Today’s Totalitarianism

20140401_April2014600

FREEMAN April 2014 Edition.

When people go around armed with mobile phones and makeshift shields, what are the powers that be to do? Recent events in Venezuela and Ukraine suggest no status quo is safe when popular movements are networked and determined.

The trouble is, the world has not yet learned to be networked and determined as a permanent alternative to State control. After any revolution, a networked and determined people could be self-governing, though this rarely happens; revolutions remain as likely to usher in something not much better—maybe even worse—than what preceded them. Egypt is currently living out a version of this.

Most people still default to the idea that a more benevolent leviathan is going to make everything okay. And there are always would-be leviathans waiting in the wings. The hope that they’ll be less brutal is just that—hope. After regimes are toppled or swept aside, strongmen, puppet governments, or hostile neighbors are almost always well positioned to take and keep power. Problems return.

Further, when you strip off a dictator like removing a scab, what’s left underneath is often a factionalized people.

In the case of the Ukraine, it appears there’s a Russian-speaking faction that is sympathetic to Putin. There is a Ukrainian nationalist faction that is decidedly not into wearing any more totalitarian yokes, but that flirts with notions of ethnic purity, blood, and soil. There is yet another faction that fancies itself European and thinks the European superstate is the right umbrella. And on and on. Foreign powers may also have helped set a match to the tender—the United States, the EU, and Russia are all prime suspects.

In the case of Venezuela, however, the protests seem to have originated primarily among the young who are tired of shortages and suppressed freedoms that come from the Bolivarian state. CNN reports:

The weeks of protests across Venezuela mark the biggest threat President Nicolas Maduro has faced since his election last year. Demonstrators say they have taken to the streets to protest shortages of goods, high inflation and high crime.

Opposition protesters and government officials have traded blame for the violence for weeks.

The current Venezuelan leader argues that brutal suppression is justified; his charismatic predecessor, Hugo Chavez, thought the same thing. And in the mind of the State, it almost always is:

Think about what the U.S. government would do if a political group laid out a road map for overthrowing President Barack Obama, Maduro said.

“What would happen in the United States if a group said they were going to start something in the United States so that President Obama leaves, resigns, to change the constitutional government of the United States?” Maduro said. “Surely, the state would react, would use all the force that the law gives it to re-establish order and to put those who are against the Constitution where they belong.”

Surely it is a bizarro-world justification in which such regimes appeal to any Constitution in the same breath as President Obama, who thinks of the U.S. Constitution as quaint, brittle toilet tissue. But then again, Maduro is right that the U.S. government has all the power it needs to suppress any serious popular uprising—and, one expects, wouldn’t hesitate to use it.

What about states with determined but unconnected people? North Korea is still squirming along under a totalitarian thumb, as the portly Kim Jong Un takes leads from his father and grandfather, whose advice can be summed up in the dictators’ dictum: “A weak fist wipes away tears.” The highest echelon in Pyongyang reserves its fists for striking down and holding down its people—a determined, but sadly unconnected people. Thus the Hermit Kingdom could stay in penury and subjugation for many more years.

Wherever one lands on the continuum between pacificism and hostile interventionism, it is difficult not to let one’s feelings for oppressed people guide his thoughts away from either pragmatism or principle. And yet we must take care: Meddling in foreign affairs rarely ends up in any sort of postwar stability, liberation, or liberalization. It’s frustrating to see Putin get away with it. And we certainly wouldn’t want to live next to such a regime. But the simple fact that the United States could bomb or sanction Russia into even more suffering by no means guarantees a positive outcome if the United States does. The last 40 years of American military misadventures demonstrate that.

A couple of our readers challenged our publishing sentiments with respect to Ukraine. For example, we lent our pages to an anonymous Ukrainian journalist early on, when few outlets were reporting much of anything at all. Indeed, we got this story out relatively early. While we stand by any peoples longing to be free, we remain uncertain about the extent to which foreign meddlers were involved in the uprising, much less whether such meddling was warranted.

In any case, if The Freeman takes any position on matters like these, we side with peoples against illiberal States, realizing all the while that self-determination can be an imperfect process carried out in a world of opportunistic state actors and Hobbesian calculi. And of course we hope that determined and connected people can learn to do more than throw off power. We hope that someday, they can keep it and lock it away from the totalitarians forever.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is courtesy of FFE and Shutterstock.

Florida Sheriffs Association is anti-Second Amendment

Florida Carry reports, “Thursday March 27th 2014, the Florida Sheriffs Association (FSA) openly testified against Second Amendment rights to the Florida House Judiciary Committee saying, “In our opinion, there is a difference between owning a firearm and carrying one concealed on your person. Owning a firearm is a right; carrying it concealed is a privilege; and it is a privilege that is earned…” In what can only be viewed as contempt and distrust for law-abiding gun owners, the Florida Sheriffs Association went on to say that during an emergency you are “least likely to use a firearm in a safe and responsible manner”. Think about that. The Sheriffs are telling your legislature that when you are under attack by looters and rioters, you should be disarmed because you will be the irrational person in the situation.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/qogTYo4mPuo[/youtube]

The Florida Sheriffs Association was testifying on HB-209 Firearms During Mandatory Evacuations by Representative Heather Fitzenhagen and others.  The final vote on the bill by the House Judiciary Committee was 17-1.  Committee members, all 12 Republicans and 5 of 6 Democrats stood up for Second Amendment rights.

