Sunday, September 30

Saturday, September 15

The Existential Threat to Gun Rights

Longtime friend, firearms authority and Host of Gun Talk reveals a new and insidious attack on gun owners and the 2nd Amendment. And it isn't from politicians...

The biggest threat to the right to keep and bear arms, as well as other rights, has shifted from the government to the private sector -- a massive change I doubt we are prepared for. Three items in the news demonstrate this corporate assault against, which we have little defense.

After one court blocked and another court allowed what clearly was an illegal petition drive to put a monstrous initiative on the ballot, Washington state faces the possibility that all semi-automatic rifles will be regulated and possibly banned as "assault weapons." As I've said for 25 years, the term "assault weapon" is infinitely expandable -- by design -- and I-1639 includes even .22 rimfire rifles in that definition. What's corporate about that? Billionaires and millionaires funded the petition drive, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to purchase signatures on forms which violated state law. Now that a friendly court has ruled that breaking the law to put this measure on the ballot is no big deal, that initiative will be passed or defeated by voters who will be assaulted with millions of dollars of advertising. Here's the harsh reality. If you spend enough on messaging, you can convince a large percentage of the population of almost anything.

This is the commercialization of civil rights. Slick disinformation campaigns funded by anti-civil rights oligarchs such as Paul Allen (Microsoft co-founder) can and have convinced the voting public that it should be a felony to loan your gun to your neighbor for a pheasant hunt, or, in this case, that the Ruger 10/22 rifle you used to train your children on gun safety is, in fact, an "assault weapon" which must be regulated or banned.

Another clear and present danger from the private sector comes in the form of suppression of information, ideas, and free speech. Two decades ago I started talking about the threat we might face from Google and its ubiquitous (75 percent of searches) search engine. What if, I asked back then, someone tweaked the algorithms so that searches about guns, gun safety, self defense gun uses, semi-automatic firearms, and more, tended -- just a bit -- to favor news stories and sites which feature an anti-gun rights bias? Who would know? The net result would be that what the public "knows" to be true could be shifted. Public policy (laws) shifts with what people believe to be true.

Many believe that just such social engineering of search results is, in fact, being done now. Even Congress has called tech giants before a senate hearing, but Google famously refused to appear.

When one company can alter the delivery of information to the point of shifting public opinion through an agenda-driven program designed to mislead the public, it's a threat to not only gun rights, but to any right, any group, any way of thought that the person or persons running that company deem to be worthy of attack.

Amazon -- once an online book seller, and now a provider of almost everything -- has begun the online book burning -- a practice characteristically reserved for small-minded, intolerant ideologues. It removed a book containing the printed (non-executable) files for 3D printing of firearms. Now it appears that Amazon is actively removing from its services any book with "objectionable" content. Who's to say that any information about gun rights and the Second Amendment wouldn't be labeled as "hate speech" by a Millennial with access to the "do not sell" button?

If this were a single book store, most people would shrug it off. When it's the largest online book seller, and it's the go-to source of books for millions, this virtual book burning threatens the ability to put a variety of thoughts before the public.

One other example of the growing corporate assault on civil rights may stand above all others. That's the strangulation of financial services to the firearms industry -- stores, small manufacturers, large businesses, and the credit card and online payment systems, which have become almost the only way to purchase anything online. When online retailers block the sale of your regulated and legal product, banks and credit card companies refuse to process charges made for firearms-related products, and online payment systems (PayPal) block payments for legal products, it certainly appears to be a coordinated attack designed to choke off the lifeblood of an entire industry.

Of course, this started with an Obama-administration program titled "Operation Choke Point." Todd Zywicki put it well in his article: "The ability to destroy legal industries through secret actions to deprive them of banking services has obvious political consequences." (READ Here)

Operation Choke Point stands in stark contrast to those who parrot the claim that President Obama never did anything to try to take away our guns. No. It was much larger and much more sinister than that. He tried to destroy the entire firearms industry and your ability to purchase a firearm.

