superior, why is it they continue to raise the most damaged generations of Black boys in the history of the republic? After all it is they who have complete access to their boys without any input from men, because of their aversion to Black male authority. Remember, they preferred government handouts over a working Black father in the home. Until the 1970s, the majority of Black American households were headed by Black American men who either had one or two jobs.
In the mid-sixties there were groups of Marxist agitators who promoted violence an attitude of entitlement among Black Americans. One of the most famous was Eldridge Cleaver, who had been trained in Marxist philosophy and evil tactics while serving a fifteen year sentence in a California prison. In 1967 he became Minister of Information for the Black Panthers. Their goal was to use violence to wipe out the economic and social structure of the United States and roll out communism so that everyone would be equal, but equally poor. Just like today’s Black Lives Matter movement, it wasn’t about working to improve the quality of life for anyone. But to destroy the prospects of a good life for everyone, except the elites at the top of course.
After leading a wave of violence in 1968, Eldridge Cleaver and his wife fled the United State and hid out in Cuba for eight years. A funny thing happened. While in Cuba he witnessed the horrendous failure of communism as a means to improve life for the common man. Mr. Cleaver concluded that it would be better to come back to America and pay for his crimes in prison than to remain free and morbidly disappointed in Cuba. Black Americans today would be much better off if they researched the Eldridge Cleaver story for themselves and came to the logical conclusion that while it may not be perfect in America, it is the best hope for mankind after God almighty. Here’s hoping and praying, that they awaken from their democrat party influenced nightmare and seek to live rather than just exist as Soros, Alynski inspired cretins. I know it might seem impossible, but miracles do happen.
Enjoy the miracle of Blowin’ away the Myths and Revealing the Truth via #TheEdwardsNotebook commentary every day on #freedominamericaradio, #goodtalkradio #talkamericaradio #shrmedia during #MoneyTalkwithMelanie at 5:10 PM EST, on KCKQ AM 1180 Reno, Nevada during AM News, just after 4:30 AM during the Captain’s America Third Watch show emanating nationwide from flagship station AM 860 WGUL the Answer Tampa Florida. The Edwards Notebook is also heard regularly on FM 101.5 and AM 1400 the Patriot, Detroit. Last but definitely not least, #TheRonEdwardsExperience talk show is heating up the airwaves to a growing audience Fridays at 4:00 PM EST, 1:00 PM PT on KCKQ AM 1180 Reno Nevada, #shrmedia and americamatters.us and at 7:00 PM PT Thursdays on #goodtalkradio.
© 2018 Ron Edwards – All Rights Reserved
E-Mail Ron Edwards: [email protected]
Colombo, June 3 – Sri Lanka will soon raise the minimum age for juvenile convictions from the existing eight-year-old to 12-year-old, authorities said on Sunday. According to Justice Ministry Secretary W. Adikari, children under 12 who were involved in criminal activities were not mature enough to realise the gravity of their crimes, reports Xinhua news agency.
The UK scrambled a Royal Navy warship and an RAF helicopter to follow a Russian Navy research ship as it passed through the English Channel. The move seems a bit overkill, as the Russian ship was not a ‘killing machine.’ The Royal Navy’s HMS Diamond was sent to tail Russian Northern Fleet research ship Yantar on its way through the English Channel, the British Navy said in a statement on June 1, calling the Russian vessel a “spy ship.” It further added that the HMS Diamond, which is a Portsmouth-based Type 45 destroyer, “will continue to monitor the vessel’s movements and activities as it continues north.” The Yantar, however, is far from being a warship. While indeed part of the Russian Northern Fleet, the vessel, commissioned in 2015, is designed to conduct deep-sea research. It can carry various manned and unmanned underwater vehicles, but has no armament.
Canada – -(Ammoland.com)- Myth: The government says expanding background checks from five years to the entire lifetime of a firearms licence applicant, will enhance public safety and keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill people.
Reality: People with long histories of mental health issues self-disclosed on firearms licence applications are issued firearms licences by the RCMP.
