 Sen. Cruz (left) & Sen. Feinstein (right) “Everything about the left is perception, manipulation, and lies. Everything. Everything is 'Wag the Dog.' Everything is a structured deception.”- Rush Limbaugh
On Thursday, March 14, 2013, the Senate Judiciary Committee conducted a hearing and accompanying debate on Senator Dianne Feinstein’s “Assault Weapons Ban of 2013.” Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), began by giving a very respectful, logical, common sense speech pointing out the uselessness of the assault weapons ban, and he put forth some very important points that should have been included in the ban, but surprisingly (or not) were not included in the ban. Here is a video (and transcript) of Senator Cruz’s speech:
“Thank you Mr. Chairman. I think all of us understand the passions that this topic elicits, but in my view, decisions in this body, on everything, and especially on this topic, should be driven by facts and the data and by the Constitution, not by passion. So I’d like to make four points briefly.
Number One: Machine guns are already functionally illegal. When this topic is discussed in the public forum a great many people when they hear the phrase “assault weapon” believe that what is being discussed is fully automatic machine guns. Senior senator from California made reference to an AK-47, I believe wielded by a gang member. An AK-47 is a fully automatic machine gun that is functionally illegal today. Tragically, gang members don’t tend to follow gun laws.
Number Two: This bill, the data demonstrate would be singularly ineffective in preventing violent crime. That, I think, is not surprising because as the hearing s on this bill demonstrated, the weapons that would be prohibited by this bill are functionally identical to semi-automatic deer rifles, millions of which are in circulation, and this bill targets cosmetic features on guns, cosmetic features that at the end of the day make the guns appear scary, but does not alter the basic mechanism; and I would note that we don’t have to hypothesize about the effectiveness because we, in fact, have seen what happens when a very, very similar bill is in effect. The prior assault weapons ban was in effect for a decade. Three times the department of justice funded studies on that assault weapons bill, and three times the studies were not able to find any statistically significant impact on violent crime, as a result of the assault weapons ban. That’s three studies in a row which is very difficult to get away from, and indeed, since the assault weapons ban expired we now see murders by rifles are roughly half today what they were when the assault weapons ban is in effect. So this is not a law that I think has any reasonable prospect of reducing violent crime. Something I know everybody on this committee would like to see violent crime reduced. Indeed, I would suggest as my third point:
That if the real objective is reducing violent crime we should be devoting our time to far more effective steps. We should be devoting our time to laws that target violent criminals; we should be devoting our time to laws that improve the next background check. We have heard testimony that 18 states right now have submitted one hundred or fewer mental health records to the background check program. That’s a serious problem. I would note that my home state of Texas has submitted over 200,000 mental health records to that background system. And, I fully expect to support on the floor legislation that is targeted at violent criminals and not at law abiding citizens. Indeed, if we wanted to go further, and really consider significant steps to stop violent crime, I would suggest we could consider legislation, or a constitutional amendment, to alter or repeal the exclusionary rule in criminal proceedings. Now there is a rule that consistently excludes evidence of guilt from violent criminals, and has resulted in violent criminals being freed over, and over, and over again. If the passion that is focused on this issue right now were targeted at preventing violent crime, I would suggest considering the impact of the exclusionary rule would be a far more fruitful area for actually stopping violent crime, because I too, as have many of the members of this committee, have worked in law enforcement for many, many years have dealt with victims of crime and think we need to be serious about protecting Americans from violent crime with every tool at our disposal.
My fourth and final point is that the constitution, in my opinion, should be the touchstone of everything we do. Some have suggested in this hearing that the role of Congress is to pass laws, and it’s up to the court to consider constitutionality. I would point out that every one of us takes an oath to defend the constitution, and that is a fundamental obligation of every member of this body. There has been some suggestion that Heller would allow this regulation. I would point out I am not unfamiliar with the Heller case. Indeed, I represented 31 states before the U.S. Supreme Court in the Heller case. So I have an intimate familiarity with that case having been an active part of litigating it and winning 5-4 before the Supreme Court. And, what the Supreme Court said in Heller, it did say are some restrictions on the Second Amendment that are permissible, and for example it specifically identified the current prohibition on fully automatic machine guns. But it also said that weapons that are in common use, such as in that case, handguns were the principal issue being discussed, and the same arguments that have been suggested here about why so-called assault weapons can be banned were made by the District of Columbia in Heller for why hand guns could be banned. And the Supreme Court said, “No, if they’re in common use for self-defense they cannot be banned consistent with the Second Amendment.”
We have heard testimony that there are some four million weapons that would be covered by this bill, I would suggest on any measure, four million weapons qualifies as “in common use” and so, under the terms of Heller they cannot constitutionally be prohibited.
The final point I would make on the Constitution is some have pointed to public opinion polls. In my view, the Constitution is particularly important when the Bill of Rights is unpopular. That was the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights. When our rights are popular, we don’t need the Constitution. The purpose of it is to stand for the rights of the minority when the majority is acting to strip their rights. And I would note the senior Senator from New York asked about other rights. I think we should be vigorous in protecting every right in the Constitution. Just last week a number of us spent some 13 hours on the floor of the senate defending the Fifth Amendment and in particular the right of Americans not to be denied their life without due process of law. And, indeed, Senator Rand Paul and I have introduced legislation to make clear that the United States government cannot use a drone to kill a U. S. citizen on U.S. soil if that individual does not pose an imminent threat, and I would certainly welcome support from any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle on that important protection of the Fifth Amendment. Likewise, earlier this week, this committee voted to fund a study of the impact of films and video games on violent crimes, and I would note that I voted no against that as well because I believe in the First Amendment, I believe in the Second Amendment, I believe in the Fifth Amendment, and I would suggest that every one of us has an obligation to the Constitution; I will happily welcome support from anyone who wants to stand and fight for the Constitution, because in my view, that should be our principal responsibility and obligation. Thank you.”
As the question and answer debate began, Senator Cruz continued standing on logical arguments and posited a very pointed and logical question to Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). Rather than answer the question (which Feinstein never did), Senator’s Leahy (Judiciary chairman), Feinstein (the bill’s author), and Durbin took the opportunity to attack Senator Cruz personally. Here is a video (and transcript) of that exchange:
CHAIRMAN LEAHY: Senator Cruz.
CRUZ: If I might pose a question to the senior Senator from California? In your response to Senator Cornyn you mention that there’s some 100 pages of the bill that specify particular firearms that if this bill were passed, Congress would have deemed prohibited. It seems to me that all of us should begin, as our foundational document, with the Constitution.
FEINSTEIN: M-hm.
CRUZ: And the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The term, “the right of the people”, when the framers included it in the Bill of Rights, they used it as a term of [order?], that same phrase, “the right of the people” is found in the First Amendment: “The right of the people to peacefully assemble and to petition their government for redress of grievances.” It’s also found in the Fourth Amendment: “The right of the people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.”
And the question that I would pose to the senior senator from California is, would she deem it consistent with the Bill of Rights for Congress to engage in the same endeavor that we are contemplating doing with the Second Amendment in the context of the First or Fourth Amendment, namely, would she consider it constitutional for Congress to specify that the First Amendment shall apply only to the following books and shall not apply to the books that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights? Likewise, would she think that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against searches and seizures could properly apply only to the following specified individuals and not to the individuals that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights?
CHAIRMAN LEAHY: Would the senator yield for a question?
FEINSTEIN: Let me just make a couple of points in response.
One, I’m not a sixth grader. Senator, I’ve been on this committee for 20 years. I was a mayor for nine years. I walked in, I saw people shot. I’ve looked at bodies that have been shot with these weapons. I’ve seen the bullets that implode. In Sandy Hook, youngsters were dismembered. Look, there are other weapons. I’ve been up — I’m not a lawyer, but after 20 years I’ve been up close and personal to the Constitution. I have great respect for it. This doesn’t mean that weapons of war and the Heller decision clearly points out three exceptions, two of which are pertinent here. And so I — you know, I mean, it’s fine you want to lecture me on the Constitution. I appreciate it. Just know I’ve been here for a long time. I’ve passed on a number of bills. I’ve studied the Constitution myself. I am reasonably well educated, and I thank you for the lecture. Incidentally, this does not prohibit, your used the word prohibit, it exempts 2,271 weapons. Isn’t that enough for the people in the United States? Do they need a bazooka? Do they need other high powered weapons that military people use to kill in close combat? I don’t think so. So I come from a different place than you do. I respect your views. I ask you to respect my views.
CHAIRMAN LEAHY: Senator Durbin, is that {garbled).
DURBIN: Mr. Chairman, I can’t add anything to that.
CHAIRMAN LEAHY: Senator Cruz?
CRUZ: Mr. Chairman, I would ask yet another, or, another question of the senior Senator of California. I think nobody doubts her sincerity or her passion, and yet at the same time I would note that she chose not to answer the question that I asked, which is, in her judgment would it be consistent with the Constitution for Congress to specify which books are permitted and which books are not, and to use the specific number … (interrupted by Senator Feinstein)
FEINSTEIN: The answer is obvious, no.
