There Are No ‘Absolute’ Rights

by Michael Tomasky May 5, 2013 4:45 AM EDT

Nearly every idea in the Bill of Rights comes with restrictions and limitations. To think that the Second Amendment should be any different is absurd, writes Michael Tomasky.Every time I write a column on guns, the howl arises that I am talking about a right that is enshrined in the Constitution, buddy, and I better watch myself. The howl then transmutes into an extended harangue that this right is absolute, and no libtard fascist, whether me or the Satanesque Dianne Feinstein, is going to limit the right in any way. The first soldier to charge across this rhetorical veld is followed by hundreds harrumphing their assent. The only problem is that it’s an ahistorical, afactual, and barbaric argument. No right is absolute. In fact, the Second Amendment arguably has fewer restrictions on it these days than many of the other first ten, and there is and should be no guarantee that things are going to stay that way. In fact, if we’re ever going to be serious about trying to stop this mass butchery that we endure every few months, they cannot.

Let’s begin by going down the list and reviewing various limits placed on nearly all the amendments of the Bill of Rights (I thank Doug Kendall of the Constitutional Accountability Center for helping me out here). The First Amendment, of course, guarantees the right to free speech and assembly, and to worship as one pleases. There haven’t been that many restrictions placed on the freedom to worship in the United States, although there is a steady stream of cases involving some local government or school board preventing someone from wearing religious clothing or facial hair or what have you. Sometimes a Christian school or church is denied a zoning permit; but more often it’s the freedom to worship of a minority (Muslim, Sikh, etc) that is threatened.

As for free speech, of course it is restricted. Over the past 50 or so years in a series of cases, courts have placed a number of “time, place, and manner” restrictions on free speech. To restrict speech in general, the government must meet four tests. But this is always being revised and negotiated. Here’s one restriction on the Bill of Rights that I’d wager most conservatives would happily approve of. In 1988, the HHS under Reagan promulgated rules prohibiting a family-planning professional at a clinic that received federal dollars from “promoting” (i.e. telling a woman about) abortion. This was challenged partially on free-speech grounds. In Rust v. Sullivan(1991), the Supreme Court held that these rules did not violate the clinicians’ free-speech rights. So far as I can see, this is still law. It’s just one example from many free-speech restrictions that have been imposed over the years, as you can seehere.

Let’s skip the Second Amendment for now. The Third Amendment—my personal favorite—proscribes the private quartering of troops. Not so relevant to life today—in fact, the Supreme Court has apparently never considered a Third Amendment challenge. Onward.The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure, and of course there are loads of exceptions to this right, the most notable being that whenever an officer of the law has reason to think an imminently dangerous situation exists, s/he may invade a citizen’s privacy. Then there’s the question of the “exclusionary rule,” by which evidence deemed to have been improperly obtained can be excluded as evidence. Jurisprudence on this question goes back a hundred years, and this very interesting paper notes that it has been two decades since the Court upheld the application of the exclusionary rule in a search-and-seizure case. Since then, the Rehnquist and Roberts courts have ruled six times—every time for the government, i.e., limiting the constitutional protection. (Funny, isn’t it, how many of these other, non-gun limitations on the Bill of Rights are championed by conservatives?)

The Fifth Amendment most famously protects against self-incrimination. Kendall notes that there have indeed been almost no restrictions placed on this right—inside the trial courtroom. Outside the courtroom, however, limitations are rife, having to do mostly with circumstances of interrogations and confessions made within them. This amendment also provides for due process, and that means Miranda rights, and again here, we know from recent news stories that not everyone is immediately read them, and we also know that it’s conservatives who have always despised Mirandain the first place and seek to limit or overturn it today.

The Sixth Amendment provides the right to counsel and a speedy trial, and here again, our time is witness to a slow watering down of these rights by the Court’s conservative majority, as in 2009’s Montejo v. Louisiana. The Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a trial by jury in civil cases, and this contains a blatant restriction: the Court has never “incorporated” this right to apply to states, where the majority of civil cases are tried, so most civil cases don’t include this right. And the Eighth Amendment, against cruel and unusual punishment, has been much contested with respect to issues like juvenile crime. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments don’t enumerate specific rights as such and so aren’t relevant.

The idea that any right is unrestricted is totally at odds with history, the law, and reality.

Now, back to the Second Amendment. I’m sure that pro-gun extremists know very well about Scalia’s famous opinion in Heller (2008), which dramatically expanded gun rights. But even in that decision, Scalia himself said that Second Amendment protections could apply only to weapons “in common use at the time.” Chris Wallace asked Scalia in 2012 about semiautomatic weapons and extended magazines, and he said: “What the opinion Heller said is that it will have to be decided in future cases. What limitations upon the right to bear arms are permissible. Some undoubtedly are, because there were some that were acknowledged at the time. For example, there was a tort called affrighting, which if you carried around a really horrible weapon just to scare people, like a head ax or something, that was I believe a misdemeanor. So yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed.”

Now I don’t trust him to rule that way as far as I could throw him, but if even Scalia is saying that, then yes, limitations are both possible and reasonable.

Imagine what conservatives would think of a group of liberals who insisted, while threatening an insurrection, on a pure and absolute interpretation of the Fourth or Sixth Amendment—and imagine how ridiculous they would look to average Americans. Hunters, sportsmen, collectors, and even defenders of their homes (misguided as they may be, according to the statistics certainly do have rights to keep and bear arms that are reasonable and should not be trampled. But the idea that any right is unrestricted is totally at odds with history, the law, and reality. And the idea that a group of Americans possesses an absolute “right” to own and keep weapons that can—and in practice do—kill numerous innocent people in seconds, destroying families and communities and tearing at the nation’s collective soul, is barbaric and psychotic. As the old saying goes: if you want to shoot an assault weapon, go enlist.

For civilians, meanwhile, we’re one Supreme Court justice away from getting some sanity and balance to interpretations of the Second Amendment, and the only thing I can’t decide is whether it would be more delicious for Barack Obama to appoint that judge or for Hillary Clinton to do it.

Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.

 

Newsweek/Daily Beast special correspondent Michael Tomasky is also editor ofDemocracy: A Journal of Ideas. Follow Michael Tomasky on Twitter at@mtomasky.

 

For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.

U.N. Treaty Is First Aimed at Regulating Global Arms Sales

 

---

April 2, 2013

<nyt_byline>

By NEIL MacFARQUHAR

UNITED NATIONS — The United Nations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly on Tuesday to approve a pioneering treaty aimed at regulating the enormous global trade in conventional weapons, for the first time linking sales to the human rights records of the buyers.

Although implementation is years away and there is no specific enforcement mechanism, proponents say the treaty would for the first time force sellers to consider how their customers will use the weapons and to make that information public. The goal is to curb the sale of weapons that kill tens of thousands of people every year — by, for example, making it harder for Russia to argue that its arms deals with Syria are legal under international law.

The treaty, which took seven years to negotiate, reflects growing international sentiment that the multibillion-dollar weapons trade needs to be held to a moral standard. The hope is that even nations reluctant to ratify the treaty will feel public pressure to abide by its provisions. The treaty calls for sales to be evaluated on whether the weapons will be used to break humanitarian law, foment genocide or war crimes, abet terrorism or organized crime or slaughter women and children.

“Finally we have seen the governments of the world come together and say ‘Enough!’ ” said Anna MacDonald, the head of arms control for Oxfam International, one of the many rights groups that pushed for the treaty. “It is time to stop the poorly regulated arms trade. It is time to bring the arms trade under control.”

She pointed to the Syrian civil war, where 70,000 people have been killed, as a hypothetical example, noting that Russia argues that sales are permitted because there is no arms embargo.

“This treaty won’t solve the problems of Syria overnight, no treaty could do that, but it will help to prevent future Syrias,” Ms. MacDonald said. “It will help to reduce armed violence. It will help to reduce conflict.”

Members of the General Assembly voted 154 to 3 to approve the Arms Trade Treaty, with 23 abstentions — many from nations with dubious recent human rights records like Bahrain, Myanmar and Sri Lanka.

The vote came after more than two decades of organizing. Humanitarian groups started lobbying after the 1991 Persian Gulf war to curb the trade in conventional weapons, having realized that Iraq had more weapons than France, diplomats said.

The treaty establishes an international forum of states that will review published reports of arms sales and publicly name violators. Even if the treaty will take time to become international law, its standards will be used immediately as political and moral guidelines, proponents said.

“It will help reduce the risk that international transfers of conventional arms will be used to carry out the world’s worst crimes, including terrorism, genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes,” Secretary of State John Kerry said in a statement after the United States, the biggest arms exporter, voted with the majority for approval.

But the abstaining countries included China and Russia, which also are leading sellers, raising concerns about how many countries will ultimately ratify the treaty. It is scheduled to go into effect after 50 nations have ratified it. Given the overwhelming vote, diplomats anticipated that it could go into effect in two to three years, relative quickly for an international treaty.

Proponents said that if enough countries ratify the treaty, it will effectively become the international norm. If major sellers like the United States and Russia choose to sit on the sidelines while the rest of the world negotiates what weapons can be traded globally, they will still be affected by the outcome, activists said.

The treaty’s ratification prospects in the Senate appear bleak, at least in the short term, in part because of opposition by the gun lobby. More than 50 senators signaled months ago that they would oppose the treaty — more than enough to defeat it, since 67 senators must ratify it.

Among the opponents is Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the second-ranking Republican. In a statement last month, he said that the treaty contained “unnecessarily harsh treatment of civilian-owned small arms” and violated the right to self-defense and United States sovereignty.