During the question and answer portion of testimony before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security (SECU) committee on May 24, 2018, Liberal MP Peter Fragiskatos stated:
“There’s been many reports throughout the country that individuals have been able to access firearms and they’re mentally ill, they have struggled with these challenges throughout their lives, they have disclosed this in their application and yet they’re still given a firearm, so that’s, that’s very concerning.”
Fragiskatos is correct. That people with known mental health issues are issued firearms licences is deeply disturbing.
Removing the five-year limit on background checks will not stop this, however, because the time period of the background check is not the issue. The issue is that the RCMP did not do its job and deny those licence applications.
Adrian Clavier, one case referred to by Mr. Fragiskatos, was a 50-year-old man who killed himself in 2015 with a legally owned and registered handgun.
Clavier had a 35-year history of mental illness. He disclosed this on his firearms licence application form. His family members reported their concerns as well.
The RCMP issued him a firearms licence anyway.
The family continued to raise alarms with authorities. Those concerns were ignored.
“They were told that because the guns were licensed and properly stored, and there had been no complaints, there was nothing the RCMP could do.”
Corey Lewis, the other case referred to by Mr. Fragiskatos, was shot and killed in a “suicide by cop” when police responded to the latest in a long string of domestic dispute calls at his Okotoks, Alberta, home.
Lewis disclosed his issues on his firearms licence application, just like Clavier. In his case, Lewis’ wife was not consulted, nor did police check publicly available court documents, according to CBC.
If police will not take long histories of mental health issues into account now, what makes the government believe extending background checks will make any difference?
RCMP told the family it would review the case, but then didn’t respond when the Claviers asked about the results, prompting the family to issue a warning to Canadians:
“I guess it was frankly because we’d been ignored and somebody died because of that. And it shouldn’t have happened,” Reva Clavier said.
“Nothing we did yielded any actions from the institutions that could have made a difference,” said Glenn Clavier, Adrian’s brother.
The issue is not with the length of the background check and changing those goal posts will not and cannot resolve it.
The issue is the RCMP. They are responsible for issuing Possession and Acquisition Licences, and they are not doing their jobs.
- The warning signs were there.
- The applicants disclosed their problems.
- The RCMP ignored the information and issued the licences anyway.
If the goal is to solve the problem of people with mental health issues getting firearms licences, then address and resolve this issue with the RCMP.
About Canadian Shooting Sports Association ( CSSA ):
The CSSA is the voice of the sport shooter and firearms enthusiast in Canada. Our national membership supports and promotes Canada’s firearms heritage, traditional target shooting competition, modern action shooting sports, hunting, and archery. We support and sponsor competitions and youth programs that promote these Canadian heritage activities. Website www.cdnshootingsports.org
The post Canada : Bill C-71 Background Checks : Marketing Myths vs Reality appeared first on AmmoLand.com.
Mayor John Ditslear of Noblesville, Indiana — where a seventh-grader opened fire in a classroom last week and injured two people before a teacher tackled him — is a Republican and told WTTV-TV he considers himself “a Second Amendment guy.”
But all the same he didn’t like what was happening at a new gun store in town, which held its grand opening the day after the shooting, the station said.
You see, Hoosier Armory also had a National Rifle Association tent set up outside its new store Saturday, and Ditslear thought that was going too far. So he had a little chat with the owner, WTTV reported.
“I did approach the owner, and I just told him that, ‘No one expected this, but you’re hurting your business in my opinion, strongly, and you’re hurting our city,’ and I asked them to maybe just think about it and take the tent down,” the mayor told the station.
And then Ditslear added, “I was asked to leave,” WTTV noted.
“The NRA needs to realize that they have a place in this to protect gun owners, but they also have to make sure that gun owners are responsible,” Ditslear added to the station. “I was not happy that I was asked to leave.”
Ditslear told WTTV he hopes Hoosier Armory “learned a lesson” but that he hasn’t “talked to them. Again, I was asked to leave, so I won’t go in there until I’m asked to come back.”
The NRA will hold its 2019 national convention in Indianapolis, WTTV said.
What did the gun store have to say?