CRUZ: And may I ask … (interrupted by the Chairman)
CHAIRMAN LEAHY: Could we keep on the, and I appreciate that we have a discussion on books, I know that they have that in your state of Texas where your educational board tells people what books they should or should not read in their schools, something that we would not do in Vermont, but you know we’re not going to talk about your right, but let’s stick to guns, I know Senator … (Feinstein begins to speak. Then Cruz speaks)
CRUZ: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your acknowledging the state of Texas allows books, I would specify a little more bluntly … (interrupted by Chairman Leahy and Senator Feinstein)
CHAIRMAN LEAHY: Pornography books?
UNKNOWN VOICE: Child pornography? Protected by the First Amendment?
FEINSTEIN: It’s obvious that there are different tests on different amendments. And I think what the senator’s going to point out is something that didn’t occur to me at the moment, there are certain kinds of pornographic materials that would not be covered by the First Amendment.
CRUZ: And is it the view of the senior Senator from California that Congress should be in the business of specifying particular books, or for that matter with respect to the Fourth Amendment particular individuals who are not covered by the Bill of Rights?
FEINSTEIN: Sir, Congress is in the business of making law. The Supreme Court interprets the law. They strike down the law, they strike down the law. The tests in Heller, with respect to unusual weapons and to other things, I think do not cover, in other words, they cover an exemption for assault weapons. And if this is brought up before the court, if it should pass, I’m sure that argument will be made.
CHAIRMAN LEAHY: The Senator from Illinois wish…
DURBIN: That’s exactly the point. The senator knows having attended law school and professes to have some experience in the Constitution; none of these rights are absolute. None of them. And the Heller decision goes specifically to the question of this amendment and tells us, when they were asked in the Heller decision, a panel, [hour?] two, a panel of Republican appointed judges rejected a Second Amendment challenge to DC’s assault weapons ban and magazine limits. A Second Amendment challenge. The DC Circuit Court held that such laws, quote, do not effectively disarm individuals … [end of video]
I find it interesting that Senator Cruz asks a simple question, which frames his thoughts on the subject. It is not an attack on Senator Feinstein (or anyone for that matter), just a simply stated, and politely stated question. Not only does Feinstein refuse to answer the question, but she resorts to an attack on Senator Cruz himself, accusing him of lecturing her on the Constitution, and then moves into a very patronizing speech of her own, pointing out that she has 20 years experience as a senator (implying that Senator Cruz is only a junior senator, with less experience, and should sit by and be quiet while the adults talk and make the decisions). Before long, Senator Feinstein is joined by Senator Leahy, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary, and he too begins to attack and patronize not only Senator Cruz, but also Cruz’s home state of Texas, by pointing stating that Texas tells people what they can and cannot read in the schools – something Leahy says his state of Vermont would never do; and before long other democrat senators jump in and claim that Cruz and his home state of Texas approve of child pornography.
To his credit, Senator Cruz does not take the bait, and he sits patiently while senator’s Feinstein, Leahy, Durbin and others clearly show to the world that they are completely without ethics, completely without manners, that they are patronizing, ignorant, liars. Senator Cruz made a valiant attempt to remove from the eyes of the public, the rose colored glasses that Feinstein and other socialists in our government have foisted upon the American people by playing on their fears and desire for safety, and politicizing tragic events such as the Newtown Massacre in order to further their agenda.
Within days of the debate, Senator Feinstein was interviewed by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. Here is a transcript of that interview:
[Here is a link to the video of that interview: http://mrctv.org/videos/senator-dianne-feinstein-i-felt-patronized-ted-cruzs-questions-constitution]
WOLF BLITZER: Feinstein is joining us now from Capitol Hill, Senator, clearly you were insulted by what Senator Cruz said, walk us through your thinking.
SENATOR FEINSTEIN: Well, I just felt patronized. I felt he was somewhat arrogant about it, and when you’ve come from where I come from and what you’ve seen, and when you’ve found a dead body, and you put your finger in bullet holes, you really realize the impact of weapons. And then as you go up the technical ladder with these weapons and they become more sophisticated and more the product of a [garbled word] and you’ve got these huge clips or drums of 100 bullets out there that people can buy. When you see these weapons becoming attractive to grievance killers. Now people who take them into schools, into theaters, into malls, you wonder, does America really need these weapons? My answer to that is no. And, so, it’s based on my experience, and I think, well, the bottom line is we passed the bill out of committee by a vote of 10 to 8*, the President has issued a very strong statement in support of it, so … (interrupted by Blitzer)
BLITZER: You think he’s doing enough though? You think he’s doing enough behind the scenes to help you get this passed through the senate?
FEINSTEIN: Well, I think it’s now going to begin. I think it’s now out of committee. Every Democrat voted for it. Hopefully we will have the debate before too long on the senate floor and we will see. It’s going to be my intention to divide the question, so that hopefully, I want to sit down with the leader, there will be two votes, one on the entire bill and one on the part that prohibits clips and ammunition feeding devices of more than 10 bullets.
BLITZER: Did you have a chance to speak to Senator Cruz after that public exchange?
FEINSTEIN: No. I needed to cool down.
BLITZER: Have you cooled down yet?
FEINSTEIN: I’m cooled down.
BLITZER: So when you see him the next time, what will you say?
FEINSTEIN: Oh yes, oh yes. Well, I did say, “look, I’m sorry, but, you know, this is one thing I feel very passionate about, and I appreciate the lecture, but,” and that’s all I’m going to say.
[* note that there are 10 democrats and 8 republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which tells you that what the democrats propose, will likely automatically pass. Debate, such as on this bill, is only a formality as the passing is likely a foregone conclusion.]
In this clearly biased “interview,” Feinstein claims, “I felt he was somewhat arrogant about it, and when you’ve come from where I come from and what you’ve seen, and when you’ve found a dead body, and you put your finger in bullet holes, you really realize the impact of weapons.” And, “I was a mayor for nine years. I walked in, I saw people shot. I’ve looked at bodies that have been shot with these weapons. I’ve seen the bullets that implode.”
As with many politicians (and others in the public eye), Feinstein is not above lying I her attempt to sway opinions in her favor, and this situation is no different. Of the claims she makes (as noted above), only one is true. She has seen a dead body. On November 27, 1978, former San Francisco Supervisor Dan White climbed through a first-floor window on the side of City Hall carrying a .38 revolver and 10 rounds of ammunition. With that weapon and ammunition, White shot and killed San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk. As a member of the board of supervisors, Feinstein was nearby, and heard the gun shots. Upon investigating, she discovered Harvey Milk’s body.
Her other claims, that she saw people shot, that she has looked at the bodies of people who have been shot with assault weapons, that she has seen bullets that implode, and that she put her finger in bullet holes, are all untrue. Lies, plain and simple. Unless, of course, she has some sort of bizarre bullet hole fetish and she makes midnight visits to the local morgue so she can stick her fingers in them. Unlikely, but, hey, who knows? And “bullets that implode”? Sorry senator, there’s no such thing. It is nuclear weapons that implode, not bullets.
The weapon that Dan White used, was a .38 caliber revolver, and he carried 10 bullets with him. The gun is legal, the number of bullets is legal, and they appear nowhere on Feinstein’s list of weapons she wants to ban. So the murders committed by White aren’t really pertinent to the discussion. It is only a tool being used by Feinstein in an attempt to sway people to accept her agenda; and that agenda is, plain and simple, to disarm the American public. Her proposed ban does not extend to government employees, law enforcement and retired law enforcement. It does absolutely nothing to disarm criminals (as do none of the Democrat sponsored gun control bills – but is what Senator Cruz attempted to integrate into the bill, and the Democrats argued against it), it will only disarm the law abiding public, those who would not commit the horrible crimes that Feinstein is claiming she wants to protect us all from.
Clearly, protecting the American people is not important to Senator Feinstein, and is only a ploy she is using to promote her agenda – an agenda shared by all socialists throughout history, the disarming of a population. Why? The answer is found throughout history as well - a disarmed population inevitably becomes an enslaved population. A disarmed population is without power, reduced to childlike obedience to - and dependence upon - the organs of a parental state. Adolph Hitler, a self-admitted socialist, once said, “The first thing you have to do is disarm the people. A disarmed public can't fight back.”
Clearly, a disarmed population is far easier to control than an armed population. So the real question that should be asked is, why does the government, specifically the socialist members of the government, want a disarmed populace? Could it have anything to do with what appears to be the stripping of our constitutional rights? Interestingly, during the course of the debate between Senator Cruz and Senator Feinstein, it was Senator Dick Durbin who joined the fray and stated, “The senator [Cruz] knows, having attended law school, and professes to have some experience in the Constitution, none of these rights are absolute. None of them.”
Aside from Durbin’s snarky comments, what is important to note is his comment that not one of the rights contained in the U.S. Constitution is absolute. Not one of them. According to the esteemed socialist senator from Illinois, we can, at the whim of Congress, lose our constitutionally protected rights. The right to freedom of speech is already being infringed due to HR 347 which was signed into law in 2012. The right to keep and bear arms is slated to be infringed, if Senator Feinstein gets her way. What will be next? Will Congress establish or promote a specific religion, or prohibit a specific religion or religions? Will we be required to allow members of the military, such as military intelligence operatives to live in our homes, or in our assigned living areas? Will warrantless searches be allowed – oh, wait, they already are.