If you want to watch the complete House Judiciary Committee hearing on this bill, along with questions and debate by Legislators who are members of the committee, click here and at the bottom of the screen and in time bar, move it to 1:40:00 to start the hearing on this bill.

According to Florida Carry:

The Sheriff’s Association also told the committee that “there is plenty of time before hurricane season starts to go out and get a concealed weapons permit so you can carry on your person.” This is completely false. Hurricane Season starts June 1st, only 62 days from now. Even if you already have your training certificate, your fingerprinting done, and have the $112.00 in fees ready to spend today, appointments at the regional offices are booked up to six months out and applications by mail are currently taking more than 90 days.

In other words, FSA is saying your Second Amendment right to BEAR arms can only be exercised if you have the time and money to get a license to carry a concealed handgun.

The Sheriffs go on to claim that “Given modern technology, the approach of storms can be predicted days in advance; and the last second flight scenarios are just not realistic.” Anyone who has tracked approaching hurricanes knows this to be false.

A similar law to the one that we are trying to fix was struck down in North Carolina in 2012. The federal court there said:

“[T]he statutes here excessively intrude upon plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights by effectively banning them (and the public at large) from engaging in conduct that is at the very core of the Second Amendment at a time when the need for self-defense may be at its very greatest.” Bateman v. Perdue, No. 5:10-CV-265-H, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47336, (E.D.N.C. Mar. 29, 2012)

In 1987 the Florida Sheriffs Association also opposed concealed carry, saying at the time that citizens should be forced to carry firearms openly so they would be able see who has guns. Once concealed carry passed, they turned around and pushed for the ban on open carry — which was legal until 1987. In 2011 the FSA opposed a bill that would have restored the open carry of handguns.

The fact is that the Florida Sheriff’s Association has opposed every right to bear arms bill that has ever been offered.

While the FSA may have some sympathy for people’s the Right to Keep Arms at home, it is obvious that the group has disdain for the Right to Bear Arms for self-defense. At the same committee hearing, Assistant Adjutant General for the Florida Army National Guard Maj. General Don Tyre spoke in support of the bill that will allow law abiding Floridians to take their guns with them during a mandatory evacuation order without the need for a concealed carry license.

We call on you to contact your local Sheriff and ask if the Florida Sheriff’s Association is representing their values. Is lobbying against the right to bear arms during an emergency how they are honoring the oath that your Sheriff swore to defend the constitution? Does your Sheriff really support the Right to Bear Arms?

RELATED STORY:

Harvard Study: No Correlation Between Gun Control and Less Violent Crime
Florida cops keep spy technology docs secret

California State Senator Leland Yee offered to set up arms deal with Islamic jihadists for $2 million in cash

There is no indication that Leland Yee is a true believer. He just wanted to make a buck. And in this age when Islamic jihadists and supremacists are awash with cash, the temptation can be too much for corrupt and short-sighted Infidels. And he knew what kind of entity he was dealing with: “According to Senator Yee, Mindanao was largely populated by Muslim rebel groups who were fighting the federal government. Yee continued by saying the Muslim rebels had no problem ‘kidnapping individuals, killing individuals, and extorting them for ransom.’” Nor would the Moro Islamic Liberation Front have spared Yee himself, if this deal had gone through and he had then proved useful to them as a hostage or a dead body — despite his services to them.

“The Indictment Against Leland Yee Puts ‘The Wire’s’ Clay Davis to Shame,” by Scott Lucas for San Francisco Magazine, March 26:

If you thought the charges against Leland Yee would be bad, you had no idea. As in, he offered to set up an arms deal with Islamic rebels for $2 million in cash. As in, he makes corrupt politician Clay Davis from The Wire look like George Washington. You can read the whole affidavit here, but it’s really, really long, so we’ve gone ahead and pulled out the highlights. The allegations (and for now they are only that—allegations) are cinematic, staggering, and remarkable in their scope. Here they are, in descending order of sheeeeeeeeeeeit:

Yee told an FBI agent to give him a shopping list of guns: “Senator Yee asked [the agent] to provide an inventory list of desired weapons […] [The agent] told Yee he would deliver $2,000,000 cash.”

Yee could arrange from some serious firepower: “[The agent] asked about shoulder fired automatic weapons. Senator Yee responded by saying the automatic weapons are the equivalent to the “M16″ Automatic Service Weapon […] [The agent] asked about the availability of shoulder fire missiles or rockets. Senator Yee responded ‘I told him about the rockets and things like that.’”

Yee took personal responsibility for delivering the weapons:  ”Senator Yee said, ‘We’re interested’ in arranging the weapons deal […] and said of the arms dealer, ‘He’s going to rely on me, because ultimately it’s going to be me. [The agent] stated he would compensate Yee for brokering the relationship and arms deal.”

Yee was in it for the cash: “Senator Yee said, ‘Do I think we can make some money? I think we can make some money. Do I think we can get the good? I think we can get the goods.’”