In a bow to American concerns, the preamble states that it is focused on international sales, not traditional domestic use, but the National Rifle Association has vowed to fight ratification anyway. The General Assembly vote came after efforts to achieve a consensus on the treaty among all 193 member states of the United Nations failed last week, with Iran,North Korea and Syria blocking it. The three, often ostracized, voted against the treaty again on Tuesday.

Vitaly I. Churkin, the Russian envoy to the United Nations, said Russian misgivings about what he called ambiguities in the treaty, including how terms like genocide would be defined, had pushed his government to abstain. But neither Russia nor China rejected it outright.

“Having the abstentions from two major arms exporters lessens the moral weight of the treaty,” said Nic Marsh, a proponent with the Peace Research Institute in Oslo. “By abstaining they have left their options open.”

Numerous states, including Bolivia, Cuba and Nicaragua, said they had abstained because the human rights criteria were ill defined and could be abused to create political pressure. Many who abstained said the treaty should have banned sales to all armed groups, but supporters said the guidelines did that effectively while leaving open sales to liberation movements facing abusive governments.

Supporters also said that over the long run the guidelines should work to make the criteria more standardized, rather than arbitrary, as countries agree on norms of sale in a trade estimated at $70 billion annually.

The treaty covers tanks, armored combat vehicles, large-caliber weapons, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and launchers, small arms and light weapons. Ammunition exports are subject to the same criteria as the other war matériel. Imports are not covered.

India, a major importer, abstained because of its concerns that its existing contracts might be blocked, despite compromise language to address that.

Support was particularly strong among African countries — even if the compromise text was weaker than some had anticipated — with most governments asserting that in the long run, the treaty would curb the arms sales that have fueled many conflicts.

Even some supporters conceded that the highly complicated negotiations forced compromises that left significant loopholes. The treaty focuses on sales, for example, and not on all the ways in which conventional arms are transferred, including as gifts, loans, leases and aid.

“This is a very good framework to build on,” said Peter Woolcott, the Australian diplomat who presided over the negotiations. “But it is only a framework.”

<nyt_author_id>

Rick Gladstone contributed reporting from New York, and Jonathan Weisman from Washington.

<nyt_correction_bottom>

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: April 2, 2013

An earlier version of this article misspelled the surname of the head of arms control for Oxfam International. She is Anna MacDonald, not McDonald.

The Truth About Government Ammo Purchases

The Patriot Post • http://patriotpost.us

---

March 8, 2013

“There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily.” –George Washington

The last few months have seen troubling news of massive government purchases of ammunition. Agencies from the Social Security Administration to the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Homeland Security have purchased millions of rounds. But is the whole thing more hype than substance?

Ever since Barack Obama was first elected in 2008, he has been selling guns and ammunition at a faster clip than any gun salesman could hope for. And since his re-election, citizens have been faced with severe shortages of both. This can only be exacerbated by large government purchases. The Social Security Administration (SSA), for example, purchased 174,000 rounds and the Department of Agriculture (USDA) bought 320,000 rounds. More understandable in purpose but also perhaps more staggering in scale, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) put in a request for 450 million rounds, while the FBI intends to purchase 100 million.

The headlines are ominous, but some of the hype can be put in perspective by doing a little math. National Review’s Charles C. W. Cooke does just that¹. The SSA’s request for 174,000 rounds amounts to just 590 rounds for each of its 295 inspector general agents “who investigate Social Security fraud and other crimes.” Some of us might go through 590 rounds in an afternoon at the range. As for the USDA, 320,000 is enough to provide the same number of rounds for 542 agents, and, through the Forest Service, those agents have an area the size of Pakistan to cover.

When it comes to the bigger orders, Cooke writes, “The FBI and DHS’s apparently vast orders are deceptively presented by the conspiracy theorists. It is true that in 2011, the FBI ordered up to 100 million bullets for its 13,913 special agents (which works out to 7,187 per agent). And, yes, the Department of Homeland Security — a composite department that oversees USCIS, Customs and Border Protection, FEMA, ICE, the TSA, the Coast Guard, the Secret Service, and the National Protection Directorate — placed a request for up to 450 million rounds for its 65,000 armed personnel (which works out to 6,923 per agent). But in the real world, ammunition is not divided up and handed out on such a basis. What is bought is stockpiled and then allocated on the basis of need. The DHS’s order is expected to last for at least five years, and it was placed up front primarily as a cost-saving measure.” Indeed, DHS is not even bound to buy that much; they merely have a tab on which to order more rounds as needed.

That certainly doesn’t mean there aren’t questions or that we should simply shrug and look the other way. For starters, the Department of Education recently placed an order for “27 Remington Brand Model 870 police 12-gauge shotguns.” This might lead any reasonable person to ask, as Cooke does, “Whether it is in possession of one bullet or 1 million bullets, should the federal Department of Education be armed in the first place? If so, why?” We would add, should there evenbe a Department of Education? But that’s a topic for another day. The DoE has been known to botch raids² when it was the wrong enforcement vehicle from the start.

The same questions could be asked of any number of bureaucracies. Does the Social Security Administration really need an armed enforcement division? We’ve known some unruly seniors in our day, but that seems to be overkill.

Then there’s the information that’s just plain false. Reports have been circulating that DHS has procured 2,717 Mine Resistant Armor Protected (MRAP) vehicles. The truth is, DHS has had retrofitted MRAPs since 2008, and now has 16 of them³ for serving “high-risk warrants.” The figure of 2,717 comes from a delivery to the Marine Corps, not DHS. None of that, however, takes away from the problem that these are more properly military vehicles for war zones, not law enforcement tools. The militarization of law enforcement is undeniably troublesome. Furthermore, DHS is the same bureaucracy that claims right-wing extremists⁴ pose a threat, and it’s run by an administration that thinks that “weapons of war” shouldn’t be on our streets. Unless they’re the ones driving them, apparently.

There are certainly troubling trends here and very real threats to our Liberty, but we must be careful not to exaggerate. While readers know that we never minimize the outrageous growth of government beyond its constitutional bounds, it also doesn’t seem to us that the government is, as some have put it, “stockpiling bullets in case of civil unrest.” Questions about procurements and functions? Absolutely. Apocalypse? Not yet.

Government and Politics

News From the Swamp: Government by Perpetual Crisis

The House passed a continuing resolution this week by a vote of 267-151 to fund the federal government for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2013. The bill staves off a potential government shutdown on March 27 and it makes no attempts to reverse the sequestration cuts that went into effect on March 1⁵. It sets the spending level at $982 billion, $61 billion less than last year. The bill also allows the Pentagon a degree of flexibility in how its funds can be spent, in one instance cutting money from research and development to increase operations and maintenance. It extends the federal employee pay freeze currently in effect, which runs counter to Barack Obama’s executive order calling for a 0.5 percent hike.

The bill now goes to the Senate, where Democrats may attempt to change the funding scheme, but are reticent to reverse sequester cuts for fear of risking a government shutdown.

The CR clears the decks for the next major budget fight, yet again increasing the debt ceiling. The House and Senate GOP leadership remains steadfast in their opposition to more tax hikes with House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) saying, “The president got $650 billion of higher taxes on the American people on January the 1st. How much more does he want? When is the president going to address the spending side of this?” We all — including Boehner — know the answer to that question already.

Barack Obama has begun a new outreach effort, however, taking several Republican senators to dinner Wednesday to work toward fiscal deals, including a not-too-late sequester replacement. No surprise, it includes [$680 billion in tax increases | http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323494504578340181878017820.html. Of course, he needed a 20-car motorcade to drive six blocks to dinner, so the sequester didn't hurt all that much.

Sequester Politics

In Obama's 'Republican Sequester' 2014 Endgame⁶, Mark Alexander wrote, "Republicans and pundits should hit all the sequester softballs Obama is throwing their way, out of the park!

"For example, Obama's civilian budgeteers at DoD have cancelled all high profile appearances of military precision flying teams at air show events for the remainder of 2013. Fact is, those events are key recruiting tools for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corp, and every hour of flight is a training hour for the pilots.

"In response, Republicans should very publicly demand that Obama cancel all political and recreational junkets on Air Force One, including his upcoming Martha's Vineyard golfing vacation. Each of these vacations and political junkets cost millions of dollars -- a huge and unnecessary expense. Additionally they should demand that all senior administration officials use commercial transportation for official business rather than the large expensive fleet Boeing executive jets. All savings should be reallocated to offset sequester cuts to vital national security operations.

"Air Force One is Obama's biggest political platform, and no news organizations or commentators have associated the military cuts with the wasteful use of AF1."

From the 'Non Compos Mentis' File

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus are doing what they usually do -- seeking out imaginary racism in every crack and crevice. Lo and behold, they've found racism lurking in the Republican Sequester⁶.

"Sequestration will impact everyone," said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), "but it will have a particularly harmful effect on communities of color who were hit first and worst by the great recession, and have yet to significantly feel the effects of the recovery. Federal budget cuts under sequestration would quickly mean cuts to federal, state and local public-sector jobs, which disproportionately employ women and African-Americans."

Del. Donna Christensen (D-Virgin Islands) chimed in, saying, "African-Americans are more likely to work in the public sector, where the jobs are going to be cut. We already have the highest unemployment, and will be severely hurt by the reduction in unemployment benefits."

Look no further than the failed socialist policies of Barack Obama and his leftist congressional brethren. When Obama took office in 2009, the unemployment rate for blacks was 12.7 percent. It's now hovering around 14 percent. As for the black teen jobless rate, it's near 40 percent. If black Americans would re-examine their 9:1 voting preference for Democrats, Republicans might actually be able to alleviate this soul-crushing joblessness.