Ralph Ripple, Hoosier Armory’s managing partner, said in a statement that the mayor “literally lied” about being asked to leave, the station reported:
Hello everyone. I am a partner at Hoosier Armory. Firearms are our passion and this business lets my partners and I share that passion with fellow shooters.
After the school shooting, my partners and I had a long, heartfelt discussion about what to do about our grand opening on Saturday. If anyone thinks we made the decision to continue with something we had been planning for months without a lot of concern and anxiety, you are mistaken. This was a hard decision for us. We feel horrible for those injured in the shooting. We thank God for the fact that no one was killed. At the same time, we are getting tired of gun owners and the NRA being blamed for every shooting that occurs in this country. For this reason, we decided to continue with our plans.
Some members of the team from the NRA had flown in the night before to attend our grand opening. They had time and money invested in the visit and it had been planned months ago. They offered to stand down but we asked them to set up anyways. They made an offer to not accept new registrations at their booth and to only answer questions about what the NRA does and we accepted that offer. No new NRA members were registered that day.
This has been a painful few days for us here at Hoosier Armory. The mayor of Noblesville literally lied about his visit to the shop. He was never asked to leave and he ended the conversation mid-stream and left without allowing us to plead our case. In other words, he told us his feelings about the situation and then left to join the protesters because the news media had arrived.
We know we will take a hit on this, our facebook page is already lighting up with bad reviews from people who have never been in the shop and don’t know what we are all about. No news media has mentioned any of our charitable activities involving helping injured police officers and helping with firearm suicide prevention.
I want you all to know, we are devastated every time there is a shooting like the one in Noblesville. My partners have kids and grandkids so we know the concerns of parents everywhere. However, we also see the black eyes given to legal law-abiding gun owners everytime something like this happens, We all know that in reality, gun owners are the most law-abiding group of people out there. We see the NRA villainized for school shootings when they offer more ideas to prevent them than our politicians ever do.
I will say that the majority of gun owners have supported us so far through this. I hope we can count on all of you.
Many thanks and God bless.
What did a protesting student have to say?
Clara Lawson — a junior at Noblesville High School where middle school students were reunited with their parents after the shooting — helped organize a protest outside the Hoosier Armory and spent four hours carrying signs with friends, WTTV said.
“We’re not trying to take away your guns. We understand that’s a right, and I understand that, too,” the 17-year-old told the station. “I was protesting the NRA booth, not the Hoosier Armory, because I understand that’s their store, they’re fine if they’re there, that’s their right. But I thought it was really inappropriate that the NRA booth would be there when they saw what had happened the day before — but they still set up, and they continued what they were doing right across the town from a tragedy.”
Lawson added to the station the she believes “gun control shouldn’t be a conservative versus liberal idea. I think it’s kind of a common sense thing because it’s all of us. We’re all involved. We can be safe and people can keep their guns.”
(H/T: Bearing Arms)
Older, shabbier buildings are necessary for maintaining the humanity of a city. They provide low-rent spaces for activities that aren’t focused on expanding profit margins.
If you were to take law enforcement at its word, you would believe that the encryption techniques that secure our data actually end up serving criminals who would do us harm. For the past few years, the FBI and other authorities have revived the “War on Crypto” because they say it prevents them from accessing devices that they need to bring killers and terrorists to justice.
FBI director Christopher Wray has been fond of claiming that the Bureau was locked out of some 7,775 devices last year. In January, he argued that “being unable to access nearly 7,800 devices in a single year is a major public safety issue.”
It turns out that the FBI wildly inflated those figures, according to the Washington Post. The Bureau still doesn’t know the exact number of devices that have apparently been so central in the miscarriage of justice. If previous numbers are to be believed—which have hovered around 700 to 800 devices—the true number is probably closer to 1,000.
The FBI told the Post that “programming errors” were responsible for the over-counting, since they were apparently pulling their numbers from three separate databases. But that excuse seems awfully convenient, given the agency’s recent antagonism towards security technologies.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) issued a scathing letter to the FBI in response to their admission of error, chiding that because the FBI is “struggling with basic arithmetic” it should “not be in the business of dictating the design of advanced cryptographic algorithms.” He pointedly noted that such a major miscalculation could either be the product of “sloppy work” or something more nefarious: “pushing a legislative agenda.”