Yee masterminded a complex scheme to import illegal weapons: “Keith Jackson [a political consultant who worked as Yee’s fundraiser] told [an agent] that Senator Yee had a contact who deals in arms trafficking. This purported arms dealer was later identified. Jackson requested [a campaign donation] on behalf of Senator Yee, for Senator Yee to facilitate a meeting with arms dealer with the intent of [the agent] to purportedly purchase a large number of weapons to be imported through the Port of Newark, New Jersey. During a meeting […] Senator Yee discussed certain details of the specific types of weapons [the agent] was interested in buying and importing.”

Yee had connection with Filipino rebel groups: ”Keith Jackson advised that Senator Yee had an unidentified Filipino associate who was supplying ‘heavy’ weapons to rebel groups in the Philippines.”

Including Muslim terrorists: “According to Senator Yee, Mindanao was largely population by Muslim rebel groups who were fighting the federal government. Yee continued by saying the Muslim rebels had no problem ‘kidnapping individuals, killing individuals, and extorting them for ransom.”

In specific the Moro Islamic Liberation Front: “[The agent] asked about the major Muslim organizations in the Mindanao region of the Philippines. Senator Yee responded by saying ‘M.I.L.F.’”

Yee allegedly wasn’t making up the identity of his arms dealer: “This purported arms dealer was later identified.”

And, Russian arms dealers: “According to Senator Yee, the arms dealer source the weapons from Russia.”

Yee knew he was on the wrong side of the law: “Despite complaining about [the agent’s] tendency to speak frankly and tie payment to performance […] Senator Yee and Keith Jackson […] never walked away from quid pro quo requests.”…

Yee yearned for a different life: “Senator Yee stated he was unhappy with his life and said, ‘There is a part of me that wants to be like you […] Just be a free agent out there.” Senator Yee told [the agent] that he wanted to hide out in the Philippines.”

RELATED STORY: FBI Arrests Anti-Gun California Senator on Firearm Trafficking Charges

Wildlife is Thriving Because of Guns and Hunting

Since the late 1930s, hunters, target shooters and the firearms industry have been the nation’s largest contributors to conservation, paying for programs that benefit America’s wildlife and all who love the outdoors.

In fact, the U.S. Department of Interior just announced that firearms and ammunition manufacturers contributed a record $760.9 million in excise taxes in 2013 through the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Program.

National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) has created the below infographic, “How Wildlife is Thriving Because of Guns and Hunting,” to illustrate how “we as an industry and as sportsmen are the greatest contributors to wildlife conservation in America, providing nearly $9 billion over the past 76 years.”

HowWildlifeisThrivingBecauseofGuns_533323d3aa357_w1500

The Plan for Police Nullification

“I [sic] give my left n** to bang down your door and come for your gun,” said the cop. This statement, made by Branford, Ct., police officer Joseph Peterson in a Facebook conversation earlier this month, created quite a blogosphere firestorm. Internet commenters from Sacramento to Saratoga struck a note of defiance and e-shouted the ancient words of Spartan King Leonidas, “Molon labe!” On the other side there’s Ct. governor Dannel Malloy (D), who said to a gun owner at a March 13 town-hall meeting that the anti-Second Amendment set won and “you lost.” But it occurs to me that in-your-face actions can go both ways.

Pondering this brings to mind yet another type of response to the (anti) Constitution State door-banger: from law-enforcement officers (LEOs) vowing not to enforce unconstitutional gun laws. One of them, a retired career detective responding to Officer Peterson’s statement that his job is only to enforce the law — and that he must do so no matter what form it takes — called Peterson a “fool” and wrote, “Part of the filtering process in criminal justice IS the police choosing whether or not to enforce a law at a particular point in time on a particular person.” This gets at an important point: the “good soldier” cop argument is bunk. No LEO tickets everyone driving 31 in a 30 zone, many laws are on the books but not enforced at all, and no moral cop would obey a command to round up all members of a certain ethnic group for extermination. Police use discretion all the time.

And, if our constitutional rights are to be secure, we need fewer Officer Petersons in the world and more, let’s say, Sheriff Joe Arpaio. We don’t need good-soldier cops — we need good-citizen cops.

The solution to this problem lies in the LEO selection process. If your area is electing a sheriff, there must be an explicit litmus test:

  • Will you protect constitutional rights?
  • And will you disobey unconstitutional orders, no matter their origin?

Any waffling or hesitation should disqualify the candidate. We need LEOs who won’t just yes us to death, for electoral ambitions have a way of greasing the tongue. We need LEOs who are passionate about the issue, stout-hearted cultural and constitutional warriors. And while we can’t read minds, remember this: if you want to know what a person wants you to believe he believes, listen to what he says. If you want to know what he really believes, listen to how he says it. While some people are A-list actors, it’s hard to fake true passion.

But even this isn’t enough. The candidate must also agree to incorporate as part of regular deputy training a comprehensive course on the U.S. Constitution. This course must reflect what is called a strict “originalist” view of the document, but what is really just the only lawful, correct view. (It would be silly to call someone who follows the rules of poker an originalist and someone who doesn’t a “pragmatist.” The latter is called a cheater.) It must emphasize that an unconstitutional law is no law at all.

