The Ten Most Dangerous Jobs In The U.S...

I have the greatest respect for law enforcement, but as this graphic shows, it is far from the most dangerous job in the country - which begs the question: why, exactly, are we arming them like military units?

Provided by | Author: David Adelman | Visit our Twitter

Michigan Governor Exempted From Freedom of Information Act - An Open Letter….

Members of the Michigan Senate and House of Representatives:

A May 11, 2014 report by WZZM regarding gifts received by the governor (“Gov. Snyder receives over 1,100 gifts since 2011,” Governor Snyder accepts 1,110 gifts since 2011) noted that the governor’s office is exempted from Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)- something that comes as a bit of a surprise for most people.

The governor, like all other officials elected by the people of the State of Michigan, is supposed to be accountable to the electorate, yet MCL 15.232(d)(i) removes that accountability by specifically exempting the governor, the lt. governor, and their employees from compliance with the FOIA:

“(i) A state officer, employee, agency, department, division, bureau, board, commission, council, authority, or other body in the executive branch of the state government, but does not include the governor or lieutenant governor, the executive office of the governor or lieutenant governor, or employees thereof.”

The FOIA makes ample provision to protect certain kinds of information from disclosure, and both the Michigan Senate and House of Representatives are governed by the FOIA; there is no compelling reason why the governor, lt. governor, and their respective employees should be exempted from this expectation of transparency.

Therefore, I propose the following change to MCL 15.232(d)(i):

“(i) A state officer, employee, agency, department, division, bureau, board, commission, council, authority, or other body in the executive branch of the state government, but does not include the governor or lieutenant governor, the executive office of the governor or lieutenant governor, or employees thereof.”  

We have been promised transparency time and again by our elected officials.  It is time to make that a reality.

Bloomberg News is ANGRY! Armed Detroit Citizens Are Having An Effect On Crime!

An article appearing in Bloomberg News accuses Detroiters of resorting to "gunning down burglars." The article acknowledges that the Detroit police force has shrunk significantly, doesn't have either the money or equipment to do their jobs, and responses to calls for help can take over an hour.

What really gets them, though, is this:

"Such headline-grabbing incidents belie a 25 percent drop in crime during the first three months of this year compared with the same period a year ago, according to police. Homicides fell to 45 from 68...

More than 29,000 Detroiters are legally armed and more are packing every day. The 6,974 concealed-pistol licenses issued to residents in 2013 were more than double those in 2009. Even more -- 7,584 -- were issued in 2012, according to the Michigan State Police. The number of unregistered guns is unknown," emphasis added.

In other words, while on one hand they deride Chief Craig for telling Detroiters to defend themselves, on the other hand Bloomberg News is forced to acknowledge that CITIZENS DEFENDING THEMSELVES WITH FIREARMS IS HAVING AN EFFECT ON CRIME IN THE CITY OF DETROIT!

Can I get an Oo Rah?!

Detroit Homeowners Gun Down Burglars as Police Await Cars - Bloomberg

If Bloomberg were as all fired interested in the well being of Detroiters as he would like everyone to believe, then instead of trying to disarm them, he would part with a portion of his billions to help equip the Detroit PD to do the job they were hired to do. 

Of course, THAT doesn't fit into his agenda of ridding the US of the firearms he hates so much (but with which he surrounds HIMSELF!)….

Michael Bloomberg: "...when I get to heaven I’m not stopping to be interviewed. I am heading straight in…"

A surprise is awaiting Michael Bloomberg.  In a recent interview he said that, because of his work to implement national gun control, stop smoking and fight obesity, “I am telling you if there is a God, when I get to heaven I’m not stopping to be interviewed. I am heading straight in. I have earned my place in heaven. It’s not even close,” http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/16/us/bloomberg-plans-a-50-million-challenge-to-the-nra.html?src=twr&_r=0

Mr. Bloomberg, God's Word has a few things to say on that subject.

First, your works mean nothing in the greater scheme of things: "We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment,"  Isaiah 64:6

Second, they earn you no special dispensation or favor with the God whose existence you only notionally acknowledge: "knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot," 1 Peter 1:18-19.

In fact, the Bible says that your billions, which you are now using to try to buy your way into Heaven, will be a witness against you: "Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you.  Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have corroded, and their corrosion will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure in the last days. Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, are crying out against you, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. You have lived on the earth in luxury and in self-indulgence. You have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered the righteous person. He does not resist you," James 5:1-6.  This is not a statement against ALL wealth; there are certainly wealthy people who have used their fortunes for the glory of God.

Finally, you WILL stop to be "interviewed," and you WILL be forced to acknowledge the existence and supremacy of Yahweh:  "For we must ALL appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil," 2 Corinthians 5:10, "...For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God;  for it is written, 'As I live, says the Lord, EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then each of us will give an account of himself to God," Romans 14:10-12.

This is a warning AND an invitation, not just to Mr. Bloomberg, but to every person who has yet to come to the realization that they cannot do it on their own.  We cannot buy or work our way into Heaven.  What is our individual fortune in comparison to the One who owns it all in the first place?  And what "righteousness" can we offer to the One who is the definition of holiness and righteousness?  "But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus," Romans 3:21-26.

Petition: IMMEDIATELY Repeal DOD Directive 5210.56

WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:

IMMEDIATELY Repeal DOD Directive 5210.56, arm our military personnel and provide for MILITARY SECURITY on our bases.