Well, what about our right to a speedy and public trial when we are accused of …. Wait, never mind, I forgot about NDAA. That’s already gone as well; as is the right to be deprived of life, liberty and property without due process – NDAA took care of those rights as well. I would suggest reading the U.S. Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, so that you too can see what rights you used to have as a free citizen in America. Rights, that as Senator Durbin pronounced, are not absolute, not guaranteed, and subject to elimination at the whim of those enemies of America who are currently embedded in Congress, and other positions of power in our government.
 The ingredients are quite simple, really. Just take one or two unrelated facts, add personal bias, and a bit of conjecture, mix well, and voila! A rumor is born. Of course the results are more often than not completely undesirable. Rumors can damage reputations not only for the subject of the rumor, but also for the person who starts the rumor and those who keep it going as well. Case in point is the latest DHS rumor that has been making its way across the width and breadth of the dextrosphere (the blogs, social media and websites frequented by conservatives and other right-wing individuals). In a nutshell, the rumor is that the Department of Homeland Security has purchased 2,500 light armored military vehicles possibly for use against innocent Americans in the United States.
These “light armored military vehicles” have also been referred to as “Military Fighting Vehicles,” “Light Tanks,” “Armored Tanks” (as opposed to “unarmored tanks”?), “Armored Personnel Carriers,” and “Mine Resistant Armor Protected” vehicles. In some cases, photos of these vehicles are provided with the reports, and in most of the photos, the DHS emblem is clearly visible. On the surface, it does sound plausible, however, the real question here is, is it true? The answer is – we simply do not know.
The vehicles in question are actually known as “Mine Resistant Ambush Protected” vehicles, also known as MRAP’s (manufactured by NaviStar), and the initial report of these DHS MRAP’s seems to have come from a survivalist blog which featured a YouTube video that showed one MRAP. Then with the addition of a less than a dozen other photos of similar MRAP’s taken around the country at law enforcement shows and during highway transport – along with a brief press release stating that Navistar would be refitting a number of their older MaxxPro MRAP’s with a new chassis.
Before long, the number of MRAP’s allegedly purchased by DHS grew to 2,500 and then later to 2,717, and then again later to “almost 3,000.” According to NaviStar, the company did take 2,717 of their older MRAP’s and refitted them with new chassis, and they did so in order to make them available to the United States military at a cost lower than the cost of a new MRAP. Judging from the photos that have been made available, it is clear that DHS did purchase some MRAP’s, but nowhere is there any evidence or documentation that indicates exactly how many they purchased or why they purchased them.
As a former law enforcement officer with almost 25 years experience in the field, I can tell you that cops love their toys (weapons, tactical gear, vehicles, etc.), and they can (and will) come up all kinds of justification for having them. The bottom line is, however, that regardless of how useful and beneficial these toys may be, they simply love their toys. They view them as important, they view them as status symbols (the more toys and the cooler they are, the more important and elite the officers using them), and they care for them as lovingly as a new mother with her baby. MRAP’s definitely fall into the category of useful toys. They are used to transport law enforcement officers into and out of dangerous areas in order to conduct raids, serve warrants, and make arrests. By dangerous areas I am referring to gang infested areas and safe houses, houses and buildings used by drug smugglers and drug manufacturers, areas and situations where officers and/or agents are likely to come under weapons fire or already have come under attack. It is important to remember that generally speaking, criminals (gang bangers, outlaw bikers, drug manufacturers, dealers and smugglers, and terrorists) are better armed than street cops, investigators and detectives. You can thank your local legislators for that. MRAP’s are also used in rescue operations such as during natural disasters. So, in cases where law enforcement must respond to a dangerous area or a rescue situation, MRAP’s are extremely beneficial for ensuring officer safety and the safety of disaster victims.
MRAP’s and other surplus military vehicles and gear have been used by law enforcement agencies throughout America for decades. The MRAP’s are simply the new “in thing” amongst law enforcement. And that includes DHS. As I am sure most of my readers are aware, DHS is actually an umbrella organization comprised of 22 different federal agencies – some of which are law enforcement agencies. Some of these agencies are the United States Customs Service, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Federal Protective Service, the TSA, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, the Office for Domestic Preparedness, FEMA, the Nuclear Incident Response Team, The U.S. Coast Guard and the Secret Service. DHS has over 10,000 employees (which includes 6,700 special agents). Among the various DHS law enforcement agencies are found “Special Response Units” (also known as “Special Response Teams” – SRT, “Special Weapons and Tactic Teams” – SWAT, etc.). These special response units/teams are usually responsible for responding to the more dangerous situations such as those mentioned above. They also conduct investigations. Like most law enforcement agencies/officers/units they consider themselves to paramilitary in nature – hence their uniforms, gear, rank structure and chain of command – and also the use of surplus military vehicles.
Examples of Tactical Vehicles Used by Law Enforcement
(Click any image to enlarge it)
Of course, all this does not completely explain why DHS purchased 2,500 MRAP’s (or 2,717 or almost 3,000). But did they? When I first started seeing these reports in various blogs and social media sites, I started researching in order to find what I could about the situation. In all of the (literally) dozens and dozens of websites and documents I visited and studied I found conclusive evidence of the existence of 10 MRAP’s used by DHS Immigration and Customs. In addition to the DHS / ICE and Special Response Team markings on these MRAP’s were designation markings such as SAC/DT, SAC/CH, SAC/EP and other similar designations. These markings refer to the DHS/ICE field office where the particular MRAP is assigned. DT stands for Detroit, CH = Chicago, EP = El Paso, PX = Phoenix, LA = Los Angeles, NY = New York, TA = Tampa, SD = San Diego, etc. One of the MRAP’s I found online was marked NFTTU/FB, which stands for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) National Firearms and Tactical Training Unit (NFTTU) in Fort Benning, Georgia. This particular MRAP is used for training purposes and as a support MRAP if needed. Each of the MRAP’s also have a number marked on them. The NFTTU MRAP is marked with the number 1, Phoenix is number 7, and on up to number 14 which is the El Paso MRAP. These numbers do not indicate how many MRAP’s each field office has assigned to it. DHS has 26 different field offices around the country (including one in Puerto Rico), so it is reasonable to assume that there are likely at least 26 DHS/ICE MRAP’s. It is possible there are more (such as for use along America’s borders), however, in spite of the numerous websites that claim DHS has purchased 2500 (or more) MRAP’s, I have found no evidence to support this. It is one thing to say they have, or even to make the standard claims such as “I heard that…”, or “my friend said…” or (one of my personal favorites) “I know a guy that is ex-CIA / Black Ops / FBI / Fill-in-the-blank…” But these are all third party hearsay and speculation. They are not irrefutable evidence. If there is no irrefutable evidence then one is left to postulate a theory based only on conjecture and speculation.
These are the only known DHS/ICE MRAP photos I have been able to find
(Click on any image to enlarge)
No1. NFTTU Ft. Benning
|
No1. NFTTU Ft. Benning
|
No4. SAC Tampa
|
No5. SAC New Orleans
|
No7. SAC Phoenix
|
No8. SAC San Diego
|
No9. SAC Los Angeles
|
No10. SAC Chicago
|
No10. SAC Chicago
|
No11. SAC Detroit
|
No14. SAC El Paso
|
SAC New York (ID Number Unknown)
| Now, at this point I will say that, yes, DHS has contracted to purchase over one billion rounds of ammunition. They have purchased some MRAP’s. The United States Army does have a field manual detailing the internment and resettlement of Americans on American soil, and DHS is mentioned in that field manual as having the ability to detain Americans in these “camps” (which according to the field manual are bordered with double fences topped with barbed wire and multiple guard towers), and all of these combined are very concerning indeed.
My point in writing this article, however, is not to support DHS, or in any way to imply that I support or condone DHS, but merely to caution everyone (including my prepper friends, my conspiracy theorist friends, and others) to not give in to unchecked paranoia. Do not give in to the temptation to speculate wildly on these things. Doing so only makes us all look like complete fools, and serves only to discredit us. We must understand that there is a certain portion of our society that we will never convince of the very real dangers of the current administration. There are, however, many who are still on the fence or leaning ever so slightly to the right or left of center. We should always be mindful of how we appear to these people. The socialist left does, and will continue to paint us all as unhinged, paranoid whack jobs, and they will do all they can to convince the as-yet-unconvinced that this is what we all are.
The socialist left would like very much to divide this country, and isolate those on the right as much as possible. Doing so makes it that much easier to accomplish their goals and promote their agendas. By not sticking to irrefutable facts, however, and giving into speculative rumors, we are only helping the socialist propaganda efforts against us. Think before you speak. Do your research. Check everything. Support the facts whether they agree with what you believe or not. This is the only effective way to know and spread the truth.
 As a Christian, and as an American, it seems almost surreal to even ask this question, but I think it does need to be asked, and seriously considered. Within the past week two Coptic Christians were murdered by a muslim. They were beheaded and had their hands cut off as well. As horrendous as this sounds, we have become somewhat desensitized to reports such as these coming out of Egypt and various muslim controlled areas of the Middle East. The problem, however, is that this report comes out New Jersey.
As might be expected, the dominant liberal media outlets have been conspicuously quiet about this crime, especially since the perpetrator is a practicing muslim and the victims were Christians. The last thing MSNBC, CNN, and the others want is to be perceived as “islamophobic.” And in all honesty, there has been nothing noted anywhere that these murders were religion motivated. Well, nothing other than the koran, which states, “[Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, ‘I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip.’” (koran 8:12).