This brings us to something else Gov. Malloy said to the gun owner at the town hall: “[W]e have courts. Courts are where the constitutionality of things are [sic] decided.”

Actually, no, they’re not.

Courts are where the courts’ position on constitutionality is decided.

As for actual constitutionality, that’s an objective reality that cannot be changed by cheaters who rationalize that rules can be “living” (which is convenient when you‘ve assumed the power of life and death over them).

And “assumed” is the operative word. Nothing in the Constitution grants the courts the power to be the ultimate arbiter of the document’s meaning. So who did grant the courts this power?

The courts themselves!

Chief Justice John Marshall took it upon himself to assert this right in the 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision. This started the transition from the rule of law to the rule of lawyers.

This is why the LEO Constitution course must also incorporate Thomas Jefferson’s correct position on the courts’ role. Our third president wrote in 1819 that he denied “the right they [the courts] usurp of exclusively explaining the constitution…,” saying that if that right became status quo, “then indeed is our constitution a complete felo de se.” That’s Latin, of course.

It means “suicide pact.”

And no American has an obligation to be party to a suicide pact.

Jefferson went on to explain, “For intending to establish three departments, co-ordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this [judicial review] opinion, to one of them alone, the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one too, which is unelected by, and independent of the nation.” Quite right. And if the courts can unilaterally decide that they have ultimate-arbiter power, guess what?

We can unilaterally decide they don’t.

Yes, in-your-face actions can go both ways.

As for law enforcement, what if you can’t vote for your head LEO because you live in a city in which the mayor appoints a police chief? Then the litmus test a sheriff would have to pass must be applied to a mayoral candidate. If he’s a Bolshevik Bill unwilling to appoint a Constitution-loving-and-fearing chief who will institute the aforementioned Constitution course, tell him sorry, but only true Americans need apply.

As first responders, LEOs can also be first persecutors or first protectors. What they actually will be is up to us.

RELATED STORY: Rep. Keith Ellison: I Wish Democrats Would Come Out Against the Second Amendment

Dial “D” for Murder: Democrat controlled U.S. cities as bad as deadliest 3rd World countries

In 2013 World Net Daily reported, “Those pushing President Obama’s gun-control agenda often portray the United States as one of the murder hot spots of the world, but the numbers tell a different story. Even more revealing, gun murders in the U.S. are concentrated in big cities that typically have the strictest gun-control regulations. And it is those cities’ gun murder rates that are comparable to the rates in some of the deadliest countries in the world.”

[youtube]http://youtu.be/g_D2DFY3_5A[/youtube]

Richard Florida from The Atlantic reported, “A number of U.S. cities have gun homicide rates in line with the most deadly nations in the world.”

  • If it were a country, New Orleans (with a rate 62.1 gun murders per 100,000 people) would rank second in the world.
  • Detroit’s gun homicide rate (35.9) is just a bit less than El Salvador (39.9).
  • Baltimore’s rate (29.7) is not too far off that of Guatemala (34.8).
  • Gun murder in Newark (25.4) and Miami (23.7) is comparable to Colombia (27.1).
  • Washington D.C. (19) has a higher rate of gun homicide than Brazil (18.1).
  • Atlanta’s rate (17.2) is about the same as South Africa (17).
  • Cleveland (17.4) has a higher rate than the Dominican Republic (16.3).
  • Gun murder in Buffalo (16.5) is similar to Panama (16.2).
  • Houston’s rate (12.9) is slightly higher than Ecuador’s (12.7).
  • Gun homicide in Chicago (11.6) is similar to Guyana (11.5).
  • Phoenix’s rate (10.6) is slightly higher than Mexico (10).
  • Los Angeles (9.2) is comparable to the Philippines (8.9).
  • Boston rate (6.2) is higher than Nicaragua (5.9).
  • New York, where gun murders have declined to just four per 100,000, is still higher than Argentina (3).
  • Even the cities with the lowest homicide rates by American standards, like San Jose and Austin, compare to Albania and Cambodia respectively.

“Yes, it’s true we are comparing American cities to nations. But most of these countries here have relatively small populations, in many cases comparable to large U.S. metros,” notes Florida.

There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: Soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

The relentless attacks on the right of citizens to keep and bear arms continue. However, even the often misguided Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has found restrictions on the right of citizens to carry arms in public places unconstitutional. The title for this column was a comment posted by CrookShanks on the Daily KOS website.

The Hawaii Free Press Reports:

Hawaii restrictions on gun carrying (essentially) held unconstitutional–for now

Volokh: The case is Baker v. Kealoha (9th Cir. Mar. 20, 2014), and it’s unsurprising: The same Ninth Circuit panel struck down the California restrictions on gun carrying last month in Peruta v. County of San Diego, and the Hawaii restrictions are in important respects similar to the California ones — both basically bar people from having guns to defend themselves in public places (unless they have licenses that can be issued or not at the discretion of local law enforcement, and that are in many places very hard to get). The Baker decision says that it “remand[s] for further proceedings consistent with Peruta, but the writing is on the wall….

read … The Washington Post

Daily KOS Readers Support Second Amendment

DK: Shall issue concealed carry looks like it might be on its way in the Aloha State. I might be jumping the gun a bit when I say the list of may/no issue states continues to shrink but considering the recent trends in regards to concealed carry, I think it’s a safe bet.