Unfortunately, that secret program set the wheels in motion for others in the financial sector to carry on this legacy of intolerance by adopting corporate policies with the same goal -- destroy any company involved with firearms or firearms training.

Our challenge, and I admit I don't have an answer, is to push back against the individuals and companies who use their financial resources to attack a basic human right. That right belongs to every man and every woman, no matter that person's beliefs, creed, color, background, etc. It is the right to live. It's the right to protect your own life. This "rolling thunder" assault from the Corporate Left is, in fact, an existential threat to freedom, to liberty, and to life itself. ~ Tom

Tom Gresham
Author, outdoorsman, gun rights activist, and firearms enthusiast for more than five decades, Tom Gresham hosts Tom Gresham's Gun Talk, the first nationally-syndicated radio show about guns and the shooting sports, and is also the producer and co-host of the Guns & Gear, GunVenture and First Person Defender television series.

Wednesday, September 12

Attention Devout Statist


If man creates a "system" of governance then it's already unjust, immoral and economically destructive.

No individual or even group of individuals can "engineer" how society should behave and live. It has always, will always result in the "engineers" having men with guns enforcing their will.

Regardless of how smart people are, constitutions and their "laws" are just words on a piece of paper. Those words have no authority and certainly no power to constrain the actions of wicked men. The idea of an American republic was doomed from the start.

If we as a society cannot live peacefully and productively with one another then we are the problem and no amount of government or a constitution or "laws" will make us better people.

h/t Don Cooper

Thursday, September 6

Civil War

More than a month ago now, Jack Minzey sent what was to be the final chapter in the long line of books and treatises that he has written over the years...

Jack died Sunday, 8 April 2018.

Professionally, Jack was head of the Department of Education at Eastern Michigan University as well as a prolific author of numerous books, most of which were on the topic of Education and the Government role therein.
His interest in Conservative Politics was exceeded only by his intellectual ability.

This is the last of his works.

Civil War

How do civil wars happen?

Two or more sides disagree on who runs the country. And they can't settle the question through elections because they don't even agree that elections are how you decide who's in charge. That's the basic issue here. Who decides who runs the country? When you hate each other but
accept the election results, you have a country. When you stop accepting election results, you have a countdown to a civil war.

The Mueller investigation is about removing President Trump from office and overturning the results of an election. We all know that. But it's not the first time they've done this. The first time a Republican president was elected this century, they said he didn't really win. The Supreme Court gave him the election. There's a pattern here.

What do sure odds of the Democrats rejecting the next Republican president really mean? It means they don't accept the results of any election that they don't win. It means they don't believe that transfers of power in this country are determined by elections.

That's a civil war.

There's no shooting. At least not unless you count the attempt to kill a bunch of Republicans at a charity baseball game practice. But the Democrats have rejected our system of government.

This isn't dissent. It's not disagreement. You can hate the other party. You can think they're the worst thing that ever happened to the country. But then you work harder to win the next election. When you consistently reject the results of elections that you don't win, what you want is a

Your very own dictatorship.

The only legitimate exercise of power in this country, according to Democrats, is its own. Whenever Republicans exercise power, it's inherently illegitimate. The Democrats lost Congress. They lost the White House. So what did they do? They began trying to run the country through Federal judges and bureaucrats. Every time that a Federal judge
issues an order saying that the President of the United States can't scratch his own back without his say so, that's the civil war.

Our system of government is based on the constitution, but that's not the system that runs this country. The Democrat's system is that any part of government that it runs gets total and unlimited power over the country.

If the Democrats are in the White House, then the president can do anything. And I mean anything. He can have his own amnesty for illegal aliens. He can fine you for not having health insurance. His power is unlimited. He's a dictator.