So, I ask the question again, is America safe for Christians?
In spite of the continual debate between the left and the right, and Christians and atheists concerning the spiritual mindsets or tendencies of the founding fathers, there are certain facts that simply cannot be ignored. Such as:
- During the Revolutionary War, the supply of Bibles to the United States was cut off. As a result, on September 1, 1777, the Continental Congress ordered the Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 Bibles from “Scotland, Holland or Elsewhere.”
- On January 21, 1781, Robert Aitken, a printer, asked Congress to officially sanction a publication of the complete Bible. In response, Congress approved his request and noted that they “highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion … in this country, and … they [Congress] recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States.”
- On July 4, 1776, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were appointed by Congress to devise the official seal for the United States of America. Franklin proposed a seal based on Moses parting the Red Sea. Jefferson proposed a seal featuring the “Children of Israel in the wilderness, led by a cloud by day, and a pillar of fire by night.” Jefferson later rejected his own proposal and embraced Franklin’s idea of Moses parting the Red Sea. Although neither of these proposals were accepted, the simple fact that both Franklin and Jefferson proposed them shows that these two theological liberals still felt that Biblical imagery best represented America.
- During the War of Independence, Congress proclaimed May 17, 1776 (and annually) as a “Day of Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer,” while urging Americans throughout the colonies to “confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions, and by a sincere repentance and amendment of life, appease His [God's] righteous displeasure, and through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain his pardon and forgiveness.” Massachusetts took it one step further, and to the Congressional proclamation they added, “God Save This People.”
- Congressional proclamation set December 18, 1777, as a day of thanksgiving and encouraged the American people to “express the grateful feelings of their hearts and consecrate themselves to the service of their divine benefactor” and on which they might “join the penitent confession of their manifold sins . . . that it may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot them out of remembrance.” Congress also recommended that Americans petition God “to prosper the means of religion for the promotion and enlargement of that kingdom which consisteth in righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.”Similar Congressional proclamations were issued annually.
- Congress was also concerned about morality in the military, and ordered that Christian services be held each Sunday (and twice a day while on board ship), with stiff penalties for officers who did not attend, and even stiffer penalties for any who misbehaved or acted irreverently during those services.
Throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, the Federal Government, and indeed, even state governments not only supported Christianity, but on numerous occasions even endorsed Christianity, and did not publically malign Christianity at any time. As late as 1892, the Supreme Court of the United States pointedly declared, “This is a Christian nation.” Then came the 20th century.
The change was not immediate, although there were sporadic “outbreaks” of anti-Christian bias, most notably coming from groups and individuals rooted in fascism and socialism – especially during the 1920’s, 30’s and 40’s. By the 1950’s and 60’s, however, communism put forth a concerted effort to infiltrate and influence American society, and unfortunately they managed to gain a firm toehold. A toehold that has since become a death grip.
The result is that today, anti-Christian bias and bigotry is rampant in America, and is taught, supported, condoned and even encouraged by the state run schools, courts and governmental agencies across the nation, all in the name of diversity. It is a diversity, however, that is in reality, a one-way diversity. It has become more than apparent that the homosexual community, radical homosexual “activists” in particular, who have taken up the role of “shock troops” in this war against Christianity. For example:
- On Sunday Night September 19, 1993 a group of angry homosexuals stormed the Hamilton Square Baptist Church, of San Francisco, California. They were trying to stop the Sunday Night service because they disapproved of the speaker.
- In November 2008, a mob of homosexual “activists” stormed a Christian church in Lansing, Michigan and began shouting profanities, blasphemies, and anti-Christian hatred, while vandalizing the church and terrorizing the congregation.
- In October 2011 radical homosexual “activists” threw bricks through a church window in Arlington Heights, Illinois. They later released a statement to the press in which they not only admitted their violent actions, but promised to continue if the church did not bow to their demands.
- In April 2012, a homosexual “activist” organization calling itself “Angry Queers” claimed responsibility for throwing baseball-sized rocks through the windows of a Christian church in Portland, Oregon. The group released a statement that any terrorist would be proud of. In it the group said they hope their “small act of vengeance will strike fear into the hearts of” Christian leaders who teach traditional sexual morality. Their message was clear. Denounce Christ or the terror will continue.
Nor are these the only attacks against Christianity. The list goes on and on and on. In 2012 alone, Christian nativity scenes were vandalized across the nation. A very brief search of news reports on these attacks (all from the 2012 Christmas season) showed dozens of attacks on Nativity scenes in dozens of cities across America. Included in these attacks were physical attacks on Christians. One Christian pastor in California was busy decorating his church and was beaten so badly he was left in critical condition. In another attack, the baby Jesus was lynched.
Perhaps what is the most shocking development in all of these attacks, both on nativity scenes, and on Christian churches and their congregations is, that in not one single instance have I been able to find any indication that anyone was ever convicted, or even arrested. Nor have I been able to find any indication of law enforcement, or liberal dominant media outlet, or politician calling this attacks for what they are – hate crimes. Anti-Christian bigotry and hate.
I have been left pondering if the reason for this lack of recognition of anti-Christian bigotry and hate is because law enforcement, politicians, and the liberal dominant media simply do not recognize anti-Christian bigotry and hate. After all, if you do not accept that truth is absolute and believe it to subjective and relative to the individual, then it isn’t really bigotry or hate, it’s just a crime, and not all crimes are solved, and not all criminals are caught. Especially if it is a crime against a group of people who are held in low regard. Which, of course, begs the question, are Christians (and consequently, Christianity) held in low regard by the groups I mention? There is evidence that this is so.
- In April 2008, Crystal Dixon, a Christian, was fired by the University of Toledo in Ohio. Not because she violated any University rule or regulation, but because she wrote a letter to the editor of a local newspaper, disagreeing with an op-ed which put forth the premise that homosexuals have suffered the same way that Blacks have with regard to civil rights. Of course, nothing could be farther from the truth, and Miss Dixon stated this in her letter. She did so as a private citizen, and she did not utilize any university property, equipment or time. She simply expressed her “personal, Christian viewpoint on homosexuality” and she was fired for doing so. Miss Dixon took the university to court for wrongful termination. The court ruled that the school’s “diversity” outweighed Miss Dixon’s First Amendment rights. Although the case is currently in appeals, the governmental judicial system set a precedent by holding Christianity in low regard by stating that the “feelings” of those homosexuals at the university were more important than Miss Dixon’s constitutionally guaranteed rights of free speech, and the free exercise of her Christian beliefs.
- Dan Savage, the founder of the “It Get’s Better Project”, which is designed to prevent bullying of homosexuals, and help homosexuals who feel they are being bullied, is, in reality, a bully himself. Savage takes every opportunity to bully Christians because of their belief. Not only has he recently mocked and bashed the Pope, but Savage has been more than willing to turn his bullying on children, as he did at a high school in Southern California. I don’t know about you, but in my world when an adult bullies children, it is known as child abuse. However, considering that Savage has publically condoned incest and other deviant behaviors. When you get right down to it, based on Savage’s words and behaviors, he is really no different than Westboro Baptist Church (which is NOT a Christian church). But the world is full of sick and twisted people, you may ask, so why am I singling out Dan Savage? Because Dan Savage, the anti-Christian bigot and bully, is officially endorsed by no fewer than 13 United States Senators, AND President Barack Obama. In spite of Savage’s unabashed bigotry, our nation’s leaders continue to support and endorse him, and in doing so, they are officially supporting and endorsing his bigoted anti-Christian views, and officially holding Christianity in low regard.
- In October 2011, when Washington state residents signed a petition to repeal the states homosexual partnership law failed, homosexual “activists” demanded the names of all who signed the petition. A homosexual “activist” group from Massachusetts calling itself “Know Thy Neighbor” took up the cause (as they had in similar situations in Arkansas, Florida and Massachusetts) and publically stated they wanted to publish the names of those who signed the petition to repeal the homosexual partnership law in an online searchable database. The purpose for this was, they said, to provide those names to homosexuals so they could confront those who object to the homosexual agenda. U.S. District Judge Benjamin settle ruled that every name and address of every individual who signed the petition was to be published. It didn’t take long for the homosexuals to begin confronting those who signed the petition. One family who was victimized as a result of “Know Thy Neighbor’s” actions related that they received a phone call from a man who got their name and number from published list. The family was gathered in their dining room when the phone rang. The son answered, and an anonymous male caller announced, “I’m going to kill you and your whole family.” Again, because the judge cared not one whit for the safety of those who signed according to their Christian beliefs, he held their beliefs, their safety, their wellbeing, and Christianity as a whole in low regard.
- The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), an organization ostensibly formed to advocate for civil rights of minorities, openly engages in anti-Christian bigotry by grouping Christians and Christian organizations with Nazi’s, White Supremacists, and other openly virulent racist groups. The SPLC’s “Hate Map” and “Hate Group” list is used extensively by law enforcement and government agencies as the ultimate authority on hate groups and individuals. Since the SPLC holds Christianity in such low regard, they influence those who utilize their “hate database” to also hold Christianity in low regard.