Gun Grabbers on the Move

Four pieces of civilian disarmament legislation made it to the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday. While Sen. Dianne Feinstein's (D-CA) "assault weapons" ban was included in the final package, it faces tough odds of getting anywhere in Congress. Democrats instead chose a piecemeal approach, the reasons being twofold: It increases the likelihood that something gets passed, and if a major overhaul fails, Republicans will face the backlash when Democrats cry wolf.

One of the bills being considered is a bipartisan proposal "that would for the first time create specific federal prohibitions on gun trafficking and the straw purchasing of firearms," according to the Associated Press. Recall that these were the same tactics used by the ATF in the infamously (and tragically) botched Fast and Furious sting operation. We're glad to see Congress agrees that the feds shouldn't be trafficking firearms to Mexico.

In related news, "States with the most gun control laws have the fewest gun-related deaths," trumpeted the Associated Press this week, citing a study⁷ by Dr. Eric Fleegler of Boston and published in JAMA Internal Medicine. However, Fleegler is an anti-gun activist and used data from the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, one of the most anti-gun organizations in the country. Also, though he considered all 50 states, he excluded the District of Columbia. The Brady Center did their own calculations based on findings in a dozen states and came to the conclusion that -- surprise -- we need more gun control. The inconvenient truth is that the "gun-related deaths" prevented by tougher gun laws are suicides, not homicides. In fact, the homicide rate was slightly higher in the 10 states with the most regulation. DC's rate is nearly four times that of the rest of the country.

The Brady Center wasn't the only leftist group promoted by the press either. USA Today placed a piece on an anti-gun study by the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (PIRE) front-and-center of Tuesday's edition. PIRE's study purports to show that gun violence cost $12 billion annually. Not surprisingly, financial help is given to the institute through a company tied to none other than far-left billionaire investor George Soros.

The New Cabinet: Even Further Left Than Before

Barack Obama announced three new cabinet nominees this week, and each of them is seeking to aid in the president's goal of "fundamentally transforming the United States of America." Gina McCarthy is on tap to run the EPA, and she's fully prepared to continue pushing the president's global warming agenda. McCarthy, currently head of the EPA's air and radiation division, has been behind the agency's draconian carbon emissions policies, which are responsible for bringing the coal industry to its knees. Her fingerprints are on the moratorium on new coal-fired power plants and forcing the shutdown of older plants. When McCarthy rises to the top spot, she will likely go in for the kill, forcing utilities to continue shutting down coal plants in turn for receiving so-called credits that could be sold to other coal plant operators so they can stay in business a little longer. All this amounts to an end run around Congress to install the "cap and tax" plan that died during Obama's first term.

The war on the energy industry will continue on a second front with Obama's nominee for energy secretary, MIT physicist Ernest Moniz. Moniz participated in writing a 2010 report for the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, calling for $16 billion in annual taxpayer funding for renewable energy. It was this mentality that gave us Solyndra and other untested, unreliable and unsatisfactory renewable boondoggles during Obama's first term. Moniz is also a proponent of "energy demand management," a euphemism for the government's arbitrarily setting energy rates to drive customers toward particular energy suppliers and away from "undesirable" sources. And although Moniz has demonstrated support for natural gas in the past, he has recently come around to the radical environmental view on the evils of fracking. Those fears are largely unfounded, of course, but that won't stop the new energy secretary from standing in the way of smart energy policy.

Sylvia Mathews Burwell, the president's nominee to head the Office of Management and Budget, is currently the deputy at OMB. Burwell served in the Treasury Department and the White House budget office during the Clinton administration. She also has experience running philanthropic efforts for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Walmart Foundation. This hefty resumé may not mean much in the long run though. We're not sure why Obama has need of a budget director when he has no budget to direct.

Economy

Jobs Numbers Are (Mostly) Positive

News of the sequester reached the private sector in February, which embraced the paltry reduction of government growth by creating 236,000 new jobs. The headline unemployment rate fell for the first time to a pre-Obama level of 7.7 percent. Real unemployment, including those who have given up looking for work, also edged lower to 14.3 percent. Other economic news is good as well -- the Dow closed at nominal record highs for three straight days this week, surpassing 14,300 and beating records set in 2007. "On the other hand," as The Wall Street Journal points out⁸, "the Dow would need to rise another 8% or so to reach its previous high in inflation-adjusted terms."

All is not well in the jobs market, either. Another 296,000 Americans left the labor force entirely in February, bringing the participation rate to a 32-year low of 63.5 percent. And if March's numbers decline at all, look for Obama to blame the "Republican Sequester." Overall, the U.S. economy is remarkably resilient, pressing ahead despite four years of crushing economic policy, and now $600 billion in tax hikes.

Income Redistribution: A New Peak

While the argument over who caused the sequester continues to dominate the media, a scarcely noted sidebar is that the bean counters at the Congressional Budget Office are predicting 2013 will be a record year for federal revenue, finally surpassing the pre-recession record of $2.6 trillion set in 2007. All told, in 2013 the federal government is expected to take in $2.7 trillion for the first time. Of course, they will spend more than $3.5 trillion in that same time frame, sequester included.

While federal revenues are finally returning to those before the 2008 financial crisis, there is a growing inequality in taxation -- a disparity that Barack Obama made all the worse by his tax increases on couples earning more than $450,000 a year or single filers who eclipse the $400,000 mark. An Associated Press report⁹ found that wealthy taxpayers are paying a share of the tax burden rarely seen since 1979, the point when the AP chose to begin its research. As expected, those in the lowest quintile of income pay a negative tax burden; in other words, via the "Earned" Income Tax Credit, they're net takers from actual taxpayers.

Yet the fact the government is living large these days doesn't seem to dissuade the NeoComs in Washington from wanting to tax the rich even more as Obama's rhetoric and Senate Democrats' efforts to stop the sequester proved again. Socialists will always run out of other people's money, as Margaret Thatcher famously said, but Washington Democrats seem determined to quicken the pace.

Regulatory Commissars: ObamaCare Exchange Regulations Finalized

While some states are still debating whether to succumb to the siren song of "free" federal money for Medicaid expansion, and while Republicans in the House are shirking their promise to defund ObamaCare, bureaucrats are behind the scenes writing the regulations that will dictate how insurance companies will operate in the brave new world of the so-called Affordable Care Act. Last week, in another trademark Friday afternoon news dump, the White House dropped some 700 pages of new regulations on an unsuspecting public. Three of the four rules dropped by HHS are final rules, while the fourth, concerning the Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) slated to start in 2015, is a proposed rule, with comments being accepted for 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

Nancy Pelosi told us that we had to pass the bill to find out what was in it¹⁰. She was right -- the ACA delegated much of its authority to an unelected cadre of Beltway bureaucrats to write new mandates like these that will only take full effect once insurance exchanges become operational next year. These regulations will "help to ensure every American has access to high-quality, affordable health insurance," claims the Department of Health and Human Services. We may not have access to a doctor, and the insurance may not pay for certain procedures once we're deemed unworthy of treatment -- but at least we'll have access to health insurance.

Around the Nation: State Department Weighs in on Keystone

"We don't need this dirty oil." This preposterous statement was made by California Democrat Henry Waxman regarding the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. The 1,700-mile pipeline would bring oil into the U.S. from Canada, a friend and ally. If the U.S. rejects Keystone, the oil will go to China. Still, Waxman and others on the Left claim it will harm the environment. The State Department disagrees. Last Friday, it issued a 2,000-page report outlining the "minimal environmental impact" Keystone would have on fish, water, vegetation, soil and endangered species. State put out a similar report in 2011. Yet neither report received much comment from the Obama administration or coverage from the Leftmedia.

While the Obama administration would never make such an overt comment against Keystone, they have been no more supportive of the venture than Waxman. Obama has been dragging his heels for over three years, despite the fact that Keystone would bring between 700,000 and 830,000 barrels of oil to the U.S. each day as well as create 179,000 much-needed jobs. In the meantime, TransCanada and other equally perplexed Canadians wait for the green light. Eventually, if the delays persist, then Canada will move on to a more willing buyer, exactly as the administration is hoping. Since the Left is so opposed to fossil fuels, someone should get them to share the unicorn dust they use to heat their homes.

Security

Drones and Filibusters

The use of drones to take out terrorists overseas has become the hallmark of Barack Obama's war strategy, but the possible use of drones over U.S. soil may have reached the boiling point this week. During hearings on the subject, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) asked Attorney General Eric "Fast and Furious" Holder directly: Is it a violation of due process to fire a missile at a guy on American soil if he's not engaged at the moment in carrying out a terrorist attack? The question was prompted by a letter Holder issued Tuesday claiming that drone strikes are legal in the U.S., but that the administration has "no intention" of doing so. Cruz finally got Holder to shift from saying such drone use wouldn't be "appropriate," with all that word implies, to plainly saying that the federal government does not have constitutional authority to use lethal force against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil unless that citizen poses an imminent threat.

The fight continued when, on Tuesday, the Senate Intelligence Committee voted 12-3 in favor of White House counterterrorism adviser John O. Brennan becoming the next CIA director. The vote came only after the Obama regime agreed to give Congress access to Justice Department memos that lay out Obama's legal reasoning for using drone strikes overseas to kill U.S. citizens accused of working with al-Qa'ida and other terrorists.