What would shall issue in Hawaii look like? Anyone have any theories? Reciprocity?

I look forward to the comments.

read … Read the Comments — They’re positive

RELATED VIDEO: Baristas Now Carry Guns at Spokane, WA Coffee Shop

[youtube]http://youtu.be/0U1EzKS3ItM[/youtube]

RELATED STORY: Workbook teaches kids that Second Amendment includes gun control

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of the Assault Prevention blog.

America Spirals Down the Socialist Sinkhole

America for its first century and a quarter was home to a capitalist system and philosophy that took it from a largely agricultural economy to one that saw the rise of its vast industrial base. In 1913 that changed with the creation of the Federal Reserve, a banking cartel, and the introduction of income taxes. It was a time that gave rise to socialist ideas focused on a central government that controls all aspects of the economy and the lives of citizens.

In 1917 the Bolsheviks seized control of Russia and began implementing Karl Marx’s and Vladimir Lenin’s Communism. That lasted about seventy years until the Soviet Union collapsed for the simple reason that neither Communism nor its cousin, Socialism, works. Freedom and justice go hand-in-hand with successful economies.

Even Communist China seeks to operate with a capitalist economy, participating in international trade organizations, and a banking system that supports business and industry. It retains political control. What we have been witnessing over the last century and this one is the assertion of more and more federal control by our own government.

In Venezuela, its citizens are in the streets protesting its Communist government. In the Ukraine, elements of its citizenry overthrew a president who preferred to ally with Russia than the European Union.

As an advisor to the free market think tank, The Heartland Institute, I receive their publications and visit their website for a great treasure of timely, pertinent information about trends and events in the nation. I recently received its quarterly report that led off with a commentary by its president, Joseph Bast, with whom I have been a friend for many years.

Drawing on a quote by Ronald Reagan who warned against “the anthill of socialism” Bast took a look at the Obama years with devastating accuracy for they are in so many ways a reflection of what is so wrong about socialism.

“Attacks on basic American freedoms are occurring at such a frantic pace and in such disparate arenas that it is easy to lose sight of the bigger picture,” wrote Bast, pointing to the 2013 State of the Union speech by Barack Obama. “His top priorities were overhauling immigration laws, passing new gun-control legislation, expanding early childhood education, and raising the minimum wage.”

With surgical analysis, Bast dissected Obama’s policy objectives.

“Illegal immigration is down dramatically since the Great Recession started.”

“Gun-control laws don’t reduce crime, but armed citizens do.”

“Early childhood education programs don’t produce benefits that last more than a year or so.”

“And only six percent of the population is paid the minimum wage, and the overwhelming majority move quickly to better-paying jobs.”

It is Obama’s communist ideology that prompted these and other actions. It is his immersion in Chicago politics that has corrupted the Internal Revenue Service. It is his weakness regarding American exceptionalism that has caused him to back away from global leadership. It is his bashing of “millionaires and billionaires” that reflects his belief in “income inequality” when everyone wants to join their numbers and many do. The disaster of Obamacare reflects his desire to expand government control of the nation’s health system and reduction of the health insurance industry to a handful of selected companies.

“Why not propose pro-jobs policies like removing unnecessary regulations and taxes—like the highest corporate income taxes in the world—to improve the business climate?” asks Bast. “Why not support pro-consumer health care reform, like replacing the tax exclusion for employer-provided health insurance with an individual tax credit that rewards people for being smart consumers of health care without rationing and without erecting a massive bureaucracy?”

Clearly Americans have taken notice of an economy that has not emerged from the 2008 financial crisis. They have seen how horrid Obamacare is, losing health care insurance plans they liked and being denied their patient relationship with physicians of their choosing, all while driving up their costs.

“Obama and the folks around him are trying to create a new economy that looks a lot like the ones liberals in the 1960s and 1970s imagined: lots of central planning, income redistribution, the illusion of world peace, and windmills.”

“Achieving this transformation requires destroying existing institutions in finance, health care, energy, and education.”  That’s what Communism/Socialism does.

The danger of what Obama is doing is becoming obvious to a growing body of Americans, though not yet enough to curb and reverse it; those who prefer the welfare programs and those whose liberal indoctrination and addiction prevents them from seeing what so many others do.

“The national government and its sycophants in the mainstream media tell us everything is going great, but the truth apparent all around us is nearly exactly the opposite.”

“We can search for and report the truth, talk to our friends and neighbors, and make sure they know what is at stake in November,” wrote Bast.

A good place to start is the Heartland website. The next thing to do is vote in the midterm elections to eliminate those in Congress who are part of the destruction and to replace them with those who want to put a stop to it.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

Black conservative leaders: NRA created to protect freed slaves

A year ago Black conservative leaders discussed how the NRA was created to protect freed slaves. These Black conservative leaders discuss the reason the NRA was founded and how gun control is an effort to control people. This is the full version of that discussion:

[youtube]http://youtu.be/jKMi023Ofro[/youtube]

 

The Center for Urban Renewal and Education (CURE) hosted a group of prominent figures from the African American community at 9:45 a.m. on Friday, February 22nd [2013] at the National Press Club to speak out against gun control legislation currently being considered on Capitol Hill.