- At a fundraiser held last October, President Barack Obama quoted one of the most famous statements in American history when he said, “What makes this place [America} special is not something physical. It has to do with this idea that was started by 13 colonies that decided to throw off the yoke of an empire, and said, ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that each of us are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’” Did President Obama purposely omit the reference to God that is contained in Declaration of Independence (from which the statement comes)? Apparently so, since he did the exact same thing in September 2010 when addressing the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute. The original sentence found in the Declaration of Independence reads “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” President Obama consistently removes the reference to God that was originally placed there by our Founding Fathers, and thus sets the tone for the country he was elected to lead by consistently holding Christianity in low regard.
(Curiously, when asked by reporters for an explanation for refusal to include God in his quote, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs explained it by saying, “I can assure you the president believes in the Declaration of Independence.” Nothing could be clearer, right?)
Clearly, President Obama holds Christianity in low regard, and perhaps this is the reason that the Democratic Party was so determined to remove references to God from their 2012 Party Platform. Another instance of America’s alleged leaders holding Christianity in low regard.
The most recent example of our government holding Christianity in low regard is perhaps the most blatant and most obvious example of anti-Christian bigotry and discrimination that I have seen from elected government officials. Just within the past week Colorado Democratic Senate Leader Pat Stedman, who is openly homosexual, pronounced the passage of Colorado’s homosexual partnership law through the state house. Not content with simply getting the law passed, Steadman insisted upon the removal of a provision that had been included in the law, which would have allowed Christian business owners to make faith-based decisions on how they would provide their own services.
Steadman expressed that he has absolutely no tolerance for Christians who subscribe to the Biblical view of marriage which has always been part of the Christian faith. In reference to any objections Christians may have toward the bill, Steadman said of them, “Get thee to a nunnery, and live there then. Go live a monastic life, away from modern society, away from people you can’t see as equals to yourself … Go some place and be as judgmental as you like, go inside your church, establish separate water fountains if you like. But don’t tell me that your free exercise of religion requires the state of Colorado to establish separate water fountains.”
Steadman’s equating of Christianity to the racism of the deep south of decades ago is not only insulting and offensive, but it is as intolerant an example of bigotry from an elected public official as I have ever heard. So vile and so virulent is Steadman’s unfettered hate that one would expect the rest of the Colorado State Legislature to offer at least a weak condemnation of his words, or at the very least a murmured excuse along the lines of “he was just misunderstood.” Shockingly, however, all of the Colorado Senate Democrats joined Steadman in condemning Christians, and have unanimously supported Steadman’s comments!
The message the State of Colorado has sent is loud and clear. Not only is Christianity officially held in low regard by the State of Colorado, but if Christian’s want to practice their faith, they had better do so behind closed doors as there is no place for them in society. Christians are not welcome in Colorado.
We have come a long way from the days when the Congress of the United States officially endorsed Christianity and the Supreme Court of the United States declared that “this is a Christian nation,” to Christians are not welcome.
So I ask again, is America safe for Christians? Clearly, in light of the evidence, the answer is no.
 I received the following in an email this morning, and found the content interesting enough to pass along here, in its entirety.
The Event Not Held.......
Yesterday, Reed Exhibitions announced it was "postponing" the Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show. Originally scheduled to begin on February 2 in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, the nine day show is the country's largest outdoor show, and regularly attracts as many as 200,000 outdoor enthusiasts. It also puts an estimated $44 million in direct revenues into the region's economy.
Some hoteliers and restaurants say this decision will "make for a very long winter" in their area. Many of the more than 1,000 exhibitors come from out of the region and provide a huge boost to a slow season during the nine-day event.
Reed kicked off a controversy when managers announced their decision not to allow any presence of the AR-rifle platform at the Eastern Show. That prohibition even extended to images of the rifle used to solicit raffle ticket sales. In other words, the AR (initially, they called it an "assault rifle") was a non-starter at what Reed considered a pure hunting and fishing show.
"Our original decision not to include certain products in the Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show this year was made in order to preserve the event's historical focus on the hunting and fishing traditions enjoyed by American families," said Chet Burchett, Reed Exhibitions President for the Americas. "In the current climate, we felt that the presence of MSRs would distract from the theme of hunting and fishing, disrupting the broader experience of our guests. This was intended simply as a product decision, of the type event organizers need to make every day. "
It was seen by the industry as anything but a product decision.
Major sponsor Cabela's was the first to announce a pullout. Others, including Smith & Wesson, Ruger, Trijicon, and Crimson Trace followed along with organizations including the National Wild Turkey Federation and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. Dozens of small exhibitors, many with products unrelated to the modern sporting rifle, pulled out in support of gun rights.
The small exhibitors' decisions not to attend were especially impactful. Many of them depend on sales at the Eastern Show's for a majority of their annual income. Recognizing their sacrifice, several in the industry reached out to these vendors with the support they needed by purchasing products from them.
At that point, observers realized this had the potential to become a watershed moment in the fight to preserve gun rights.
The tipping-point may have been the National Rifle Association's announcement that it, too, was pulling out. At that point, the matter moved from a widespread ad-hoc protest to a full-out Second Amendment fight.
Now every small exhibitor is faced with the same problem: finding a way to provide without the benefit of the Eastern Show. With Reed's announcing a postponement rather than a cancellation of the event, there are operational questions still unanswered. For example, does a postponement entitle exhibitors to refunds, or freeze money until a show IS held?
Not cancelling the show is probably the right call at this point. Historically, few shows ever cancelled return to their previous levels of attendance or participation.
Meanwhile, other shows across the country are working to get the word out they are not banning any type of firearms from their shows. The Portland Sportsman's Show, the second largest consumer sportsman's show in the country, contacted us with word that they have "no intention of outlawing any legal sporting product from their exhibit floor-and wants the entire industry to know that."
We've learned that at least one other exhibition company is attempting to acquire the Eastern Show from Reed Exhibitions.
And what of Reed's future in the outdoor industry? That's being discussed at the highest levels of the industry. Can a company that has taken (for whatever the reason) a stand against the most popular firearm in America continue to profit from that industry?
The NSSF's SHOT Show is the marquee event in the industry, and Reed is their longtime management partner.
The NSSF's statement on the Eastern Show made it very clear that their "intense, frank discussions" with Reed management in an attempt to change their minds were unsuccessful.
With their refusal to reconsider their policy, Reed essentially, rendered itself toxic in the outdoor industry. That's the reason the NSSF is "considering all options regarding the management of future SHOT events."
Ending the Reed relationship and finding a new SHOT Show management company, despite the difficulties that will cause, seems the only real option at this point.
This controversy has distracted many of the industry's leaders at a critical time in the battle to defeat Congressional efforts to institute restrictive new gun laws. With that legislation now formally having been introduced, the scene shifts from this skirmish in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania to a full-blown, set-piece political engagement in Washington, D.C.
Hopefully, many of the anti-gun legislators have taken note of the fact that the outdoor community- across the board- has made their position known when it comes to any restrictions on the modern sporting rifle.
As always, we'll keep you posted.
--Jim Shepherd
EDITOR'S NOTE: Our request for an interview with Mr. Burchett was declined. The company, we're told, will have "no further comment on the matter."
 Since the December 14th Sandy Hook Elementary School Massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, the dominant liberal media has been buzzing with commentators, activists, politicians, and celebrities calling for stringent gun control measures. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has introduced a revision of the 1994 gun ban, which now includes virtually all popular handguns (in defiance of the Supreme Courts previous rulings) as well as “grenade launchers” and “rocket launchers” (which are already illegal to own). Michael Moore, the liberal version of the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man, has thrown in his two cents worth by trying to make gun ownership a racial issue, and CNN talking head Piers Morgan had called for a revision of the Second Amendment (as well as other sections of the U.S. Constitution and the Bible). Others have also jumped on the anti-gun band wagon like so many publicity hungry celebs busy muscling each other aside in order to get their five minutes of fame in front of the media’s cameras.
Naturally, the NRA and others on the right are trying to do their best to champion the Second Amendment’s guarantee of private gun ownership. In light of all the pro-gun and anti-gun hoopla, maybe it is time to tone it down a bit (or a lot!) and have a reasoned discussion on just how effective gun control really is.
In today’s news reports I have just read that Chicago has reached a total of 500 murders thus far this year. Of these homicides, all but 75 involved firearms. This is almost double the number of this year’s U.S. Troop casualties in Afghanistan as of December 6th! Amazing, especially when one considers that Afghanistan is a war zone and Chicago isn’t (or is it?). In addition to this horrendous number of homicides, Chicago has also experienced 2,640 non-fatal shootings as of December 19, 2012; and a total of 27, 982 violent crimes (including gun related crimes) thus far this year. The Chicago police department has stated that as of December 27, 2012 homicides were up 17 percent and shootings were up 11 percent over last year. By the way, in case you are now of the opinion that Chicago is a deadly city to live in, you should know that it did not make the FBI’s list of the 25 most dangerous cities of 2012. Yes, there are cities in America that are even more dangerous than Chicago!
In light of these shocking statistics from Chicago, one might come to the conclusion that Chicago must have some very lenient gun control laws. If so, however, one would be wrong. The fact is, Chicago has some very strict gun control laws. For example:
1. All residents of Chicago who wish to own a firearm are required to possess a “Firearm Owner’s Identification Card” or FOID (which is issued by the Illinois State Police) prior to owning a firearm in Chicago. Once the FOID application is submitted, the applicant must undergo an extensive background check which includes fingerprinting. If the FOID applicant has been convicted of a felony or an act of domestic violence, or is the subject of a protection order, or has been convicted of assault or battery, or has been a patient in a mental institution anytime during the five years preceding the application submission, or has been adjudicated as a mental defective, or is an illegal immigrant – the application is automatically denied and the applicant is prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm in the city of Chicago.