But when Republicans get into the White House, suddenly the President can't do anything. He isn't even allowed to undo the illegal alien amnesty that his predecessor illegally invented. A Democrat in the White House has 'discretion' to completely decide every aspect of immigration policy. A Republican doesn't even have the 'discretion' to reverse him. That's how the game is played That's how our country is run. Sad but true, although the left hasn't yet won that particular fight.

When a Democrat is in the White House, states aren't even allowed to enforce immigration law. But when a Republican is in the White House, states can create their own immigration laws. Under Obama, a state wasn't allowed to go to the bathroom without asking permission. But
under Trump, Jerry Brown can go around saying that California is an independent republic and sign treaties with other countries.

The Constitution has something to say about that.

Whether it's Federal or State, Executive, Legislative or Judiciary, the left moves power around to run the country. If it controls an institution, then that institution is suddenly the supreme power in the land. This is what I call a moving dictatorship.

Donald Trump has caused the Shadow Government to come out of hiding: Professional government is a guild. Like medieval guilds. You can't serve in if you're not a member. If you haven't been indoctrinated into its arcane rituals. If you aren't in the club. And Trump isn't in the club. He brought in a bunch of people who aren't in the club with him.

Now we're seeing what the pros do when amateurs try to walk in on them. They spy on them, they investigate them and they send them to jail. They use the tools of power to bring them down.

That's not a free country.

It's not a free country when FBI agents who support Hillary take out an 'insurance policy' against Trump winning the election. It's not a free country when Obama officials engage in massive unmasking of the opposition. It's not a free country when the media responds to the other
guy winning by trying to ban the conservative media that supported him from social media. It's not a free country when all of the above collude together to overturn an election because the guy who wasn't supposed to
win did.

Have no doubt, we're in a civil war between conservative volunteer government and a leftist Democrat professional government

h/t David Webb

Wednesday, August 8

The Big Reveal

With State Primaries hither and thither, the countdown to the Mid-Terms has begun. The Blow-Dried MSM Talking Heads and every cable and radio Talk show host is fighting sweaty palms in palpitating anticipation of the Big Blue Wave! Their websites have their Countdown Clocks posted and ominously ticking away.

Idealistically or Most Importantly – take your pick - is the Honor, Honesty, and Integrity at stake, sworn to by those elected officials, tossed around like gaudy Mardi Gras beads in pious Party speeches the closer we get to November "E" Day.

The "Russia, Russia, Russia -Trump" Kabuki continues but with some real rancid meat permeating the news cycle. The Carter Page FISA Memo story has been in and out of the headlines for months. All the coverage contends massive revelations and subsequent scandals, the likes of which will shake the foundations of the Republic - regardless that, to date, only the scant unredacted portions have been quoted.

Devin Nunes has been teasing the yet unseen toxic content, appearing on several FOX shows demanding Pres. Trump unilaterally declassify the entire recently released blacked out Cater Page FISA Application. On "Tucker Carlson Tonight", he stated not only had he, as House Intelligence Committee Chairman, read all the redacted portions, but also that there is nothing of "national security interest" there; that the real "national security reason" for American Public is to see what the DOJ and the FBI has done to spy on the American people."

And then, quite inadvertently, in my opinion, Nunes swung the door wide open:

"It's our job as Congress to bring sunlight and full transparency to this."
Carlson pounced:

OK. Then why don't you send it to me now and I will put it on the air in the back half of this show.

I mean it. I'm dead serious. You are the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

That's when Nunes' crawfishing started. (See the attached link for the entire performance).

Yes. I'm not the one with the power. Now, hypothetically, could I go to the House floor, could I go out in my official duties and tell the American public what's in the rest of that FISA? I could.

However - I mean, you already see - remember most of the media and the left is against us and against it. They don't want the rest of this out. They want to keep this hidden. Can you imagine the field day they would have against me or of any other Republicans talk about what is now classified information…?

Because Nunes feared the media "field day" against him, Nunes threw the President under the bus:

But what can happen right now - how do we get this done is the president just needs to step in and declassify this. He has said he doesn't want to get involved, but, quite frankly, he needs to get involved in this. It doesn't involve him. If he would just declassify it, then we as Congress would have no problem coming on your show and talking about this declassified information.