CURE is the largest black conservative think tank in the nation and is headquartered in Washington, D.C.

CURE organized the news conference in response to concerns shared by black conservatives that the Senate proposed laws will restrict their ability to defend themselves, their property and their families. They are also concerned that the proposed gun control legislation puts too much power in the hands of politicians.

“I believe that it is our duty to stand together and challenge the proposals currently on the table in the Senate, which invoke painful memories of Jim Crow laws and black codes,” said CURE president and founder, Star Parker. “Black history is rife with government demands for background checks in order to qualify for constitutional rights. All Americans should be concerned.”

Star Parker, a nationally syndicated columnist and other noted thought leaders, authors and speakers will make the case against the type of gun control measures President Obama and his liberal allies are proposing. While the group believes that Sandy Hook was a national tragedy, they oppose its use as an opportunity to advance government control and strip any American citizens of their constitutional rights. In the middle of Black History Month, CURE is calling for a serious national dialogue about the impact of gun control on the black community.

“We want to inform United States senators that we will be notifying urban pastors, business leaders and other black voters of their legislators’ position on the Second Amendment—especially blue senators in red states currently up for re-election.” The news conference is to rally behind the tradition of former slave and great American orator Frederick Douglass who said, “A man’s rights rest in three boxes: the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.”

DAFR fights for the inalienable firearms rights of responsible disabled Americans. Disabled Americans have unique needs when exercising their 2nd Amendment rights. The mission of DAFR is intertwined within five basic areas of focus.

These areas consist of:

1. The introduction of firearms for self-defense to disabled Americans.
2. Shooting sports program and organized competition for disabled Americans and wounded veterans.
3. Oversee firearms legislation and research their impact on Americans with disabilities.
4. Offer assistance to responsible disabled Americans in order to exercise their 2nd Amendment right.
5. Educating the public and elected officials about how disabled American firearms owners have unique needs that must be met when exercising their 2nd Amendment right.

We have also become concerned with recent legislation that is proposed throughout the United States in reaction to the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut. With that, our organization has taken a clear stand on various bills, public acts and proposed laws that we deem would be disadvantageous to responsible disabled firearms owners. DAFR intends to shed light on the fact that many Disabled Americans can only use certain types of firearms such as the highly adaptable AR 15 rifle platform. A ban or other serious restrictions on the AR 15 rifle as well as certain other firearms will have an adverse effect on the rights of thousands of disabled Americans.

RELATED LINKS:

http://www.dafr.org

http://www.facebook.com/DAFRUSA

http://www.twitter.com/DAFRUSA

Disabled Americans for Firearms Rights: http://www.dafr.org.

List of Florida’s anti-gun mayors released

The grassroots Florida TEA Party (FTP) has released a list of Florida mayors who are anti-Second Amendment.

In an email FTP states, “It’s getting pretty crazy out there. With so many states attempting to pass legislation to limit and/or eradicate the gun rights granted by the United States Constitution to its citizens, the Second Amendment Coalition of Florida thinks you should know who some of the offenders in Florida are.”

Here are your Florida Mayors Against Gun Rights:

Susan Gottlieb
Aventura
Jean Rosenfield
Bal Harbour
David Coviello
Biscayne Park
Barbara Sharief
Broward County
Greg Ross
Cooper City
James Cason
Coral Gables
Judy Paul
Davie
Cary Glickstein
Delray Beach
Walter B. Duke
Dania Beach
Bruce Mount
Eatonville
Daisy Black
El Portal
John P. “Jack” Seiler
Ft. Lauderdale
Glenn Singer
Golden Beach
Charles Sanders
Greenwood
Samuel Henderson
Gulfport
Joy Cooper
Hallandale Beach
Peter Bober
Hollywood
Ken Schultz
Hypoluxo
Patricia Gerard
Largo
Barrington Russell
Lauderdale Lakes
Richard J. Kaplan
Lauderhill
Howard Schieferdecker
Maitland
Tomás Regalado
Miami
Carlos Gimenez
Miami Dade County
Oliver G. Gilbert
Miami Gardens
Lori C. Moseley
Miramar
Connie Leon-Kreps
North Bay Village
Jack Brady
North Lauderdale
Lucie M. Tondreau
North Miami
Douglas A. Gibson
Oak Hill
John Adornato
Oakland Park
Myra Taylor
Opa-Locka
Buddy Dyer
Orlando
 
Shelley Stanczyk
Palmetto Bay
Frank C. Ortis
Pembroke Pines
Cindy Lerner
Pinecrest
Diane Veltri Bendekovic
Plantation
Thomas A. Masters
Riviera Beach
Philip K. Stoddard
South Miami
Rick Kriseman
St. Petersberg
Norman Edelcup
Sunny Isles Beach
Michael J. Ryan
Sunrise
Daniel Dietch
Surfside
John Marks
Tallahassee
Jeri Muoio
West Palm Beach
Eric H. Jones
West Park
Daniel J. Stermer
Weston
Gary Resnick
Wilton Manors
To learn more visit FLORIDA TEA PARTY – The Grassroots Florida Tea Party at: http://floridateaparty.ning.com/?xg_source=msg_mes_network

Going Outlaw – It’s not necessarily a bad thing!