Could this “accidental miscounting” have been a purposeful ploy to undermine strong encryption? A review of the FBI’s recent public and behind-the-scenes activities certainly makes it look that way. The agency has been engaged in an all-out public war on encryption using emotional rhetoric to push for the access into our devices they have long sought.
Encryption technologies have been a chief bugaboo of America’s top feds for about as long as these security technologies have been available to the public, which is to say for most of you and I’s experiences on the internet. In the 90’s, authorities argued that strong encryption techniques were a kind of munition, and tried to prevent computer scientists from deploying security measures. Thankfully, the computer scientists won the previous battles over public-key encryption.
But the question of device encryption has taken on a new political urgency following the high-profile attacks in San Bernardino in December of 2015. With the so-called “Going Dark” problem, authorities argue that the measures that keep our phones secure can prevent them from accessing critical data in an investigation. Thus, they want technology companies to build special government access into our phones, called a “backdoor.”
It is easy to sympathize with investigators who work to bring criminals to justice. But unfortunately, with the San Bernardino incident, it looks like FBI leadership was more motivated by a general antipathy to encryption than a specific need to access particular data.
Consider the specifics of the case. Authorities could have discreetly and respectfully approached engineers for solutions to access suspected terrorist Syed Rizwan Farook’s locked iPhone. After all, the FBI was eventually able to access the phone through a technical tool purchased by a private vendor. No across-the-board security-limiting technology changes needed.
But that’s not what the FBI did. Instead, it engaged in a public-relations blitz against Apple to argue that government operatives needed a backdoor into all of our devices so that they could access data at their leisure. The feds pushed this issue all the way through the courts, attempting to litigate a backdoor, until it eventually turned tail when it was able to access the data without it.
An inspector general’s report from March finds that the FBI “may not have been interested in researching all possible solutions” and “[delayed seeking] and obtaining vendor assistance that ultimately proved fruitful.” One Bureau employee told the IG that the San Bernardino case was viewed as a “poster child” for the Going Dark crusade. As Sen. Wyden’s letter points out, the report suggests that “the FBI was more interested in establishing a powerful legal precedent than gaining access to the terrorist’s iPhone.”
Other evidence corroborates the theory that the intelligence community used Apple as a convenient foil to promote their crusade against encryption as well. In August of 2015, a top lawyer for US intelligence urged authorities to wait for “a terrorist attack of criminal event where strong encryption can be shown to have hindered law enforcement.” Officials could then take advantage of that tragedy to pull on America’s heart strings and put pressure on legislators to finally mandate the backdoors for which they have long salivated. Just a few months later, San Bernardino presented a perfect opportunity.
Thankfully, there has not been another “San Bernardino” that authorities could exploit to promote their political ends. Perhaps this is why the FBI turned to numbers, instead. Without a newsworthy event to point to, FBI director Wray may have found the sky-high number of reported locked phones to be a convenient rhetorical fallback.
But even the lower figure deserves our scrutiny. The mere presence of a locked device in some investigation on its own is not very compelling. Perhaps there is no relevant information on the device. Maybe the device belonged to some suspect who was later cleared. And how many devices are associated with a single case? The lower figure that the FBI provided likely contains many such instances.
What we need to know is how many investigations were significantly hindered because authorities could not access specific data on a specific device. It’s relatively rare for people to solely store data on their phone, given the rise of cloud computing. Much inference can be gleaned from metadata, which is often unencrypted. And perhaps the evidence on any particular device is redundant with other evidence, anyway.
Wyden demanded answers to these and related questions in his blistering rebuke to the FBI. Until we have more information on how many cases fall into this narrower and relevant bucket, we should take the FBI’s figures with a grain a salt.
The FBI should not have inflated the number of devices that they say they cannot access. This egregious error would be especially contemptible if it was a naked lie in pursuit of a policy goal. But even if those figures were true, it wouldn’t really change the Going Dark debate. Undermining encryption would make us all less secure, no matter what the justification for doing this. The FBI’s recent “miscalculations” and behind-the-scenes antagonism toward security technologies suggest that the agency is unfortunately far from internalizing these truths.