Unfortunately, Carlson let him off the rhetorical hook but not without Nunes reaching for a change of pants.

Carlson returned from a commercial break to mention a text he just received remembering when Sen. Feinstein infamously read the CIA "torture memo" into the Senate record, knowing she knew she was protected by the Constitution's "Speech and Debate" Clause. Deven Nunes – or any Congressman or Senator - having access to the complete unredacted material could do the same thing with the same impunity.

Why not?

Why doesn't some fine, upstanding Representative or Senator do just that even without availing themselves of the protective wrapping of the Constitution? There's no death penalty or CIA torture applied for such making such a revelation. With the Public's focused interest in the matter (having been bludgeoned with it for months by the MSM), Nunes would be a National Hero!

The majority of our Fearless Leaders are attorneys and therefore "officers of the court'" with an "ethical duty to tell the truth". Since this memo allegedly "exposes terrifying abuses of our civil liberties", don't these attorneys have the ethical obligation to reveal the "explosive" contents to the Public, the victims of this abuse, regardless of 'media heat'?

Since these same leaders take an oath to " and defend the Constitution...against all enemies..." wouldn't arbitrary "rules" conjured by a publicly elected group be subordinate to their first sworn obligation to the Constitution, the Electorate and the Rule of Law?

Discuss among yourselves – or, better yet, with your Elected Representatives.

Tuesday, July 17

A Short Note from the President

My Fellow Americans

I'd like a few minutes of your time to address and clarify some of my comments in Helsinki that have caused such an uproar among Fake News readers, Deep Swamp creatures, and the heavy-breathers in both parties.

It appears the source of all their exasperations and expectorations was my response to a question about Russian meddling: did I believe Mr. Putin's strong denial over the findings of the American intelligence community? That was interpreted as my siding with Vladimir Putin instead of the United States intelligence agencies. Was I?

Let me be clear. Simply stated: Yes I was.

Unfortunately, in that news conference setting, I didn't have the time or opportunity to provide a more fulsome answer – as I am going to do now.

First, I suggest you answer this simple question as honestly and objectively as your bias, prejudice, and political handlers will allow: With the whole world watching this historic event, why should I throw my support behind the same intelligence agencies that have been attempting – and are attempting at this very minute – a coup to overthrow my administration?


Since before my election, the NSA, CIA, FBI and certain political operatives including Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton have been committing illegal, unconstitutional acts, trampling the Rule of Law, tapping my phones, surveilling certain associates, assisting Hillary and the DNC in the composition and use of a false dossier to deceive the FISA Court to appoint a Special Prosecutor who has failed to conduct an honest, thorough investigation – what happened to the DNC server? Hillary's missing 30,000 emails? John Podesta's emails? - failing to comply with the Constitutional demands of House and Senate oversight committees, feeding classified documents to CNN, New York Times, Washington Post and other Fake News outlets and a long list of other actions and efforts to undermine my administration.

In the face of those facts – some of which you have been reporting on for nearly two years – tell me why, exactly, I should be a fool in front of the entire world saying: Oh yeah! I'm with these intelligence agencies 1000%! Had I said that President Putin would have collapsed in laughter, I guarantee it.

As Sen. Rand Paul told Neil Cavuto, "When you look at our intelligence community over the last several years, it was lead by people who turned out to be rank partisans, and frankly dissemblers and liars. James Clapper came to the Senate and perjured himself. He committed one of the biggest lies of the head of intelligence committed in recent times…". And this is just a small example of much bigger "crimes and misdemeanors" committed by the former President, former Secretary of State, former Attorneys General, former FBI Director, Assistants and at least two agents.

So against this historically accurate and factual background of recent months right up to today, why should I be hysterically criticized, for giving credence to President Putin's strong denial of Russian meddling?

While you think about that, here's something else.