If a tyrannical government passes laws we cannot obey, we will be outlaws. But that is not necessarily a bad thing.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/Y_DLqmnoYGA[/youtube]

Facebook event calls for execution of Operation American Spring organizer

On Saturday, a complaint was filed with the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center against Colorado resident Nathaniel C. Marshall over a Facebook event calling for the execution of Col. Harry Riley, the retired officer heading up Operation American Spring, a protest movement that seeks to remove President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden from power, along with congressional leaders of both parties, Col. Riley said in an exclusive interview.

The now-defunct event, titled “Operation American Spring Target: Citizens arrest trial and execution of Harry Riley,” had a total of four attendees, according to a photograph provided to Examiner. The photo also indicates Marshall allegedly established the event.

We reached out to all four individuals listed on the event page. Three said they never heard of the event, but Marshall did not respond.

Instead, he set up a petition at Change.org accusing Col. Riley of treason and demanding he, along with other organizers, be indicted for treason and given the death penalty.

“Colonel Harry Riley is committing treason,” the petition says. “His top Operation American Spring aides and he are organizing a coup to be held on May 16, 2014 in Washington DC. This is blatant treason and sedition and needs to be not just addressed but we need indictments and the death penalty!”

As of this writing, five people have signed the petition. The petition does not display the names of those who have signed.

An OAS volunteer who asked to remain anonymous told Examiner Marshall has caused problems before and was booted off the site.

Further research shows that a person by the same name with the same physical features was arrested in 2011 on charges of criminal impersonation and a computer crime in connection with a Craigslist scam involving a condominium.

“On March 17, 9NEWS spoke to Boris Umanskiy who tried to rent a Steamboat Springs condo the weekend of March 12. Umanskiy said he found a Craigslist ad from Marshall offering a condo in The Antlers,” Channel 9 News reported.

Christina Dickinson added:

Umanskiy said his friends paid Marshall $250 for the place, but they arrived at the condo and they learned it wasn’t for rent; it was for sale.

Marshall agreed to cooperate with investigators and promised to help identify victims who’ve not come forward so they can get their money back.Accord

According to the report, Marshall allegedly needed the money to help pay for medical bills.

Having served over 34 years in the military, Col. Riley is no stranger to danger, having received the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Defense Meritorious Service Medal and a number of other decorations for his service.

The adversaries he faced in the military, he said, were soldiers worthy of respect.

But, he added, the individuals engaging in these attacks are something else.

“It’s quite amazing to me that a man, who I assume is a United States citizen, views any other citizen that wishes to exercise his/her constitutional rights of free speech, assembly in a non-violent, peaceful, unarmed status, challenging elected leadership, is an act of treason,” Col. Riley said in a statement to Examiner. “Leadership in the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches have all violated their oath, and numerous examples of constitutional violation. Lawlessness abounds in Washington, D.C., individuals must be held accountable for unconstitutional and lawless behavior.”

Read more. 

Col. Riley said in an online interview Wednesday his protest has grown to about 1.8 million participants. That interview can be heard here:

Joe Newby – (Interview Only) with Col. Riley On Operation American Spring 2.19.2014 by Uncle Sam’s Misguided Children on Mixcloud

RELATED COLUMN: Americans rising up against government – USA Today

Amnesty, legalizing marijuana and gun control: Creating a “cartel of death” in America

There has been much discussion about amnesty for illegal aliens in Congress. Democrats, led by President Obama, want amnesty at all cost. I recently had a conversation with Kelly Kirshner, the former Mayor of Sarasota, FL. He is planning a demonstration to promote “immigration reform”, which is code for amnesty. Kirshner believes he is doing good, when in fact he is promoting policies that will bring violence to America.

Dr. Lawrence W. Reed from the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, created the Seven Principles of Sound Public Policy. Reed’s third principle states: Sound [public] policy requires that we consider long-run effects and all people, not simply short-run effects and a few people.

Amnesty (immigration reform) is inextricably linked to efforts to legalize drugs and control gun ownership in America. These three movements are joined at the hip and will, in the long term, lead to a “cartel of death” in America. By not taking into account the long-run effects and all people these policies will wreak havoc on our society, especially our youngest and most vulnerable.

Mexican_drug_cartels_2008

The major Mexican drug cartels. For a larger view click on the map.

Many have documented how our borders are not secure. Dennis Michael Lynch in his documentary “They Come To America” focuses on the land border between the United States and Mexico. Many ignore the border states along the Gulf of Mexico. Drug cartels, like the Gulf Cartel, use these porous borders to come to America transporting not only illegal aliens but also drugs and the certain violence that is part and parcel of the drug business.

There is a push by Libertarians, Democrats and some Republicans to legalize medical marijuana. This effort is only the first step, like in Colorado, to the full legalization of marijuana, like in Florida. By legalizing marijuana you legalize the cartels and the culture of death that comes with them and their drugs. President Obama gave banks permission to do business with marijuana distributors.

Sheila Polk in her op-ed column “Legalized marijuana: Colorado kids are paying the price” writes:

On Jan. 1, Colorado opened its doors to this nation’s first legal sale of recreational marijuana. Lost in the buzz is the documented impact of legal marijuana on Colorado children.