On Thursday, Brennan won confirmation from the full Senate, 63-34, despite concerns over his record and his support of the regime's drone policy. But that came only after Wednesday's impressive 13-hour filibuster by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who was determined to force the administration to provide a written answer on drone strikes of American citizens. The filibuster drew eight other senators, including one Democrat, Oregon's Ron Wyden, onto the Senate floor. Paul wryly noted, "Barack Obama, in 2007, would be down here with me arguing against this [drone policy]. It amazes me and disappoints me how much he’s changed.”

Paul eventually got an official answer: “Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on an American soil?” Holder wrote. “The answer to that question is no.” Still, Sens. Paul and Cruz are working on a bill to spell it all out.

North Korean Saber Rattling

On Thursday the UN Security Council unanimously approved new sanctions against North Korea, following Pyongyang’s detonation of a nuclear weapon in February. The sanctions will primarily target North Korea’s financial dealings, including international money transfers and the supply of luxury goods for the regime. Still, it’s doubtful that new sanctions will sway the minds of a regime that has systematically starved its own people for 60 years, kept its border with South Korea an armed tinderbox, sunk a South Korean warship and launched ballistic missiles over Japan. North Korea didn’t help its own cause by threatening a nuclear attack against the United States just as the UNSC was settling in for the vote on sanctions. They have also now declared an end to the non-aggression pact with South Korea. China holds the trump card in any issue involving North Korea by virtue of their shared border, meaning only China can truly stop money and goods from entering or leaving. And even the Chinese appear to have run out of patience with the lunatics next door.

Elsewhere along the Axis of Evil, Secretary of State John Kerry demonstrated his deep mastery of the obvious on Tuesday when he acknowledged Iran has moved closer to achieving nuclear capability over the past year. Excuse us if we don’t act surprised¹¹. After the Europeans tried to reason with Iran from 2003-2005, and after the UNSC tried from 2005-2008, and after Barack Obama himself tried since taking office in 2009, suddenly he recognizes the threat and really means to do something about it. Joe Biden assured the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee on Monday that the president “is not bluffing” and “all options, including military force, are on the table.” This claim might be more reassuring if given by a man known for something other than comic relief.

On a related note, two Iranian warships entered the Chinese port of Zhanjiang this week for a goodwill visit, a remarkable voyage of nearly 5,000 miles for a navy whose ships all predate the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Readers will recall the December visit by two Russian warships to Iran’s main naval base at Bandar Abbas. This latest visit sends the same signal of friendship as that expressed by the Russian Navy. Considering Chinese and Russian veto power at the UNSC, these goodwill visits don’t bode well for the White House’s attempt to sway Iran’s behavior.

Hugo Chavez Is Dead

Venezuelan socialist thug-dictator Hugo Chavez died Tuesday after a two-year bout with cancer, leaving a degree of political uncertainty in the South American nation. There is poetic justice in noting that Chavez died the same day as Joseph Stalin 60 years earlier. Vice President Nicolas Maduro, who accused the U.S. of poisoning Chavez with cancer, will now take the helm until elections are held within 30 days.

Chavez was a former tank commander who first tried to take power through a coup in 1992. After serving prison time for the attempt, he ran for election in 1998 and held power through political intimidation and punishment, as well as skillfully exploiting Venezuela’s oil reserves and churning up anti-American passions by posing as David against Goliath. He was hardly the man of “democracy” that Useful Idiots of the Left claim him to be¹², and Jimmy Carter had far nicer things to say of Chavez than he ever dreamed of saying when Ronald Reagan died in 2004. We’d link to Carter’s fawning statement on his website but were alerted to malware on the page. How appropriate.

Chavez claimed to fight for the poor, and that endeared him to Hollywood leftists such as Sean Penn and Oliver Stone, and deluded Democrats such as former Rep. Joseph Kennedy. Yet as with all socialists who secure power, he used it primarily for his own gain. His family fortune is estimated to be about $2 billion. Man of the people, indeed.

On a final note, Chavez once took the podium at the UN after George W. Bush and smugly declared, “The devil came here yesterday, and it smells of sulfur still.” Yet Chavez, who claimed to be Christian, reportedly uttered the last words, “I don’t want to die. Please don’t let me die.” Perhaps he knew he was, in fact, about to smell sulfur again.

What Sequester?

The dreaded sequester has the federal government cutting everything from employee hours to White House tours. But some things are important enough that money for them can be found. The Obama administration awarded $37 million in foreign aid to Pakistan this week, despite a disturbing anti-American trend in that nation. On Sunday, Secretary of State John Kerry announced that Egypt would be receiving another $250 million in foreign aid, with that much again to follow in the near future. The world’s largest Arab nation is now under the control of the Muslim Brotherhood, which at best is unsympathetic to U.S. interests in the region, if not (yet) outright hostile. It’s not likely that our money will win us friends and influence terrorists.

In related news, 100,000 Christians have fled Egypt since the Brotherhood’s takeover.

Speaking of Egypt, John Kerry and Michelle Obama were set to personally award the International Women of Courage Award to Samira Ibrahim of Egypt until it was discovered that she celebrated 9/11 and the death of Jews. The award has now been postponed.

Culture

Village Academic Curriculum: Battling Insanity

On the “education” lunacy front, a 16-year old Florida high schooler was suspended last week¹³ due to an “incident” with a weapon. His involvement? He wrestled a loaded gun away from a would-be shooter aiming it at another student. The school called it an “emergency suspension.” According to a school spokesman, “If there is a potentially dangerous situation, Florida law allows the principal to suspend a student immediately pending a hearing.” Apparently, the school administrators don’t have enough sense to distinguish between a potentially dangerous situation and ending a potentially dangerous situation.

Meanwhile, a seven-year-old Maryland second-grader was slapped with a two-day suspension¹⁴ for allegedly biting his breakfast pastry into the shape of a gun. Actually, the boy wanted to form a mountain but misfired, er, mis-chewed. School officials deemed the boy’s breakfast to be loaded and dangerous, and thereby suspended him. Ludicrously, they then even offered counseling for other students troubled by the incident. (Of course, guilt by angular association means a number of things are taboo¹⁵.)

With the insane running the educational asylum, it’s no wonder school choice is gaining ground. Last week, Alabama became the 22nd state¹⁶ (plus Washington, DC) to offer school choice, either via vouchers, tax credits, scholarships, or education savings accounts. The move by the state legislature marked Alabama’s first foray into private-school choice. Unfortunately, Circuit Judge Charles Price blocked the governor from signing the bill until hearings are held later this month.

And Last…

Some things in this world are stranger than fiction. Such was the case in a story from Independence, Oregon, where a 19-year-old on his way to visit family decided to stop for a rest — and burglarize a farm. He stole several things, which he hid behind a barn before fleeing on foot. He then stole a pickup, also on the farm, returned to the house, and loaded up his spoils. Before leaving, he added a shotgun and an AR-15 to his take. While he drove across a field to make his escape, however, he hit a bump, causing a part of the shotgun caught in the trigger area of the AR-15 to shift and depress the trigger. The AR fired once, striking and killing the burglar. Early reports are that the shotgun had indeed failed a background check. Either way, someone should alert Joe Biden. Despite his sage advice, when this shotgun needed to defend itself, it went for the AR-15.

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Nate Jackson for The Patriot Post Editorial Team

---

Links

1. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/342161/great-ammunition-myth-charles-c-w-cooke
2. http://reason.com/blog/2011/06/08/dept-of-education-swat-team-up
3. http://www.businessinsider.com/homeland-security-serving-warrants-mrap-2013-3
4. http://patriotpost.us/alexander/3101
5. http://patriotpost.us/editions/17008
6. http://patriotpost.us/alexander/17100
7. http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1661390
8. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323494504578342631491032660.html
9. http://www.boston.com/business/personal-finance/2013/03/03/tax-bills-for-rich-families-approach-year-high/tPcmllN0iKPUSpp53v8WcI/story.html
10. http://patriotpost.us/perspective/5246
11. http://patriotpost.us/editions/2478
12. http://patriotpost.us/editions/17080
13. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/02/high-school-student-disarms-gunman-gets-suspended/
14. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/342106/gun-shaped-pastry-leads-school-suspension-7-year-old-andrew-johnson
15. http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=145971215570285&set=a.120487688118638.24692.120036531497087&type=1&theater
16. http://blog.heritage.org/2013/03/02/alabama-passes-historic-school-choice-plan/

canadian news anchor gives warning to american gun owners

ATF vs THE CONSTITUTION

ATF vs THE CONSTITUTION

 

By Michael LeMieux
February 6, 2013
NewsWithViews.com

In the United States, under a republican form of government, power is divided between the states and the central government. Within the central government, as is within the states, that power is further sub-divided between branches of the government. All of these government organizations have charters or documents that govern what power they have and the boundaries each organization must adhere to. The fundamental document outlining these powers and duties are the constitutions for their respective governments. Any action by these organizations that does not have a basis within their founding constitutions is unconstitutional and therefore constitutionally illegal.

In this article we will be dealing primarily with gun laws and the primary organization of the central government that enforces national gun laws the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). The main areas I wish to present are the historical evolution of the ATF, their constitutional footing, and whether national gun laws are truly constitutional.

Evolution of the ATF:

The enactment of “firearms laws” is a relatively recent occurrence for the federal government. The Federal Firearms Act in 1938 was the first act by congress to regulate firearms. This act was based upon the perceived need to regulate the firearms industry and license the dealers, manufacturers, and gunsmiths within the firearms trade. It was based upon the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Appropriately it was codified under Title 15 of the US Code – “Commerce and Trade.” The new “laws” under the Act included the creation of a Federal Firearms License (FFL), for anyone doing business in the firearm trade. One of the primary goals was to prohibit FFL holders from selling firearms to convicted felons. Requiring FFL holders to keep records of all firearms sales, and for the first time it made any alteration of firearm serial numbers a crime. Many people felt this was an infringement on state jurisdiction by enacting a law that reached past the state boundary, in violation of the Constitution.