2. Once the applicant passes the process and receives an FOID, the applicant will be required to have a Chicago Firearm Permit, before being allowed to possess a firearm in the city of Chicago. These permits cost $100 and must be renewed every three years. Before being issued the permit, the applicant must successfully complete a training course that includes at least four hours of classroom training and one hour of range time.
3. Once the FOID and the Chicago Firearm Permit are issued, the applicant must register each and every firearm with the Chicago Police Department, at a one-time cost of $15 per gun (plus an additional $15 for the registration of a handgun), and an annual registration report must be filed each year with the Chicago Police Department. Concealed Carry Licenses are not issued in the state of Illinois, and Illinois does not recognize any CCL issued by any other state. Open carry is also illegal in Chicago (and in Illinois, unless actively hunting or in a fixed place of business and with the owners permission). Gun possession is permitted only inside a dwelling. Not in a garage or outbuilding, nor on the outside grounds of the property; and only one gun at a time may be kept in a usable state. All others must be locked and or disabled and stored in the dwelling. When a firearm is being transported, it must be unloaded and enclosed in a case.
4. Possession and or ownership of the following firearms are strictly prohibited in the city of Chicago: Any fully automatic weapon; any assault weapon whether fully automatic or semi-automatic; any magazine that can hold more than 12 rounds (10 rounds in Cook County outside of Chicago city limits); short barreled rifles and short barreled shotguns (historically accurate shirt barreled rifles are allowed if possessed for the purpose of historical reenactment by bona-fide members of a nationally recognized military reenactment organization). Chicago also prohibits the sale of firearms within the city limits.
And yet, in spite of these fairly stringent gun control laws, Chicago continues to experience thousands of gun related crimes each year. Clearly, Chicago’s gun control laws are not in the least bit effective.
Lest one may jump to the conclusion that Chicago’s horrendous crime rate involving firearms in spite of it strict gun control laws is nothing more than an anomaly, one need only take a look at the states of California, Alaska, Arizona, and Utah. According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, California has the strictest gun control laws in the nation. Conversely, Alaska, Arizona and Utah have the most lenient gun control laws in the nation. Lenient almost to the extent of being non-existent.
According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports for 2011, California experienced 459,940 firearm related murders, 16,211 robberies in which a firearm was used by the criminals, and 16,965 assaults with firearms. These add up to a grand total of 493, 116 firearms related crimes in the state with the strictest gun control laws in the country. On the other side of the coin, the three states with the most lenient gun control laws (Alaska, Arizona and Utah) experienced a COMBINED total of 23,585 gun related crimes in 2011. According to these stats from the FBI, in the states where a large percentage of the population are armed, there are less gun related crimes than in the state with the strictest gun control laws.
Clearly, gun control laws are simply ineffective at reducing gun related crimes. At best, they do nothing more than keep honest people honest as the saying goes. So what is the problem, the real problem I mean. It obviously isn’t the guns themselves, and banning them or restricting them (or bullets) has never worked in any country, state or city that this has been tried. Every time gun control laws are enacted, the only people affected are those who are law abiding, and who would not use their guns to break the law. The only people who use firearms in the commission of a crime, are criminals, and that is who gun control laws should be targeting. This is a multi-faceted issue, however, and any solution offered must be multi-faceted as well.
The first issue that should be addressed is the number of firearms in the United States. No, I do not mean the legally registered firearms, nor even the total number of firearms owned by law abiding citizens. That number, or at least an approximation, is readily available. These guns, however, are not part of the problem. The number I am referring to here is the number of illegal firearms in the United States, and that number is unknown. Regardless of what anyone tells you, regardless of how “informed” they claim to be, no one really knows just how many illegal firearms are in the United States.
These illegal firearms are in the hands of criminals. They are in the hands of sociopathic and psychopathic individuals. Individuals who do not register their guns, who do not abide by any gun control laws, and who never will. These are the guns and “gun owners” who should be targeted by gun control laws, and not law abiding citizens.
Thousands of firearms are reported stolen each year. These firearms end up in the hands of criminals who either sell them on the black market, or use them to commit crimes, or both. Thousands of legitimate gun owners die each year. Their guns are likely to be given away, sold, destroyed, or turned in to local law enforcement. There is no way to accurately know just how many guns this entails, and some of those guns will likely end up in the hands of criminals.
At this point, many liberal gun control advocates will posit that if all guns were removed from the law abiding citizenry, then their guns will not end up in the hands of criminals. While is true to some extent, what they do not take into account is the comparative number of guns that criminals illegally acquire from legitimate gun owners.
In a study done involving criminals who used a firearm in the commission of a crime, 37 percent stated that they could illegally obtain a gun in less than a week. Another 20 percent stated it would take only a day or less to obtain an illegal firearm on the black market. A 1997 survey of incarcerated felons who had committed a crime while using a firearm showed that fewer than 2 percent obtained their gun from a flea market or gun show. Clearly, regulating these venues would be pointless. Another 12 percent stated that they obtained their gun from either a retail outlet or a pawn shop. Again, the current regulations for these venues seems sufficient. A whopping 80 percent, however, stated they obtained the guns they used to commit crimes from illegal street sources. The black market. 80 PERCENT! And there is absolutely no possible way to regulate illegal street sales of firearms. There is no waiting period, no background check, and all you need to purchase a black market gun is money or some other valuable item with which to barter. And according to estimates the illegal gun market has quite a selection with an estimated three to four times as many unregistered guns in the United States as there are registered guns. In New York City alone, there are an estimated three million unregistered firearms (what say you to that Mayor Bloomberg?)
Is gun control needed? Absolutely, but there needs to be a common sense approach to gun control legislation, and not the knee jerk reactionary legislation that seems to follow tragedies such as Sandy Hook. I would offer the following as possible solutions to the gun control issue:
1. Secure the borders. With the immense amount of human smuggling and drug smuggling and terrorist smuggling occurring, it naturally follows that firearms are involved. Drug cartels have already entered the United States via our porous southern border and they have committed several crimes involving firearms in the United States. It is a safe bet to say that they did not head to the closest Walmart to purchase their guns. No, they brought them with them. This includes guns sold to the cartels through the ATF’s “Fast and Furious” program. These guns have been found at crime scenes on both sides of the border. Effectively securing our borders and ports could substantially limit the number of firearms imported illegally into America.
2. Strengthen current sentencing laws. Homicides are not the only violent gun related crimes committed in America. Assault, rape, robbery, hijacking, home invasions, and kidnapping all often involve the use of at least one firearm. In fact, these other crimes combined account for more firearm related crimes than do homicides. In spite of this, often times the criminals who commit these crimes are allowed to plea bargain to a lesser charge, sometimes omitting weapons charges completely. This must change. If a firearm is used in the commission of any crime, the law should automatically prohibit any plea bargaining. If a firearm is used in the commission of any crime, the law should provide for a mandatory 20 year minimum sentence upon conviction and served consecutively – not concurrently – with any sentence arising from other charges related to the same crime, and without the possibility of parole. If the victim or victims of that crime are injured in any way through the use of that firearm, the mandatory minimum sentence should be doubled to 40 years without the possibility of parole. If the victim or victims die from the use of a firearm used in the commission of a crime, the minimum mandatory sentence should be life without the possibility of parole. All appeals for these convictions should be limited to three in a three year period following the initial conviction. After the three appeals in a three year period, all appeals are then exhausted unless undeniable and incontrovertible evidence as to the innocence of the person convicted can be submitted to the supreme court of the state within which the initial conviction occurred, at which point the supreme court of that state will make a final and unappealable decision regarding the initial firearm conviction.
3. Prison should be a deterrent. Which, of course, it currently is not. With television (sometimes big screen televisions), radio, computers, hobby shops, video games, carpeting, vending machines dispensing soda and snacks, specialty canteen items, and recreational opportunities that are better than many schools, health clubs and resorts; prison is nothing more than a vacation from life on the streets. In addition, prison is to the younger and more inexperienced inmate, a “crime college” where the younger inmate is schooled by the more experienced inmates in the finer points of criminal activity. How to make, market and distribute methamphetamine. How to avoid detection by home owners and law enforcement. How to elude and escape law enforcement. How to refine home invasion, robbery, theft, rape, murder and other criminal activities for the maximum benefit and minimum danger for the criminal. There should be no luxuries in prison. None. Prison is a warehouse for criminals to keep them off the streets and away from law abiding citizens. Nothing more. Rehabilitation only works if the inmate has a desire to be rehabilitated, and those programs should be available, but on a limited basis, and only for lower security inmates. By the way, I make these suggestions with almost 25 years experience working in level 3, 4, and 5 correctional facilities.
4. If an accidental injury occurs due to the improper handling, storage or transportation of a firearm, then the owner of that firearm is clearly too stupid to own a firearm, and their firearms should be immediately confiscated by law enforcement. The owner should then be banned from owning a firearm of any kind for a period of five years, and a 40 hour minimum firearms training course which includes all aspects firearm safety, must be successfully completed during each year of the owners firearms ban. This training course should be at the owner’s expense. This ban is a one time ban. If the owner has a second accidental injury after having his or her firearms returned, the ban then becomes a lifetime ban. If the owner cannot or will not successfully complete the above mentioned firearm training each year during the five year ban, the ban then becomes a lifetime ban.