The reality about today’s marijuana, an addictive substance whose average potency has dramatically increased from 3 percent THC in the 1990s to almost 15 percent, should change everything that people think they know about the drug.

[ … ]

Past 30-day use of marijuana by teens 12 to 17 is highest in medical-marijuana states. In Denver between 2004 and 2010, past 30-day users of marijuana ages 12 and up increased 4.3 percent, while the increase for the nation was 0.05 percent.

By 2010, past 30-day use for this age group was 12.2 percent, compared to 6.6 percent for the country. One in six kids who start using marijuana becomes addicted.

Read more.

The below video is by the National Rifle Association. It is a different approach for the NRA in that it links the violence and the effort to demonize guns by President Obama, Michael Bloomberg, candidate for Florida governor Charlie Crist and others. We now know due to the work of bloggers and authors like Katie Pavlich, that these guns were provided by our own government in an operation named “Fast and Furious.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABCDEFGH[/youtube]

Polk concludes with:

What can Arizona learn from this?

Lesson Number 1: We should not rush to experiment with an entire generation of our young people by legalizing marijuana. Use of marijuana by Arizona’s 8th, 10th and 12th graders has already increased by 14.4 percent from 2008 to 2012.

Lesson Number 2: We must build an environment in which every child can learn and thrive. That must include funding public education to heighten awareness about the harms of marijuana. Every child can succeed when adults believe in them and create safe communities for them.

Marijuana is never part of that equation.

A wise warning indeed. Drugs, children, violence and guns make for a toxic combination.

EDITORS NOTE: Sheila Polk is the Yavapai County Attorney and co-chair of MATFORCE, the Yavapai County Substance Abuse Coalition. The featured image is courtesy of  activist Thomas Good, who is in costume – “recruiting” for the military as the Grim Reaper, October 2007. The photograph was taken by the subject’s 14-year-old son, Nathaniel Good. In March of 2007 the photo was reprinted as the cover shot on “Peacework” magazine, a publication of the American Friends Service Committee.

RELATED COLUMN: Swiss model helps curb heroin addiction | FLORIDA TODAY | floridatoday.com

Straight-faced man makes epic mockery of city council over gun ban

Tom Tillison from BizPac Review reports, “Some Oregon elected officials considering a ban on loaded guns in public were mocked mercilessly for the proposal. An Ashland, Ore., resident on Monday [February 3rd] used ‘satire to point out the idiocy of the proposed ordinance’ to City Council members, according to a video posted by Guns Save Lives. Oregon is an open-carry state, which means no license is required unless carrying a concealed firearm.”

[youtube]http://youtu.be/ixhsuB6xMR8[/youtube]

Read more.

Florida NRA spokeswoman confuses the issues on HB 733 gun legislation

The Florida Citizens Alliance in a press release notes confusion on  legislation put forth by Representative Dane Eagle (R- FL District 77). Rep. Eagle’s (pictured) bill is House Bill 733.

In an email FCA states:

January 30, 2014 Ms. Marion Hammer, spokeswoman for the Florida NRA released the following statement about the recent House Bill 733 filed by Florida Representative Dane Eagle to protect Floridian’s 2nd Amendment rights:

“HB-733 is NOT an NRA bill and, at this time, we have taken no position on the bill. We have grave concerns about the effect of the bill — whether the consequences are intended or unintended.

Of primary concern is the effect the bill would have on positive pro gun legislation that NRA has worked hard to pass in the past and hopes to pass in the future. The bill does not differentiate between positive pro gun legislation and restrictive gun control laws that negatively effect Second Amendment rights”

Amazingly, she leaves just one question for all Florida Citizens to ask and she makes the decision for all Florida Legislators very easy! “Ms. Hammer, what part of the … right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.[period] …do you not understand?” The federal government has NO Constitutional POWER or right to make good or bad 2nd Amendment legislation. This is a power reserved to the “states and the people” based on Article 1, Sec. 8, the 2nd Amendment, the 9th Amendment and the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution. The US Constitution is NOT an a la carte menu and every Florida legislator swore an oath to protect and preserve it in its entirety!

Ms. Hammer is not only fear mongering and using intimidation, but she offers an unconstitutional view that the Feds have the power to make good or bad gun legislation. As a result, she gives Florida Legislators a very simple choice—Violate your Oath of Office by accepting Ms. Hammer’s fear mongering and her unconstitutional view of federal powers OR honor your Oath of Office and support FL HB 733 to protect Floridians.

Ten States have recently used the 2nd Amendment Preservation approach to protect their Citizens from Federal Overreach on the 2nd Amendment. The recent unconstitutional Presidential Executive Orders that infringe the 2nd Amendment, and the rampant and accelerating threats to initiate federal gun registration by the President and members of Congress, drive us to demand that our Florida Legislators use every Constitutional means to protect our right to keep and bear arms!

The National Association for Gun Rights and the Gun Owners of America strongly support using all of the Constitution to protect your right to keep and bear arms! Why does the NRA seems bent on protecting its turf while risking our 2nd Amendment Rights?

Link to HB733: http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=51848