From 1938 to 1968 everything went along fairly well until the government decided to play a little shell game, and they switched the Firearms Act from Title 15 to Title 18. Title 18 is entitled “Crimes and Criminal Procedures.” Why would the government switch the code section from Title 15 to Title 18 after having been codified under Title 15 for thirty years? The only rational reason is jurisdictional obfuscation, or hiding what would otherwise be apparent as to the limits the government could act upon us, the citizens. You see, under Title 15, the government was within its rightful jurisdiction of “Commerce and Trade”. However, if you are bound by “Commerce and Trade”, you cannot enact laws on normal citizens who are not acting in the “trade.” Therefore, the government changed, with the stroke of a pen, their Constitutional powers from commerce to crime.

In 1968 the “Gun Control Act” was passed. It was an attempt by the government to justify broad-sweeping firearms control. The finesse with which the government’s lawyers crafted and pushed this bill through can be seen right from the opening lines. The bill is entitled: “An Act to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for better control of the interstate traffic in firearms.” Doesn’t that title sound allot like Chapter 15 Commerce and Trade? In fact even today the firearms laws deal, for the most part, in taxing control. Machine guns falling under the firearms control act are still legal to own if you do the background check and pay a $200.00 “tax stamp” fee.

However, the stated purpose of the act is as written states:

“Title I – State Firearms Control Assistance

Purpose

“Sec. 101. The Congress hereby declares that the purpose of this title is to provide support to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials in their fight against crime and violence, and it is not the purpose of this title to place any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms appropriate to the purpose of hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity, and that this title is not intended to discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, or provide for the imposition by Federal regulations of any procedures or requirements other than those reasonably necessary to implement and effectuate the provisions of this title.”

To support State, and local law enforcement! Where does the Constitution say anything about the federal government assisting law enforcement? Remember, the federal government cannot legally do anything that is not specifically enumerated by the Constitution. So where is its justification? It has none; any federal law that falls outside the enumerated powers of the Constitution is repugnant and void. And as a good friend of mine, Dave Champion, said “Congress is free to make any asinine statement it wants about its “intentions” or its “goals”, but the text of the laws it enacts must still adhere to the limits of federal power imposed by US Constitution.”

So, in 1934 we have a “revenue” tax scheme that charges $200.00 for the sale or transfer of a machinegun, a short barreled rifle/shotgun, or a silencer. What was the net effect of this “revenue” tax scheme? It all but completely eviscerated these businesses, put people out of work, and resulted in a drop in tax revenue on the legitimate sales of these items. In 1934 a silencer could be purchased for 5-20 dollars at your local hardware store. But who would pay a $200.00 tax on a 5 dollar item. Many towns had shooting ranges in the city limits and required silencers to keep noise down for local residents. Most shooters could afford the $200 tax stamp so these businesses closed as well. So as a “revenue” scheme the Firearms Act was a complete bust unless you look at the evolutionary progress of the ATF in its expansion to control not only the firearms industry but also to become national crime fighters as well.

The ATF evolved from an arm of the IRS under title 15 “Commerce” to now being a part of the Department of Justice under title 18 “Crimes and Punishment.” I ask once again – under what constitutional authority? At least under title 15 the central government had a nexus to commerce as they originally only involved those individuals and businesses that were in the firearms trade. Today, however, someone who only possesses an item can be put in jail for not asking permission and paying tribute, even when they are not “in the business” of manufacturing or selling firearms.

There is no constitutional authority for the ATF as they are currently organized and only very limited constitutional authority as originally organized. As congress can only legally legislate those areas to which the states have seceded, as outlined in Article 1, section 8, all other laws are, by their very definition, unconstitutional. But because the government has the power of creating law they can enforce even unconstitutional laws – it does not make them right it only makes them wrong with a gun.

The concept of natural inherent rights within the body of the people is unique to the United States. All other countries today endow their citizens with varying degrees of “rights” and privilege. Our founding precepts are espoused in our Declaration of Independence stating that we, the people, are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights and that governments were instituted among men to secure these rights. So even if the Second Amendment was not listed in the “Bill of Rights” it would still exist.

Let me say very clearly – your rights do not come from government. You have these rights solely on the basis of your existence. The Constitution grants no rights to the citizens of this country and are listed as Amendments to the Constitution to PROHIBIT the central government from acting against these specific, enumerated, rights that where are endowed in the citizenry before the government was created.

“…The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” We already know that the Bill of Rights was written to place limitations on the federal government in its dealings with the people. What does it mean to be infringed? From the Merriam-Webster New Collegiate Dictionary, 1977 edition it reads: “1. obsolete: defeat, frustrate. 2. To encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another. Synonymous with trespass.”Based on this definition any action which attempts to make guns obsolete, or to defeat the ability of ownership, or frustrates the keeping and bearing of arms is infringing on the rights of the citizens and is an affront to the Constitution.

United States Representative Ron Paul, from the 14th District in Texas, stated in a November 6th, 2006 article entitled “Gun Control on the Back Burner”:

“The Second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny. The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. They envisioned government as a servant, not a master, of the American people. The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of that time. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms.” (Bold added) You can read this entire article and more on his official web site.

I may be cast a heretic; but the fact of the matter is, laws are not meant to stop crime. In many cases laws create crime where none existed. An example would be what I call the stupidity laws, such as mandatory helmet wearing on motorcycles or seat belts in cars etc. These “laws” tell us that the government knows what is best for you, and they will enforce their will upon you by writing laws to protect you from yourself. This is EXACTLY the mentality of a communist society and brute force is EXACTLY the methodology a communist government would use to make you do what they know is best for you.

What crime is committed by possessing an object? Who or what is damaged? If I own an icepick to break up blocks of ice and fill my ice chest – is that a crime? Yet I can use that icepick to rob, damage, or kill another person. Would that person be any deader if I used a gun? There are more people killed each year in cars than with guns – should we limit the speed a car can travel to reduce it killing capability? In fact more people are killed with hands and feet than with guns – should we have to register our limbs as well? I have known people who have never been in a car collision their entire lives. They are safe and effective drivers. I have likewise known many people who have owned guns and have never shot anyone.

Now the central government is attempting to unconstitutionally expand their power even more by trying to infringe further upon our Second Amendment rights by banning common weapons, invading the Fourth Amendment by forcing us into “trade” by mandating how we dispose of our private property at an added cost burden. And the very weapons they are trying to ban are very much a protected type of weapon as stated by the Supreme Court in US V Miller.

“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.”

The court reasoned that based on the information they had at the time a saw-off shotgun did not have “some reasonable relationship… of a well regulated militia” and that it was not “any part of the ordinary military equipment.” Well we have testimony from the Commander in Chief, Diane Feinstein, and a host of liberals in Congress that they are trying to ban the very same “military style weapon” that the Supreme Court said was explicitly protected by the Second Amendment. But they want it both ways and the only conclusion we can make is that they do not care about the Constitution or for what it stands and especially ANY limitation on their agenda.

Article 1 of the Constitution tells us how we can solve our crime problem within a year. Article 1, Section 8, states that Congress has the power to call forth “the Militia to execute the laws of the Union.” Every mass murder, every gun attack, drive by shooting, home invasion, car jacking, or any other such crime is already crime and the tool the criminal uses really does not change the crime. But if every second or third law abiding citizen was armed crime would very quickly dry up.

You, the “We the People” of our great nation are responsible for your own safety. The Sheriff the Policeman, even the entire judicial system, is only there to deal with the bad guy. Yes they drive around with a motto painted across the car saying “to Protect and Defend” but did you know that, by law, they have not responsibility to protect anyone? In the case of DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services the court ruled, and many others as well, that the only individuals that the police have a responsibility to protect are those that are incarcerated or restrained against their will such as prisoners or mental patients stating: “The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State’s knowledge of the individual’s predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf.”

The gradual expansion of government to control the firearms industry to keep criminals out of the trade then expanded to tax ordinary citizens from owning certain pieces of equipment then expanded to everyone buying from a dealer and now expanding once again to encompass every law abiding citizen who has a gun even if they are not in firearm commerce.

© 2013 Michael LeMieux – All Rights ReservedBut will this solve the problem? Well, as I have said before, if laws stopped crime then the jails would be empty. So laws will not stop the type of crimes that have happened in the past nor will they stop them from happening in the future. Some may say that by banning these weapons (law) then they will not have them to use. If that were true prohibition would have been a success, the drug war would be over by now and our streets would be drug free. All the central government is managing to do is to increase the victim pool by disarming the law abiding citizen because as we all know the criminal will not obey the law and if he does not have one now the black market will provide it to him just as it always has.

---

Michael LeMieux was born in Midwest City, Oklahoma in 1956 and graduated from Weber State University in Utah with a degree in Computer Science. He served in both the US Navy and US Army (Active duty and National Guard) and trained in multiple intelligence disciplines and was a qualified paratrooper. He served with the 19th Special Forces Group, while in the National Guard, as a Special Forces tactical intelligence team member. He served tours to Kuwait and Afghanistan where he received the Purple Heart for injuries received in combat.

Mr. LeMieux left military duty at the end of 2005 after being medically discharged with over 19 years of combined military experience. He currently works as an intelligence contractor to the US government.