5. Anyone convicted of a felony cannot own or possess a firearm of any kind. Ever. Anyone convicted of a violent misdemeanor cannot own or possess a firearm of any kind. Ever. Anyone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective cannot own or possess a firearm of any kind. Ever. All illegal immigrants are prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm of any kind. Anyone who has been a patient in a mental institution for more than thirty days, or has been a patient in a mental institution due to a violent act, cannot own or possess any kind of firearm for a minimum of five years following their release from that mental institution.
6. Anyone who owns or possess a firearm of any kind, and who also has living in their home a person who has been adjudicated or diagnosed as a mental defective or as having a mental illness of any kind, must be required to store said firearms in a locked metal storage container, with all ammunition stored in a separate locked metal storage container. These containers must be kept locked at all times unless the firearm is in the process of being transported to another location, or if the firearm is needed for self defense and/or protection. One firearm may be kept loaded for the purpose of self defense and/or protection, but must be kept in a locked metal container separate from all other locked metal firearm / ammunition containers, until ready to use.
7. A national database should be maintained within every state, and open to all law enforcement agencies nationwide (including mobile law enforcement units), which contains the name, address and other identifying information of any and all individuals who are banned from owning or possessing any firearm of any kind. Medical and psychiatric professionals must be required to submit to their local law enforcement agency the name, address and other identifying information – including diagnosis, of any patient they have diagnosed as unfit or unable to own or possess any firearm of any kind, for the purpose of including that patient in the national database of individuals banned from owning or possessing any firearm of any kid. In other words, registering firearms will not keep anyone safe. Registering those who are banned from owning or possessing firearms may save many lives.
These are only suggestions, but suggestions I think are more common sense than the knee jerk, emotional reactionary gun control laws that are being suggested by the liberal left. Make no mistake, they will pass some form of gun control, and I am sure that it will be one more step toward a total gun ban for all law abiding citizens for I believe this is what they ultimately want. Common sense alone tells us this.
-------------
Sources:
Alaska: 112 total firearm murders; 126 total firearm robberies; 560 total firearm assaults.
Total Firearm Related Crimes = 798
Arizona: 14,208 total firearm murders; 3,250 total firearm robberies; 3,705 total firearm assaults.
Total Firearm Related Crimes = 21,163
Utah: 728 total firearm murders; 308 total firearm robberies; 588 total firearm assaults.
Total Firearm Related Crimes = 1,624
California: 459,940 total firearm murders; 16,211 total firearm robberies; 16,965 total firearm assaults.
Total Firearm Related Crimes = 493,116
23,585 total gun related crimes in 2011 in Alaska, Arizona, and Utah COMBINED as compared to 493,116 total gun related crimes in California in 2011. The three states with the most lenient gun control laws as compared to the state with the strictest gun control laws.
(figures taken from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports for 2011)
http://www.examiner.com/article/gun-control-unregistered-firearms-and-the-black-market
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=205421
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/archive/index.php/t-453977.html
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/NON+COMPLIANCE+WHY+HAVEN%27T+CALIFORNIANS+REGISTER%20ED+ALL+THEIR+ASSAULT...-a083498405
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1952
http://tuccille.com/disloyal/2010/07/15/court-decision-aside-scofflaws-have-long-made-gun-control-unenforceable/
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/12/24/us/california-gun-control-law-runs-into-rebellion.html
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/archive/index.php/t-453977.html
www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/.../Commerce_in_Firearms_2000.pdf
http://www.atf.gov/statistics/afmer/
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/droschart2010.pdf
http://www.atf.gov/statistics/download/afmer/2000-firearms-manufacturers-export-report.pdf
http://www.datamasher.org/mash-ups/firearm-deaths-vs-vehicle-deaths#table-tab
http://www.datamasher.org/mash-ups/deaths-due-motor-vehicle-accidents-100k-minus-deaths-due-injury-firearms-100k#table-tab
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year
http://www.car-accidents.com/teen-car-accidents.html
http://www.sfgate.com/news/world/article/Chinese-man-drives-car-into-students-injuring-13-4144574.php
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/latestnews/Man-stabs-22-children-in-China
http://m.digitaljournal.com/article/281854?doredir=0&noredir=1#ixzz2G6U7IkMt
http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/guns-safer.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list
http://www.wvdhhr.org/bph/oehp/obesity/mortality.htm
http://www.drug-rehabs.org/articles/471/United_States_Annual_Causes_of_Deaths
http://www.csdp.org/publicservice/causes.htm
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1604771
http://www.electricemperor.com/enter/how.html
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Causes_of_Death
http://www.mdjunction.com/forums/bullying-discussions/general-support/2625526-is-bullying-illegal
http://www.bullyingstatistics.org/content/bullying-and-suicide.html
http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=By_Illness&Template=/TaggedPage/TaggedPageDisplay.cfm&TPLID=54&ContentID=23041
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5635a2.htm
http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/gun-crime
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/28/chicago-crime-statistics-new-york
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/16/chicago-homicide-rate-wor_n_1602692.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Illinois
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-chicago-2012-homicide-toll-20121228,0,5456581.story
http://www.examiner.com/article/fbi-releases-top-25-most-dangerous-cities-america-list-for-2012
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state
http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/scorecard/WY/
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R41084.pdf
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-08-27/news/ct-met-shooting-no-cooperation-20120827_1_shootings-chicago-police-homicides-and-other-cases
http://gis.chicagopolice.org/website/clearMap_crime_sums/viewer.htm?SUM&SUMCATA=VIOL&SUMTIME=365
 From Newsbusters: School Removes God From First-Grader's Poem By Noel Sheppard When the word "God" becomes inappropriate in public schools, America really has ceased to exist. Consider the story of a first-grade girl in West Marion, North Carolina, who had the word "God" stripped from a poem she wrote and was going to read at her school's Veterans Day assembly earlier this month. The poem honored her two grandfathers who served during the Vietnam War. “He prayed to God for peace," she wrote of one of them. "He prayed to God for strength.” Unfortunately, a parent found out about this, and complained to the school district. At a McDowell County Board of Education meeting last week, employee Chris Greene said, "We had one parent concerned with the use of the word God in this program. This parent did not want the word God mentioned anywhere in the program. When the demand from this person was heard, the rights of another stopped. It did so by hushing the voice of a six-year-old girl.” "I believe that this little girl’s rights were violated," Greene continued, "and that those who worked so hard to prepare this program should receive an apology.” “We need to keep in mind what was our country founded on,” said McDowell County resident Esther Dollarhyde. “It was founded on God and Jesus Christ, and our veterans went out and fought for us so we would have a free country, but if we aren’t allowed to honor them the way that the children want to then America is getting lost.” School Board member Lynn Greene told McDowell News, "My understanding on the law is a teacher cannot promote any certain religion, but when it comes to students voicing their opinion or expressing themselves in a poem we pretty much have to give some leeway. To me this whole thing is a violation of that child’s rights. Nobody forced her to write the poem, that was her part of the program. She was asked to write a poem about veterans and she did. My personal opinion is that her rights were violated.” After fully examining the issue during the BOE meeting, President and Chief Executive Officer Ken Paulson stated the school did in fact have the right to remove the word "God" from the child’s poem. Continue Reading Here
 What has happened to common sense?
You know America has been turned upside-down when...
A Muslim officer crying "Allah Akbar" while shooting up an army base is considered to have committed "Workplace Violence" - while an American citizen boasting a Tea Party bumper sticker is classified by the Secretary of Homeland Security as a "Domestic Terrorist." (Source) (Source)
You know America has been turned upside-down when...
You can get arrested for expired tags on your car, but not for being in the country illegally. (Source) (Source)
You know America has been turned upside-down when...
Your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more of our money. (Source) (Source)
You know America has been turned upside-down when...
A nine year-old boy can be thrown out of school for calling his teacher "cute" but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable. (Source) (Source) (Source)
You know America has been turned upside-down when...
The Supreme Court of the United States can rule that lower courts cannot display the 10 Commandments in their courtroom, while sitting in front of a display of the 10 Commandments. (Source) (Source)
You know America has been turned upside-down when...
Children are forcibly removed from parents who appropriately discipline them while children of "underprivileged" drug addicts are left to rot in filth-infested cesspools. (Source)
You know America has been turned upside-down when...
Working class Americans pay for their own health care (and the health care of everyone else) while unmarried women are free to have child after child on the "State's" dime while never being held responsible for their own choices. (Source)
You know America has been turned upside-down when...
Hard work and success are rewarded with higher taxes and government intrusion, while slothful, lazy behavior is rewarded with cell phones, EBT cards, WIC checks, Medicaid and subsidized housing. (Source) (Source)
You know America has been turned upside-down when...
Being self-sufficient is considered a threat to the government. (Source)
You know America has been turned upside-down when...
A 79-year old Korean War veteran can be arrested because he has in his yard the junk he sells to buy medications for his wife, while at the same time known terrorist groups are free to have training camps inside the United States. (By the way, both in York County, South Carolina). (Source) (Source)
You know America has been turned upside-down when...
