As I warned in my previous post, the next, even more audacious step in the globalist attempt to abolish our second amendment has just gotten underway in the most recent shooting event involving two sheriff’s deputies. The current narrative put out by the same civil right’s lawyer handling the cases of Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, and Jacob Blake, is that the deputies attempted to charge Dijon Kizzee, a black man identified by Black Lives Matter for a superfluous bicycle infraction upon which Dijon started running, dropping some clothes and a semiautomatic handgun, at which point the deputies shot him 20 times in the back – end of narrative. Just coincidentally, this event was just the perfect event involving the real target of the globalist movement at just the right time after having made the case for defunding the police departments which actually support the sheriffs across the country. As I reminded you in a previous post, the sheriffs in the US are the only entity in the world legally authorized to locally defend the individual’s rights and freedoms granted by the US Constitution. The lawyer’s narrative is just perfect for triggering a protest against the sheriff’s department, at the same time making the case for defunding the police. As one would predict from a president that is accountable to his law abiding citizens, president Trump, in a recent interview with Laura Ingram just publicly suggested that ‘some very stupid people’ are bankrolling the riots across the country and has tasked the DOJ to investigate and prosecute the leaders of those organizations. Biden now, in response to recent polling directs his remarks to the riots as if he never supported them. According to a recent Reuters news story, both he and Kamala Harris have supported organizations that have been known to bail out violent Black Lives Matter rioters and ‘demonstrators’. The Biden campaign is now counting on their constituents to believe that the rioting is legitimate and must be responded to with substantial concessions. What concessions would a Biden administration actually make? It would fully support mayors and city councils to completely defund their police departments. As a liaison for the globalist movement, a Biden administration would eventually allow the United Nations to gain some level of authority over the US, possibly opening the door for international organizations like Interpol to assume power within our borders and arrest local police officers and charge them with ‘crimes against humanity’ or organized crime, while at the same time defending the rioters and looters as the victims of those crimes. There is no use for the second amendment in a socialist government where the balance of power is always with the government and not the governed. There would be no use for the second amendment in a Biden administration. It would be the most formidable obstacle in the transformation of our government in the globalist agenda. While the democrats want to defund the police, the globalists are really after defunding the sheriffs in particular. While the democrats have no use for the second amendment, the globalists are actually threatened by it. While the agenda of the democrats is to establish a government controlled distribution of equity in all its forms, the globalist agenda is to transfer ultimate power and authority of that distribution to elite global entities currently sponsored by the UN, all this being driven by a low valuation for the contribution of individuals to society and by an envy for the rewards of the private production of wealth. The globalist mission is to establish a centralized global authority to eradicate poverty, disease, war, and environmental disasters. They are in a race against time. They are desperately seeking the cooperation of centralized governments. They know that only a centralized government would elect to cooperate with their plans for globalization of policing, healthcare, and the distribution of financial equity. They are currently more desperate than those opposed to them, namely those in a position to defend individual freedoms. This, in and of itself, is a facet of human nature. Those driven by abject fear are always more desperate than those driven by aspiration and ambition. If you believe that disease will soon devastate the world, and only you and those like minded have the solution, you may logically be compelled to force nations to comply with your solution. The globalist elites not only believe they and only they have the capacity to overcome world problems, they believe that most, if not all the world’s problems are created by individual freedoms. There is nothing more threatening than an organization with unlimited funds driven by abject fear. The globalists are calculating that they can produce an overwhelming popular consensus that there is ‘systemic racism’ that is reflected in the police departments across the country and that the rioting and looting are an emotional outpouring of it. They believe that by staging these events, they can win the young and impressionable people to support this movement. Most medium and large city governments are headed by individuals with extreme liberal views, voted into office by a socially engineered concentration of liberal voters. A large international organization with unlimited funds , I believe, could possibly stage events like these by setting up provocations upon provocations that are well timed and strategically located. What would be the legitimacy of a member of Black Lives Matter riding a bicycle in the street with a semiautomatic handgun wrapped in clothes. What would be the chances that after punching a police officer, Dijon was not to be considered desperate enough to be an instantaneous threat to the police officers and the surrounding community. Wouldn’t it be a coincidence that just that bicycle rider that they were stopping for a vehicle violation turned out to be a dangerously armed member of Black Lives Matter , who upon getting his hands back on that semiautomatic couldn’t have overpowered the deputies. Wouldn’t it be more likely that the deputies were tipped off by someone that he was armed and dangerous? What law abiding bicycle rider would be riding his bike in the street with a concealed semiautomatic in the middle of the afternoon? Since there was no bodycam footage, it is now potentially an argument between the lawyer, the forensic examiner, and the deputies as to whether the shooting was legally justified. What seems to be lacking now mostly is the exculpatory evidence for the deputy or deputies that shot Dijon. These deputies, not realizing that they are now a prime target, may have very well walked into a perfect setup. Why are all these shootings being defended by the same civil rights lawyer if not to claim that the similarities between these police shootings indicate systemic racism, requiring a complete overhaul of our policing across the country, and by default, defunding our sheriffs. I predict that the sheriffs are going to be more frequently targeted in these police involved shooting incidences.