Both the United States and Russia have big, bureaucratic, intelligent agencies with offices and operatives tasked with identical goals; it's been that way for decades and decades. Just as with the DOJ, CIA, FBI who have individuals like John Brennan, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, James Clapper, Andrew McCabe working undercover against the national interests and values of America, I can tell you President Putin has the same issues. If the so-called indictment of 12 Russians allegedly working to meddle in our elections is true and accurate, it is not at all impossible for them to have done so without Putin's knowledge. I had no idea former President Obama and his operatives were working so hard and illegally against me and my election. If you take Obama at his word, he claims he had no clue – despite information coming out that makes that patently unbelievable. Where is your journalistic skepticism?

Here's my last question. It should give you pause before you swallow whole the talking points you're getting from the Schumer-Pelosi-DNC-Fake News Headquarters.

Do really think the United States, through our Foreign Policy, State Department, CIA, and NSA, is seen around the world some sort of Vestal Virgin? Are you at all aware of the meddling the USA has done in other countries' elections like Israel, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Vietnam, Venezuela, Cuba? Latin America? Africa? And, by the way, Russia?

Why now this sudden outrage over Russia? Could it just be because your candidate and your agenda lost big time?

And here's a little something for homework. According to WikiLeaks and other sources, the CIA's "UMBRAGE" program is a really clever hacking technique. They use malware to steal and replicate the digital “fingerprints” of a foreign hacker, allowing the U.S. to then blame the hack on a foreign enemy such as Russia.

So when Dan Coates and our "intelligence community" tells you

"We have been clear in our assessments of Russian meddling in the 2016 election and their ongoing, pervasive efforts to undermine our democracy…and we will continue to provide unvarnished and objective intelligence in support of our national security."

You might want to double-check for varnish. It may not be what they want you to believe it is.

When some of those "bad actors" you've heard about, turn up in our own government with the goal of overturning the Administration of someone they don't like, didn't vote for and are still in denial that he won, what confidence would you have in their honesty, integrity, love for the Constitution, Rule of Law and American values?

Finally, I'd like to thank Brian Wilson for writing this for me. He's a good man. Smart, too.

Wednesday, July 4

Dan Ingram

 On June 24, 2018, Dan Ingram died. He was regarded as the best Top 40 DJ of all time. Unknowingly and, somewhat ironically, he was a role model for my broadcasting career. Although the following was written in response for a contribution to a tribute page, it may not actually appear anywhere else but here. This degree of honesty is often too rare even for hardcore "showbiz" consumption. Virtually all of the comments about Dan's passing have focused on what a wonderful guy and consummate professional he was. That wasn't entirely the Dan I knew. But the story does have a twist...

Hello there – I'm Brian Wilson, of the nearly-famous Ross & Wilson Show (among others) In January 1981, we were brought in from Z-93/Atlanta to WABC/NY to replace Dan Ingram in morning drive and hopefully play a part in the salvation of MusicRadio 77 WABC, the greatest station in the world.

History has recorded how well that worked out and In my new book "50 Stories from 50 Years in Radio", coming out later this year, you'll be able to read about the shenanigans that took place on the 8th floor of the iconic ABC Building as MusicRadioWABC died and TalkRadioWABC was born. Obviously, Dan Ingram played a big role.

But I digress…

So the other day, here comes a note from Matt Seinberg, honcho at Big Apple airchecks: Would I like to record something for the Dan Ingram aircheck tribute he's putting together?

My first reaction was Sure- why not? Then, in proper numerical sequence came my 2nd reaction. No – what for? Every freakin' compliment – including mine – about Dan had already made it on FB and, where it really counted: Alan Sniffen's For me to say anything more would just be redundant. Plus some of the other guys who had actually worked with us back then had already written really good pieces about their experiences with Dan. So what could I add – except maybe a different perspective – from the infamous "Not Chuck Dunaway interview". If you don't know the history of Dan Ingram as Chuck Dunaway, check it out at

Dan was held in the highest professional regard. The DJs, DJ…master of the 6-second wit,,, the most imitated DJ in America…

Unfortunately, Dan and I did not enjoy the warmest, fuzziest relationship. From the first day I met him in the hallway outside Al Racco's office, it was all downhill from there. And when I say I met him, well- that took all of about 2 seconds tops. No handshake. No eye contact, "Yeah right good luck with your career" was all he said - and kept right on walking.

