Well my Patriot Friends, all good things must come to an end...... PAO has had an incredible run and we've built a solid Patriot community. Unfortunately, due to health and financial considerations, PAO will cease on 6/30/2024. There are many more platforms today than there were when I created PAO, so I'm sure we will come across one another on them. I can always be reached at proamericaonly@gmail.com so don't hesitate to reach out and keep in touch. Together, we're going to take our country back, and it's going to be historic! It's always a good idea to stay stocked up, be prepared, keep your eyes open and have a team to watch the neighborhood. And one last word of caution - do NOT take any more shots!!! I will miss each and every one of you and I wish you all the best as we prepare for our final battle for control. Here's to President Trump's Inauguration and to Making America Great Again!
UPDATE: After much discussion with tech support, we are going to convert over to a blog, including all of the articles I've written through the years. This way, I can invite each of you to be a participant/contributor so we can continue to discuss important matters of the day! In order to accomplish this, we will be up and running until we convert over which will be approximately July 15th. So let's continue to enjoy the site until it is converted over, and then we'll figure out how to best use it from there. I am ecstatic to have a path for continuing to communicate with each of you!
Legislation has been proposed in New York that would require applicants wanting to purchase a firearm to submit three years worth of their social media postings for review as well as their previous years online search history.
The purpose of the statute would be to determine whether or not an individual has engaged in any hate speech disposed towards violence.
This ought to spark even greater outrage than if a marriage license was needed to purchase birth control; for it is inherently immoral, after all, for anyone not married to be using contraceptives in the first place.
It might be one thing if this proposed surveillance was used to interdict someone that has articulated a bona fide indisputable threat.
However, radical activists and minority supremacist front groups have expanded the definition of hate speech to include merely questioning the assorted agendas of these individuals and organizations.
For example, law enforcement might have vested interest in preventing someone from obtaining a firearm if they say it is their objective to murder as many Jews as possible.
However, is it the place of bureaucrats to deny you a Constitutional protection if you just believe Jews are not granted entrance into Heaven over denying the divinity of Christ or that the Talmund articulates criticisms of Christ bordering on the blasphemous?
An argument can be made about social media platforms allowed to block speech that they find offensive given that the Bill of Rights do not necessary apply in the same manner in regards to private corporations.
However, when government considers denying a right over another right having been exercised, there is no denying that a dangerous step towards tyranny has indeed been taken.
By Frederick Meekins
No Stickers to Show