Michael is a strict constitutionalist who believes in interpreting the constitution by the original intent of the founding fathers. His research has led him to the conclusion that the republic founded by the Constitution is no longer honored by our government. That those who rule America today are doing so with the interest of the federal government in mind and not the Citizens. Michael believes that all three branches of government have strayed far from the checks and balances built into the Constitution and they have failed the American people. A clear example is the Second Amendment, which the Supreme Court and the founders have all said was an individual right and could not be “infringed” upon, now has more than 20,000 state and federal laws regulating every aspect of the individuals right, a definite infringement. He has traveled around the world living in 14 States of the Union including Hawaii, and visited (for various lengths of time) in Spain, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Korea, Scotland, Pakistan, Mauritius, Somalia, Diego Garcia, Australia, Philippines, England, Italy, Germany, and Puerto Rico.

Michael now lives in Nebraska with his wife, two of his three children, Mother-in-Law and grandchild. His hobbies include shooting, wood-working, writing, amateur inventor and scuba diving when he can find the time.

Contact Michael through

OAMERICA, LOOK ACROSS THE BORDER TO CANADA

OAMERICA, LOOK ACROSS THE BORDER TO CANADA

 

By Bradlee Dean
February 6, 2013
NewsWithViews.com

“The notion that we need to protect homosexuals more than we need to protect children…has been a disturbing trend.” -Brian Rushfeldt, president, Canada Family Action

As you may know, the radical homosexual lobby is using totalitarian methods in an attempt to bully the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) into submission by changing their long-standing policy of banning homosexuals from admission into the BSA.

It would do well for the American people to look across the border to Canada and see the disastrous consequences of such a decision.

In 1998, Canadian Scouts (CS) decided to allow females, atheists, agnostics, homosexuals, bisexuals, and transsexuals to join the CS. In 1999, they approved the establishment of an all-homosexual troop, which now marches in Canada’s “gay pride” parades. Within five years, scouting membership dropped over 50 percent, many scouting camps and offices were closed, and staff was laid off.

More importantly is the tragic sexual abuse by leaders in scouting.

Brian Rushfeldt, president of Canada Family Action, stated, “They have secret files (here in Canada) as they do down there (in the U.S.) of guys that had abused kids that they hadn’t reported. There were investigations into the abuse of boys, which never really produced anything in Canada.”

The Boy Scouts of America currently has a problem with Scout leaders abusing boys. There have been over 2,000 cases of abuse.

For example:

Scout leader Brett Tayler was charged with more than 30 counts of child molestation and exploitation. He is suspected of molesting at least 10 boys from ages 6-9 years old.

Scout leader Peter Robert Stibal II was sentenced to 21 years for sexually abusing four Scouts from 2003 to 2008 and possessing child pornography.

Douglas Smith Jr., who ran the child abuse prevention program for the BSA, was sentenced to eight years in federal prison for trafficking child pornography on the Internet.

If homosexual child abuse has already been a problem in the BSA, it would be a tragedy to allow homosexuals to infiltrate their organization.

America could learn from Canada in more ways than one.

To take it a step further, consider the consequences of passing homosexual marriage in Canada, implemented in 2005.

Warnings from Canadians:

Archbishop Terrence Prendergast from Ottawa, Canada recently came to warn America. During his speech at St. Thomas University in MN, he laid out numerous examples:

For simply writing a letter defining Catholic teaching on homosexual marriage, Bishop Frederick Henry of Calgary, Alberta, was called up before the Human Rights Commission in 2005. Bishop Henry’s complaint was subsequently dropped by the plaintiff who admitted that he only filed the complaint to get media attention.

Once again, the homosexual radical’s “complainant” feigned victim status only to find out that he was actually the assailant.

During his speech, Archbishop Prendergast quoted Henry as saying, “Human rights laws designed as a shield are now being used as a sword. The issue is rarely truth formation, but rather censorship, and applying a particular theology through threats, sanctions and punitive measures.”

He continued, “The Bible is being called hate literature. Clearly, the church is in the crosshairs. There will be growing pressure for the church to comply or to be shut down.”

The archbishop went on to note the consequences of homosexual marriage in Canada:

• restrictions on freedoms
• forced sex education
• sexually confused children
• sexual experimentation among children
• muzzling and debilitating the church
• more births out of wedlock
• more in vitro fertilizations
• more abortions
• more poverty
• more misery
• more disease
• more addictions
• higher health-care costs

Phil Lees of Canada’s Public Education Advocates for Christian Equity (PEACE), who spent most of his career in public education, said the same-sex marriage law had an immediate effect on Canadian schools:

“Experience shows that whenever homosexual marriage becomes law, children will be exposed to an increasingly sexualized curriculum and school environment at an early age, as early as kindergarten.”

In Canada the radicals have sought to lower the age of consent to 14 years old for anal intercourse. What does this have to do with homosexual marriage?

Pastor Steve Boissoin was dragged through a seven-year process by the Human Rights Commission and found guilty. What was his crime? He wrote a letter to an editor of a local newspaper over his concern about the homosexual agenda in schools.

In America

Along with the Supreme Court upholding the Boy Scouts long-standing policy to ban homosexuals in 2000, thirty-two states have voted down homosexual marriage. America is clearly winning the battle. However, through the guise of “diversity” and “love,” criminals working behind the scenes mean to shut down the church, destroy the family and make your children a prey. This, my friends, is ungodly and un-American.

It would be wise of Americans to heed Canada’s warnings.

Who is Bradlee Dean?

Who is Bradlee Dean?

 

---

Bradlee Dean exposes anti-gun mayors who are found out to be criminals. Dean then parallels today’s gun-grabbers with dictators in history who promised their citizens protection and freedom under the guise of gun control.

Bradlee Dean is an ordained preacher, heavy metal drummer, talk-show host of the Sons of Liberty Radio, and speaks on college and high school campuses with his ministry, You Can Run But You Cannot Hide International.

Contact information for Bradlee Dean

Twitter@BradleeDean1

Facebook:

E-Mail: Jake@sonsoflibertymedia.com

---

If They Come For Your Guns, Do You Have A Responsibility To Fight?

January 14, 2013 by Tim Brown

Gun control is the issue before the people of America today and I’ve written many articles on the topic. While some have said this is a distraction from things like Benghazi and Fast and Furious, I have not lost sight of those things. In fact, I just wrote on Benghazi on Saturday. As information is gained on those issues I try to keep up, just remember I’m only human. With that in mind, I came across a most excellent writing byDean Garrison at D.C. Clothesline and wanted to share it with you. I think those of you in my audience will appreciate this immensely. Mr. Garrison has given Freedom Outpost permission to republish the article in full. I welcome your comments.

I feel a tremendous responsibility to write this article though I am a little apprehensive. Thinking about the possibility of rising up against our own government is a frightening thing for many of us. I am not Johnny Rambo and I will be the first to admit that I do not want to die. The reason I feel compelled to write this, however, is simply because I don’t think the average American is equipped with the facts. I feel that a lot of American citizens feel like they have no choice but to surrender their guns if the government comes for them. I blame traditional media sources for this mass brainwash and I carry the responsibility of all small independent bloggers to tell the truth. So my focus today is to lay out your constitutional rights as an American, and let you decide what to do with those rights.

About a month ago I let the “democracy” word slip in a discussion with a fellow blogger. I know better. Americans have been conditioned to use this term. It’s not an accurate term and it never has been a correct term to describe our form of government. The truth is that the United States of America is a constitutional republic. This is similar to a democracy because our representatives are selected by democratic elections, but ultimately our representatives are required to work within the framework of our constitution. In other words, even if 90% of Americans want something that goes against our founding principles, they have no right to call for a violation of constitutional rights.

If you are religious you might choose to think of it this way… Say that members of your congregation decide that mass fornication is a good thing. Do they have the right to change the teachings of your God? The truth is the truth. It doesn’t matter how many people try to stray from it. Did I just compare our founders to God? In a way I did, but please note that I am not trying to insult anyone. For the purpose of the American Government our constitution and founders who wrote it are much like God is to believers. It is the law. It is indisputable.

Our founders did not want a “democracy” for they feared a true democracy was just as dangerous as a monarchy.The founders were highly educated people who were experienced in defending themselves against tyranny. They understood that the constitution could protect the people by limiting the power of anyone to work outside of it much better than a pure system of popularity. A system of checks and balances was set up to help limit corruption of government and also the potential for an “immoral majority” developing within the American People. We have forgotten in this country that we are ultimately ruled by a constitution.

Why is a democracy potentially just as dangerous as a monarchy? Let’s look at something that Benjamin Franklin said because it answers that question more fully and succinctly than I can.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. -Benjamin Franklin

Even 230+ years ago our founders were perceptive enough to realize that democracy was a dangerous form of government. How so? Because the citizens of a country can become just as corrupt as any government. We have seen evidence of this throughout history. Ask Native Americans and African-Americans if this population can become corrupt.

I think in 2012 we are seeing evidence of what Franklin was trying to tell us. Just because a majority of people may support certain ideas it does not mean that those ideas are just. In simple terms, just because most Americans love our president and voted for him, it does not mean that he has the power to go against our constitutional rights.

Next I’d like to review the text of the second amendment. It is very clear. This is the law of this land. So when Senator Feinstein or President Obama talk about taking your guns, you need to think about something. Are they honoring their sworn oath to uphold the constitution?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This is a pretty clear statement. The fact is that it took 232 years for the Supreme Court to even rule on this amendment because it has never been successfully challenged. In 2008 a case of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court ruled thata handgun ban in Washington D.C. was unconstitutional. One also has to take this into consideration. The Supreme Court supports your right to own guns. If you want to research this decision further you can start here.