Politicians think that stripping away the amendments to the U.S. Constitution is really protecting the rights of the people. (Source) (Source)
You know America has been turned upside-down when...
The rights of the Government come before the rights of the individual. (Source)
You know America has been turned upside-down when...
You pay your mortgage faithfully, while your neighbor defaults on his mortgage, buys iPhone, big screen TVs and new cars, and the government forgives his debt and reduces his mortgage with your tax dollars. (Source)
You know America has been turned upside-down when...
Your government can add anything it wants to your kid's water (fluoride, chlorine, etc.), but you are not supposed to give them whole milk. (Source) (Source) (Source) (Source)
You know America has been turned upside-down when...
Being stripped of the ability to defend yourself makes you "safe." (Source) (Source)
You know America has been turned upside-down when...
You have to have your parents signature to go on a school field trip, but not to get an abortion. (Source)
You know America has been turned upside-down when...
An 84 year old woman can be stripped searched by the TSA, but a Muslim woman in a burqua is only subject to having her neck and head searched. (Source) (Source)
You know America has been turned upside-down when...
You can write something like this just by reading the news headlines in the media. Unfortunately, this list could go on and on. Thanks to political correctness and other liberal false teachings, America has indeed been turned upside-down.
As most folks have already heard, Dan Cathy, president of Chick-Fil-A restaurant, made statements that suggested they were supportive of Biblically defined marriage, and not supportive of same sex marriage. The result has been a firestorm of anti-Christian rhetoric. Chicago Mayor Rahm “never let a good crisis go to waste” Emanuel has suggested that he will block any attempts by Chick-Fil-A to open a new restaurant in Chicago. Emanuel said, “Chick-Fil-A’s values are not Chicago values. They’re not respectful of our residents, our neighbors and our family members. And if you’re gonna be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values … What the CEO has said as it relates to gay marriage and gay couples is not what I believe, but more importantly, it’s not what the people of Chicago believe. We just passed legislation as it relates to civil union and my goal and my hope … is that we now move on recognizing gay marriage. I do not believe that the CEO’s comments … reflects who we are as a city.” (Source) Focus on that line “if you’re gonna be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values.” In the context of Emanuel’s statement this means accept gay marriage regardless of your beliefs or stay out of Chicago.
Emanuel’s anti-Christian attack is supported by Chicago Alderman Proco Moreno said, “There are consequences for one’s actions, statements and beliefs. Because of this man’s ignorance, I will deny Chick-Fil-A a permit to open a restaurant in my ward.” (Source) (Excuse me? Consequences for one’s beliefs?)
Boston Mayor Tom Menino is also in support of banning Chick-fil-A based on Cathy’s religious beliefs, saying, “Chick-Fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston. You can’t have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population. We’re an open city, we’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion … That’s the Freedom Trail. That’s where it all started right here. And we’re not going to have a company, Chick-Fil-A or whatever the hell the name is, on our Freedom Trail.” (Source) Menino later said “I can’t do that. That would be interference to his rights to go there.” However, in light of his promise that the acquisition of permits for restaurant construction “will be very difficult … unless they open up their policies” seems to indicate that Menino is simply trying to protect his rear from any future lawsuits that may stem from any difficulty Chick-Fil-A may experience when they apply for those permits.
San Francisco Mayor Edwin Lee has also jumped on the anti-Christian bandwagon, tweeting, “Very disappointed #ChickFilA doesn't share San Francisco's values & strong commitment to equality for everyone.” And, “Closest #chickFilA to San Francisco is 40 miles away & I strongly recommend that they not try to come any closer.” (Source)
As the brouhaha continues, and voices from both sides of the debate continue unabated, there are a few points that I would like to make. To begin with, the pro-gay community is openly accusing Chick-Fil-A of hate, simply because it’s president is opposed to same-sex marriage. But isn’t denying Chick-Fil-A a business license based solely on the religious belief of its president a form of hate, and a form of discrimination based on hate? Yes, it is. The bigotry expressed by the above mayors and Alderman Moreno is reprehensible and is an open display of intolerance and hate. If they, and others in the pro-gay community wish to harbor hate, bigotry and discrimination against Christians and Christian belief, then that is their right. And if they want to protest against Chick-Fil-A, then that is their right as well. But they do not have the right to make threats against Chick-Fil-A or anyone because of their religious beliefs.
The 1964 Federal Civil Rights Law, 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(2), permits federal prosecution of anyone who "willingly injures, intimidates or interferes with another person, or attempts to do so, by force because of the other person's race, color, religion or national origin" because of the victim's attempt to engage in one of six types of federally protected activities, such as attending school, patronizing a public place/facility, applying for employment, acting as a juror in a state court or voting. (emphasis mine). Public Law #103-322A, a 1994 federal law, defines a hate crime as “a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person.” (again, emphasis mine).
By definition, because all three mayors and the alderman are singling out Dan Cathy and Chick-Fil-A for punishment simply because of Cathy’s religious beliefs, they are guilty of a hate crime, and they should be prosecuted for it.
I would also like to point out that contrary to the prevailing opinion of the pro-gay community, they do not have a right to marriage. In fact, no one, straight or gay, has a “right” to be married. They may choose to be married, but there is no Constitutionally protected right to marriage. I do understand their (the homosexual community) desire to have the same benefits as straight married couples, i.e. insurance, survivorship, medical benefits, etc.; but again, there is no right to these benefits. Insurance companies and employers make that decision, and they are free to deny these benefits for any straight couple that may apply for them. Again, there is no Constitutionally guaranteed right to any of these benefits.
The reality is that homosexuals want special rights. Rights that are guaranteed only for them and for no one else. And that is just plain wrong. Simply because they have made the conscious decision to be homosexuals does not mean that they should be granted federally protected rights. And don’t go down the “homosexuality is genetic” road. It is not genetic, it is a choice. (Source). For those of you who disagree with me, and I am sure there are many, before you begin to rail against my religious beliefs as so many are doing against Dan Cathy, my answer to you all is: “I am not ‘anti-gay’, I am anti-homosexuality. There is a difference. Your tolerance for intolerance is a definite indicator of your hate and bigotry against any and all who disagree with you.” There’s your answer, now spare me your bigoted ramblings.
But the crux of this matter, what we should all be focusing on, is that the attacks against Chick-Fil-A are government led. They are an attempt at government regulated religion. The First Amendment specifically states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…” And for a duly elected government official, acting in his or her official capacity to attempt to regulate religious beliefs (“if you’re gonna be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values.” – Mayor Rahm Emanuel; “There are consequences for one’s actions, statements and beliefs. Because of this man’s ignorance, I will deny Chick-fil-A a permit to open a restaurant in my ward.” – Alderman Proco Moreno; [Construction permits] “will be very difficult … unless they open up their policies” – Mayor Tom Menino; “Closest #chickFilA to San Francisco is 40 miles away & I strongly recommend that they not try to come any closer.” – Mayor Edwin Lee), is a very dangerous, very slippery slope that can, and will lead to a further erosion of our freedom.
When I read what these government officials have said while acting in their official capacity, I am reminded of the words of two of communism’s favorite sons, Vladimir Lenin and Karl Marx. Lenin said “A Marxist must be a materialist, i.e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i.e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could”(from his book, Private Property and Communism). And Marx said “Communism begins from the outset with atheism.” (Introduction to a Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right).
The Founding Fathers wanted the people of the United States to be free, and to remain free. Communists, and from the looks of things certain duly elected public officials, want the exact opposite. There was no place in Lenin’s regime for the church, and the church is facing similar persecution in the United States today.
Government regulated religious beliefs are a very dangerous thing. For government, or anyone for that matter, to openly or otherwise take any steps to ban Christian beliefs or even Christian speech, is a violation of the First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion. If the Constitution is to stand, then these rights, and all other Constitutionally protected rights must be protected at any and all cost.
 Brett Kimberlin, the Speedway Bomber If you have been following the story about Brett Kimberlin which have been popping up all over the dextrosphere, then you know not only who he is (the Speedway, Indiana Bomber), but also what he and his minions have been up to. Or at least what they have been allegedly up to.
Since the Kimberlin story broke, and people became aware that the former terrorist of Speedway, Indiana (is there such a thing as a former terrorist?) was involved with the Democratic Party and had ties to the White House, conservative bloggers, including myself, have been hard at it getting the news out about this individuals nefarious past and what he is currently up to. As a result, several bloggers have found themselves the target of a campaign of harassment. Some have been SWATted (where the perpetrator - presumably Kimberlin or one of his associates - calls the police and claims to be the blogger, and states that they have shot someone in their home. The police arrive, and you can imagine the rest). At least one has had to take his family and go into hiding in order to protect them. Lawsuits, harassment and threats have become the preferred method employed (or allegedly employed) by Kimberlin and his minions. And now it may be happening to yet another blogger, Paul Lemmen, who blogs at An Ex-Con's View. Paul has blogged about his experience, and his response to the harassment that he and his disabled wife have experienced. I would encourage everyone to visit Paul's blog and see for yourself what is happening, and if you are a blogger as well, then I also encourage you to write about this episode as well as the other forms of harassment that have been happening to so many, simply because they refuse to relinquish their First Amendment rights.
Read Paul's account by clicking on the link here -> http://anexconsview.wordpress.com/2012/06/05/to-the-idiots-photographing-my-home-today/
|
RSS Feed