“A true Englishman,” Jules Verne once quipped, “doesn’t joke when he is talking about so serious a thing as a wager.”
After the Supreme Court’s ruling two weeks ago effectively legalizing sports wagering, Americans, too, are starting to take gambling seriously, both inside and outside the world of sports.
In Murphy v. NCAA, the Supremes held by a 7-2 margin (more or less) that a congressional act forbidding state legislatures from authorizing sports gambling violated the “anti-commandeering” doctrine of the Tenth Amendment and therefore was unconstitutional.
Under the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1991 (PASPA), instead of prohibiting sports gambling outright, Congress declared it “unlawful” for a state to “advertise, promote, license, or authorize by law or compact . . . a lottery, sweepstakes, or other betting, gambling, or wagering scheme” based on competitive sporting events.
In 2011, voters in New Jersey approved a state constitutional amendment authorizing just that, and the following year, the state legislature formally authorized sports betting. Shortly thereafter, the major sports leagues and the NCAA challenged the legislation in court, arguing it was barred by PASPA. New Jersey countered that PASPA itself was unconstitutional because the Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal government from “order[ing] the State to regulate in accordance with federal standards” — a principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine.
After further judicial and legislative maneuverings, the case found its way to the Supreme Court, where Justice Alito, writing for the majority, explained that the anti-commandeering doctrine derives fundamentally from the Framers’ “decision to withhold from Congress the power to issue orders directly to the States.” This “structural protection of liberty” helps “promote political accountability” and “prevents Congress from shifting the costs of regulation to the States.”
And in the case of PASPA, the high court held that by purporting to tell legislatures not what they must affirmatively do but what they must not do, Congress overstepped its bounds and violated the doctrine.
Thus, New Jersey and the 49 other states found themselves suddenly liberated to enable sports betting within their borders. Anticipating the ruling, several states, including New York, West Virginia, Connecticut, Mississippi, and Pennsylvania, did exactly that. Another 15 states have taken steps in this direction.
But the Supremes’ Murphy decision nevertheless left sports fans and others alike wondering whether sports will benefit or suffer from the ruling.
Predictably, libertarians celebrated, and with good reason. Americans are already betting enormous sums of money on sports, they reckoned, so why not legalize it outright and at least capture some tax revenue?
According to statistics cited by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, while Americans legally wagered nearly $5 billion in 2017, they bet $123 billion per year on sports, almost all illegally. At the same time, the overwhelming majority of states conduct lotteries and permit some form of casino gambling, generally on Indian reservations.
But doesn’t widespread, legalized sports gambling run the risk of interfering with the integrity of games? Worse, wouldn’t the prospect of, say, in-seat touchscreens in sports arenas, on which spectators could place bets on all aspects of the game they’re watching, ruin the stadium experience?
The four major sports leagues, which had joined the NCAA in the original suit against New Jersey, wasted little time in calling for uniform national standards, with the National Basketball Association emphasizing that “the integrity of our game remains our highest priority” and the National Football League reportedly “focusing on getting paid for selling rights to its own data and video footage — intellectual property that legal betting operators will want to pay for in order to help them set lines and prop bets.”
What also remains uncertain is whether sports wagering will benefit local and state coffers.
Interestingly, misery and ecstasy have blended on the Strip: Las Vegas sports bookmakers stand to lose big as the city’s juggernaut National Hockey League expansion team, the Golden Knights, has overcome tremendous odds to reach the Stanley Cup Finals.
In addition, a 2016 report from the State University of New York’s Rockefeller Institute found that “state authorizations and promotions of gambling offer little long-run relief to state revenue problems” because while “new gambling activities may generate short-run increases in public revenues . . . these increases are getting smaller and their duration shorter, perhaps as more and more states compete for a limited pool of gambling dollars.”
Thus, many questions remain as we enter the brave new world of sports gambling. Jules Verne wasn’t joking around.