For those who try to debate the spirit of the 2nd amendment, they are truly no different from people who will try to take Biblical quotes out of context to try to support their immoral decisions. The founders were very clear on the intent of the 2nd amendment. Let me share a few quick quotes here:

The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. -Thomas Jefferson

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good. -George Washington

The Constitution shall never be construed….to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. -Samuel Adams

I could find hundreds of quotes like these. This country was built on the right to bear arms. It was built on the rights of an individual to bear arms, regardless of what his government or neighbor happened to think. This is crystal clear. Ironically the people who voice their opinions against this right have their free speech protected by your guns.Without guns in this country, all other amendments become null and void, simply because “We the People” will lose our power of enforcement.

We need to keep this in mind as our “representatives” try to push gun bans. I don’t care if 99% of people are in support of gun bans (which is far from the case), it is a violation of our constitutional rights, plain and simple.

A constitutional republic protects the rights of the individual even when their ideas are very much in the minority. If I were the only person in America who believed in the 2nd amendment, I would still be within my rights to call upon it. You would all think I was insane and possibly celebrate if I was gunned down, but in the end I would be the only true American among us.

Our framers were very clear on this. If my government comes to take my guns, they are violating one of my constitutional rights that is covered by the 2nd amendment.

It is not my right, at that point, but my responsibility to respond in the name of liberty. What I am telling you is something that many are trying to soft sell, and many others have tried to avoid putting into print, but I am going to say it. The time for speaking in code is over.

If they come for our guns then it is our constitutional right to put them six feet under. You have the right to kill any representative of this government who tries to tread on your liberty. I am thinking about self-defense and not talking about inciting a revolution. Re-read Jefferson’s quote. He talks about a “last resort.” I am not trying to start a Revolt, I am talking about self-defense. If the day for Revolution comes, when no peaceful options exist, we may have to talk about that as well. None of us wants to think about that, but please understand that a majority can not take away your rights as an American citizen. Only you can choose to give up your rights.

Congress could pass gun ban legislation by a 90%+ margin and it just would not matter. I think some people are very unclear on this. This is the reason we have a Supreme Court, and though I do not doubt that the Supreme Court can also become corrupt, in 2008 they got it right. They supported the constitution. It does not matter what the majority supports because America is not a democracy. A constitutional republic protects the rights of every single citizen, no matter what their “elected servants” say. A majority in America only matters when the constitution is not in play.

I just wrote what every believer in the constitution wants to say, and what every constitutional blogger needs to write. The truth of the matter is that this type of speech is viewed as dangerous and radical or subversive, and it could gain me a world of trouble that I do not want. It is also the truth. To make myself clear I will tell you again. If they come for your guns it is your right to use those guns against them and to kill them. You are protected by our constitution.

Most of the articles I am reading on the subject are trying to give you clues without just coming out and saying it. I understand that because certain things in this country will get you on a list that you don’t want to be on. I may well be on that list. This blog is small and growing so I may not be there yet, but I have dreams. I also have my own list of subversives and anyone who attempts to deny my constitutional rights is on that list.

I am not the “subversive” here, it is the political representatives who are threatening to take away my inalienable rights. If they come to take my guns and I leave a few of them wounded or dead, and I somehow survive, I have zero doubt that I will spend a long time in prison and may face an execution. But I would much rather be a political prisoner than a slave.

If I go down fighting then I was not fighting to harm these human beings. I was simply defending my liberty and yours. It is self-defense and it is what our country was built on. We won our freedom in self-defense. We would not be ruled by a tyrannical government in the 1770′s and we will not be ruled in 2012 by a tyrannical government. There is no difference.

This is a case of right and wrong. As of now the 2nd amendment stands. It has never been repealed. If Feinstein or Barack have a problem with the constitution then they should be removed from office. They are not defending the constitution which they have sworn an oath to protect. It is treasonous to say the least. They would likely say the same about me, but I have the constitution, the founders, and the supreme court on my side. They only have their inflated egos.

I am not writing this to incite people. I am writing this in hopes that somehow I can make a tiny difference. I have no idea how many of my neighbors have the will to defend their constitutional rights. 2%? 20%? I am afraid that 20% is a high number, unfortunately. When push comes to shove many people may give up and submit to being ruled. I believe that our government is banking on this.

What I do know is that this country was founded by people who had balls the size of Texas and Patriotic Americans take shit off of no one, especially our own government. For evidence of that, you might research the Revolutionary War. My question is how many Patriots are left?

I would hope that our officials come to realize that, regardless of our numbers, we still exist because they are calling Patriotic Americans to action. They are making us decide if we want to die free or submit to their rule. I can not tell you where you should stand on that. I do know that it may make the difference between living a life of freedom or slavery.

You must start thinking about this because I believe that the day is coming soon and I personally believe it has already been planned. Not all conspiracy theories are hogwash. They may throw down the gauntlet soon and my suggestion is that you prepare yourself to react.

I mean no disrespect to our elected officials but they need to understand that “We the People” will not be disarmed. If they proceed then it is they that are provoking us and we will act accordingly. We are within our rights to do so.

For those who are in support of taking the guns, you need to ask yourself a very important question, and I am not just talking about the politicians, because if you support them, you have chosen your side.

Are you willing to die to take my guns?

Malkin Column: The Blind Sheik and Our Mute President

By Michelle Malkin | January 10, 2013 | 17:24

Egypt’s terror-coddling President Mohamed Morsi has repeated his arrogant demand that America free convicted 1993 World Trade Center mastermind Omar Abdel-Rahman. I’d like to report that President Obama repeated his unequivocal rejection of the Muslim Brotherhood leader’s entreaties. But as of this writing, no such public statement or restatement yet exists.

That’s right. Obama has kept mum about Morsi’s vociferous lobbying on behalf of Abdel-Rahman, the “blind sheik,” who is serving a life sentence at a maximum-security prison in North Carolina for seditious jihad conspiracy. The commander in chief’s silence speaks volumes.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Morsi started publicly haranguing the U.S. to have mercy on the ol’ blind sheik back in September. Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., confirmed to the New York Post at the time that the Egyptian government had “asked for his release” and that the request was being considered by the Obama administration.

Underlings denied any talks were underway, but pressure on the White House had been building since at least last June, when the State Department granted a visa to a member of the radical Egyptian terrorist group Gamaa Islamiyya (the very group the blind sheik is alleged to lead). The Gamaa Islamiyya representative joined an entire delegation of Egyptian lawmakers who met with top State Department and White House officials. They reportedly discussed the possible release of the blind sheik with at least one Obama national security official.

In late August, Gamaa Islamiyya went on to schedule and organize a protest at the Cairo embassy to further ratchet up public pressure to free the blind sheik. Not coincidentally, a terror mob attacked the Cairo embassy on 9/11/12. While Obama minions were busy blaming an obscure YouTube video, the Department of Homeland Security had warned two days before the Cairo attack that jihadists were inciting the “sons of Egypt” to attack the embassy over Abdel-Rahman. “Let your slogan be: No to the American Embassy in Egypt until our detained sheikh is released,” the incitement thundered.

Morsi has now amended his plea to include an array of “humane” benefits and visitation privileges for the murderous Islamic cleric “(b)ecause he is a man, an old man, and he deserves full care.”

Lest you need reminding, the wily blind sheik has used his visitation privileges to wreak more terror from behind bars. His radical left-wing lawyer Lynne Stewart was convicted in 2005 of helping her client smuggle coded messages of Islamic violence from the imprisoned sheik to outside followers in violation of an explicit pledge to abide by her client’s court-ordered isolation.

This “old man” is a virulent anti-American propagandist who condemned Americans as “descendants of apes and pigs who have been feeding from the dining tables of the Zionists, Communists and colonialists,” called on Muslims to “destroy” the West, “burn their companies, eliminate their interests, sink their ships, shoot down their planes, kill them on the sea, air or land,” and issued bloody fatwas against U.S. “infidels” that inspired the 1993 WTC bombing, the 1997 massacre of Western tourists in Luxor, Egypt, and the 9/11 attacks.

As GOP watchdogs call for Obama to keep the blind sheik locked up, we will no doubt hear more slick protestations that the White House has “no plans” to release the terror preacher. But I’m with Andrew McCarthy, the former assistant U.S. attorney who prosecuted Abdel-Rahman, who warned last fall, “There’s no way to believe anything they say.”

This is the administration, after all, that endorsed the release of convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, whose terrorist act resulted in the murder of 189 Americans. The Obama White House feigned “surprise” over the release, but documents obtained by The Sunday Times of London in 2010 revealed that the administration “secretly advised Scottish ministers that it would be ‘far preferable’ to free the Lockerbie bomber than jail him in Libya.”

This is the administration whose attorney general was a senior law partner for Gitmo detainee cheerleaders Covington and Burling.

This is the administration that tried to shove Cirque du Jihad civilian trials in NYC down America’s throat over objections from 9/11 families and national security experts.

This is the administration that has rolled out the red carpet for scores of visitors belonging to groups serving as fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and other militant Islamic outfits.

This is the administration that lied and blamed pretextual Internet movies for its own dereliction of duty at our consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

This is the administration that suffers from chronic and deadly apologitis when it comes to dealing with the demands of the Religion of Perpetual Outrage.