I gotta tell ya, I was blown away! Like some other WABC folks, I had grown up in North Jersey, and religiously followed the afternoon ritual of flipping on Dan Ingram right after high school let out and his show started at 3 o'clock.

Now, 18 years later and here I am working with him!

I won’t go into all the gory details. First, it's not cool to speak ill of the dearly departed. Second, things were very different back then. But – spoiler alert - everything turned out OK in the end.

And what you are about to hear was The End. But before that, you need to know, as Paul Harvey would say, The Rest of the Story.

I will assume you know about the annual WABC ReWound shows that ran on Memorial Day; unfortunately, they were discontinued some years ago. The theme for the 1998 show was a Beatles retrospective. I was invited to host the 5:30 -6p segment, after Scott Shannon and before Curtis Sliwa. Despite having to do the show from my home studio in Maryland, everything went great. Even the famous WABC reverb came thru!

The only downer- there was no Big Dan in the line-up. Dan had a show over at CBS-FM and the suits at Black Rock wouldn't permit the legendary Dan Ingram to appear even on a briefly resurrected MusicRadio WABC.

Now knowing all this, during the last commercial break, Johnny Donovan comes on the IFB and says: "Hey Brian! We got Dan! Your gonna interview him right after this break. But you can't call him Dan Ingram! CBS wouldn't let him do it with his real name so he's coming on as Not Chuck Dunaway! OK? Two minutes…"

And that was it! The two of us were just gonna wing it 8 or 10 minutes till the top of the hour!

My problem wasn't noodling out how to do the interview, but how to deal with Dan? Like I said, we didn't have a great relationship at all when we were working together. So would he even remember all that crap? I sure as hell did – but maybe it wasn't as traumatic for the Greatest DJ Ever!

So except for a slightly shaky intro, I geared up to go a few rounds with "Not"; of course, Dan brought his A game. Now Dan had a thing about playing people with big words and inside information to see just how much he could get away with - and whether or not you' were able to keep up. So we played that game. When you hear some of my references to how much Dan got paid, these were the same lines I used on the morning show in 1981 cross-promoting Dan, now back doing afternoon drive -- and for which I got my butt chewed out big time by the PD: "Dan doesn't want you talking about how much money he makes". Dan doesn't like it when you talk about his paycheck. "Don't talk about Dan being married." That didn't help the relationship or the atmosphere much - coming at a time when everybody was concerned about their ratings and the big rumor going around that WABC was going to flip to Talk. So with that history and with millions of people listening, came this spontaneously combusted chat fest with Not Chuck Dunaway and me. Here is how it went down Memorial Day, 1998

Not Chuck Dunaway Interview

The Happy Ending to all this came a few months later while Dan was being interviewed about his remarkable career and specifically about the1998 ReWound and the CBS fiasco and the idea to come on as Not Chuck Dunaway. At one point, he was asked: "Who was that guy who interviewed you?" And without a moment's hesitation, the Greatest DJ of all time said "Oh that was Brian Wilson! Yeah, Brian Wilson. And I gotta tell ya, he did one helluva job. He was great."


So my best Dan Ingram memory is my greatest Dan Ingram regret – that we didn't get to know each other better at the time. We could have been a formidable AM and PM drive team. Who knows – we might have even become pretty good friends.

So now you know the rest of the story -- and at the risk of being redundant, radio listeners will never hear another one like Dan Ingram again. He was the best there ever was. Ever.

Thanks to Alan Sniffen's for his Dan Ingram tribute.