This is the administration that continues to deny plans to shut down Guantanamo Bay and transfer inmates to the U.S., while it quietly moved forward to purchase the Thomson Correctional Center in western Illinois “to provide humane and secure confinement of individuals held under authority of any Act of Congress,” i.e., Gitmo detainees.

Denial is a river that runs through 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., but the Obama administration’s tone-deaf acts of jihad-appeasement speak for themselves. Concern is more than warranted. It’s de rigueur.

Michelle Malkin is the author of “Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks and Cronies” (Regnery 2010). Her e-mail address is malkinblog@gmail.com.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/michelle-malkin/2013/01/10/malkin-column-blind-sheik-and-our-mute-president#ixzz2Hvg6ep6B

Muslim doc whose Nebraska clinic infected patients, killing some, blames Islamophobia, seeks N.Y. license

Posted on December 29, 2012 by creeping

via Doc whose Fremont clinic infected patients with hepatitis seeks N.Y. license to practice – LivewellNebraska.com. h/t Jihad Watch

Dr. Tahir Ali Javed, whose Fremont cancer clinic infected dozens of patients with hepatitis a little more than a decade ago, has applied for reinstatement of his medical license in New York.

Javed, 47, fled to his native Pakistan 10 years ago, when the severity of the hepatitis outbreak became known. His medical license in Nebraska was revoked. He surrendered his New York license.

In Pakistan, Javed became a public health official and reportedly blamed the situation in Nebraska on anti-Muslim sentiment.

Unsanitary practices in the Fremont clinic led to hepatitis C infections in at least 99 patients, several of whom died.

A Fremont-based group called the HONOReform Foundation grew out of the tragedy. It promotes sanitary practices in health care settings. The “One and Only” campaign that it advocates seeks to educate nurses, doctors and others of the importance of using syringes and needles only once.

Javed could not be reached for comment. His Omaha attorney, Michael D. Jones, said he hadn’t had contact with Javed in years.

Antonia Valentine of the New York State Education Department, which rules on restoration of medical licenses, confirmed that Javed has applied for reinstatement.

Valentine said in an email that the application will be investigated and referred to two committees before the New York Board of Regents rules on it. It’s unclear when the ruling will be issued. Valentine declined to provide further information.

Steve Langan, executive director of HONOReform, said, “Sick people were injured, some of them died, and no justice has been done.”

The Nebraska Attorney General’s Office pursued the revocation of Javed’s medical license in 2003. It accused him of unprofessional conduct and gross negligence for allowing staffers to reuse syringes, which contaminated large bags of saline with hepatitis. The saline was used to clean out implanted devices that administer chemotherapy and other medications to cancer patients, infecting patients with hepatitis in the process.

The allegations said Javed had been warned multiple times that his office used unsanitary practices in administering the drugs and continued to allow it.

The Attorney General’s Office also accused him of exploiting a patient to conduct a sexual relationship with her. The attorney general alleged that Javed, a cancer specialist, gave the woman a false diagnosis and told her not to seek treatment elsewhere because other providers would inform her insurance company and she wouldn’t be able to get insurance again.

Documents indicate that Javed admitted to little. The exploitation accusations were dismissed. Javed chose not to contest the case against him and agreed to a settlement in which his Nebraska medical license was revoked in September 2003.

New York records show that Javed surrendered his medical license in that state in 2004, after he chose not to contest the Nebraska allegations.

Travis Bennington, a Fremont attorney who co-wrote a book on the case with one of the victims, Evelyn McKnight, said Javed fled to his native Pakistan before any criminal charges could be filed. McKnight is a co-founder of HONOReform.

Jean Schafersman of Hooper, Neb., whose son was fighting cancer when he was infected with hepatitis from treatment in Javed’s clinic, expressed astonishment over Javed’s New York application.

“How does that work?” she asked.

 

OBAMA’S MEDIA PARROT DEMOLISHED ON CNN

OBAMA’S MEDIA PARROT DEMOLISHED ON CNN

By Cliff Kincaid
December 26, 2012
NewsWithViews.com

A question from ABC’s Jake Tapper asking the President, “Where have you been” on guns and security, is getting some attention in the media. But we have the answer to that. The Obama Administration was sending guns to Mexico and failing to protect our diplomats in such places as Benghazi, Libya. The administration’s record on violence and security is a bad one. There is no doubt that Obama’s policy has made people more vulnerable to violent death.

Tapper, however, seems to be the only reporter wondering why Obama was AWOL on the issue for the last four years. Again, the reason is fairly obvious: Obama didn’t want to take on the NRA, a mass movement of millions of gun owners which exists to defend the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Although as a candidate in 2008 he had spoken disparagingly of people who “cling” to their guns, he didn’t want to make any new enemies before his re-election victory. Now, because of the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, Obama believes he has the opportunity to go on the offensive and crush his political enemies.

The evidence, though, indicates that his new “gun control” plan will make the public even less secure than they already are.

Again, if there are any doubts on this, look at the Fast & Furious gun-running scandal and the cover-up of what really happened at Benghazi. This administration simply can’t be trusted to protect the American people.

It seems strange that Tapper and the rest of the media don’t understand Obama’s agenda. Perhaps they don’t want to accept the obvious.

Speaking at the Sandy Hook Interfaith Prayer Vigil, Obama made it clear that he intends to chip away at the Second Amendment right of self-defense even further. He asked, “Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?” Yet, these children were left defenseless in the face of an onslaught by an evil and deranged person. The freedom that was lost in this exchange was the freedom of self-defense—the right to arm their protectors and guardians and save the lives of these precious little ones.

Obama is counting on the media to do his dirty work—to demonize constitutional conservatives and intimidate them into silence. This seemed to work for a while, as the NRA acted like it was in hiding in the aftermath of the killings. It was as if the NRA was somehow implicated in the killings, a point that MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell was trying to make on the air, without any evidence whatsoever. His rants, however, do not compare to those of Piers Morgan on CNN. He has come across as somebody in need of the sort of psychological help now being talked about for potential crazies.

Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America (GOA) deserves credit for going on the CNN Piers Morgan program on December 18 and calmly and rationally taking the arrogant British host completely apart. The exchange is a classic in terms of Pratt debunking every tired liberal claim about “gun control” and noting that the real solution is more security and putting weapons in the right hands for their deterrent and safety value. Morgan came across as a bully who was confronted and exposed as a stupid coward.

At the school, Pratt noted, the adults and children were “reduced to waiting to be murdered.” It appears that the killer did away with himself only when he realized the police were coming after him. By then, 26 people were dead.

Losing the argument, the British import finally resorted to name calling and insults. But Pratt had the last laugh, ripping Morgan’s “role model,” the Hitler-appeaser and “Peace in Our Time” British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. His point was that you meet force with force, a lesson that Britain, America and the allies realized during World War II.

CNN is getting higher ratings by exploiting the Sandy Hook tragedy and that may be all that Morgan, Soledad O’Brien and the others at CNN are interested in. I usually don’t watch such obvious exploitation for ulterior motives, which apparently include keeping Morgan and O’Brien in their well-paying jobs posing as people who truly care for the children. But the stakes are now so high that a normally little-watched channel like CNN has to be exposed and challenged.

You cannot watch CNN for long, for example, without seeing a reference to “gun violence,” as if the guns shoot themselves. The term, “semiautomatic assault rifle,” is another favorite on the channel. They never define the term “assault rifle,” which apparently refers to rifles that look different than traditional rifles. On the morning show on CNN, “Starting Point with Soledad O’Brien,” the show’s faux conservative and Fox News castoff, Margaret Hoover, sings along with the liberal chorus. This is not news but propaganda and Hoover, supposedly a Republican, should be ashamed for participating in it. She is apparently paid well for making conservatives look bad.

Still, it was immensely worthwhile for a figure like Pratt to go on CNN and demolish their “gun control” arguments. The exchange demonstrates that the facts are not on CNN’s side and that their hosts, when challenged, become rather snotty and suffer a form of nervous breakdown. Pratt was not intimidated in the least.

“You’re an unbelievably stupid man, aren’t you?” Morgan said to Pratt. But Pratt calmly responded, “It seems to me you are morally obtuse. You seem to prefer being a victim to being able to prevail over the criminal element. I don’t know why you want to be the criminal’s friend.”

The CNN transcript of the show is interesting, however. Here is what it shows as the exchange was coming to an end:

MORGAN: …It’s down to idiots like you. Mr. Pratt, thank you for joining me. When we come back –

PRATT: Thank you for your high-level argument, Mr. Morgan. It’s really good.

PRATT: Disarmament is dangerous. (INAUDIBLE) into role model.MORGAN: You know what, you wouldn’t understand the meaning of the phrase high-level argument. You are a dangerous man espousing dangerous nonsense. You shame your country.

The alleged “inaudible” part of the exchange was when Pratt said, “Disarmament is dangerous. Ask Neville Chamberlain, your role model.” It can be heard as the interview was winding down. But CNN, for some reason, didn’t want that final zinger to be on the official transcript. Or perhaps the transcriber didn’t know who Neville Chamberlain was.

© 2012 Cliff Kincaid – All Rights Reserved

Cliff Kincaid, a veteran journalist and media critic, Cliff concentrated in journalism and communications at the University of Toledo, where he graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree.

Cliff has written or co-authored nine books on media and cultural affairs and foreign policy issues. One of Cliff’s books, “Global Bondage: The UN Plan to Rule the World” is still awailable.

Cliff has appeared on Hannity & Colmes, The O’Reilly Factor, Crossfire and has been published in the Washington Post, Washington Times, Chronicles, Human Events and Insight.

Web Site: www.AIM.org

E-Mail: cliff.kincaid@aim.org