DOD Directive 5210.56 provides that DOD personnel may only be armed for "...missions or threats and the immediate need to protect DOD assets or persons’ lives." Specific strategic/nuclear assets are under armed guard, but otherwise military personnel are prohibited from carrying their weapons - duty or personal - on base. In most instances, even armed security personnel (most often contracted) are required to carry unloaded weapons (condition 4 - no magazines inserted or rounds chambered).

In the light of the more than 17 attacks that have occurred on bases since 1994, we petition the government to immediately repeal DOD Directive 5210.56.

Arm our soldiers.

MILITARY SECURITY for military bases.

No more shelter in place orders.

They defend US; arm them to defend themselves.

We The People Petition: IMMEDIATELY Repeal DOD Directive 5210.56

ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND:

For those who are unfamiliar with this directive, here are the most important parts. Emphasis is added.

"a. DoD personnel, to whom this Directive is applicable, shall be appropriately armed and have the inherent right to self-defense.
b. ARMING DOD PERSONNEL WITH FIREARMS SHALL BE LIMITED AND CONTROLLED. Qualified personnel shall be armed when required for assigned duties and there is reasonable expectation that DoD installations, property, or personnel lives or DoD assets will be jeopardized if personnel are not armed. Evaluation of the necessity to arm DoD personnel shall be made with the consideration of the possible consequences of accidental or indiscriminate use of those arms. However, THE OVERRIDING FACTORS IN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT TO ARM ARE THE MISSION AND THREAT. ARMING DOD PERSONNEL (i.e., administrative, assessment, or inspection, not regularly engaged in or directly supervising security or law enforcement activities) SHALL BE LIMITED TO MISSIONS OR THREATS AND THE IMMEDIATE NEED TO PROTECT DOD ASSETS OR PERSONS’ LIVES. DoD Components have the discretion to keep designated staff personnel qualified and available or on call to perform duties."

Since this is the US, guarding a military installation (with the exception of certain strategic/nuclear assets) is considered to be a low threat mission. On many military installations,  security personnel are generally contracted from one of the defense contractors; whether contracted or military police, security either carry weapons at condition 4 (no mag inserted and no round in the chamber) or they carry no weapons at all. The Beirut bombing (which preceded this directive) was possible in part because the base guards were required to carry their weapons at condition 4. By the time they inserted their mags and chambered rounds, the bombers had already cleared the gates and were closing in on the barracks.

The base CO has no authority to override this directive. The fact is, all weapons not being used for training purposes or actual missions are locked in the armory, and unless an order is received to distribute those arms, they are unavailable for use by all base personnel. Even personal firearms must be secured. The CO may keep designated personnel available or on call, but not on continuous duty according to this directive unless there is an imminent threat.

Dr. Ben Carson For President...

I received an email today from runbenrun.org, an organization set up with the purpose of drafting Dr. Ben Carson to run for the presidency in 2016.  This is an email I sent to the organization explaining why, at this moment, I cannot support a Carson candidacy:

John,

In many ways, I am in favor of Dr. Carson running for president.  In fact, I STRONGLY supported the idea of drafting him to run for president.

Then I heard him give his stance on the Second Amendment; it is unsupportable.

This is a transcript from the Glenn Beck Show less than a month ago:

Dr. Carson: "Uh, guns, there's a reason for the Second Amendment. People DO have the right to have weapons. With this argument that's been going on, the way we solve it is we ask what is each side afraid of, and then we address it that way."

Glenn Beck: "Do I have a right to own a semi-automatic weapon?"

Dr. Carson: "It depends on where you live. I think if you live in the midst of a lot of people, and I’m afraid that that semi-automatic weapon is going to fall into the hands of a crazy person, I would rather you not have it." (emphasis added)

Dr. Benjamin Carson On Gun Control: "It Depends On Where You Live" | RealClearPolitics

Sorry, but I have to agree with Dana Loesch on this one. If Dr. Carson decides to run for President, his stance on the Second Amendment is a deal breaker. My right to own and carry firearms is a Constitutional right that is not up for compromise because someone is afraid of my exercise of that right, and frankly, Dr. Carson does not have the right to decide WHERE I may own a semi-automatic firearm, either.

Our Second Amendment rights are non-negotiable.  We already have too many politicians in Washington who are out to dismantle those rights, and Dr. Carson's willingness to consider possible limitations on those rights based on A) the fears of those who have been brainwashed to think that firearms are evil and B) where HE perceives it proper for someone to own a particular class of firearm based on his own fear regarding the potential of someone stealing it from me is something to which he will need to give SERIOUS reconsideration.

As long as he holds this stance, there are too many who will not even consider voting for him.

I'm one of them.

Sincerely,

Finstein's San Francisco Handgun Ban Effectiveness By The Numbers….

OK. Sen. Feinstein became mayor of San Francisco in 1978 (1978 - 1988) after the assassinations of Harvey Milk and George Moscone; Feinstein, by the way, was the first to come upon Milk's body after he was shot. The murders were carried out by a former police officer using his five shot .38 special duty weapon; he carried 10 extra rounds with him that day (hmmm - maybe this has something to do with her obsession with 10 round limitations?). Surprisingly, even though she traces her gun control obsession back to this event, a five round .38 special is what DiFi carried herself, and that weapon has never made it onto any of the gun ban lists she has compiled while in congress.

After assuming control of the mayor's office, she pushed through the San Francisco handgun ban - something about which she is very proud. After passing the ban, citizens had 90 days to turn in their firearms, so the effect on firearm-related crimes should have been immediate.

But the question is, HOW EFFECTIVE was her handgun ban (which was eventually overturned in 2008)? Following are the raw murder numbers for the years 1978 - 1990 (unfortunately, the numbers from that far back do not tell us how many of these crimes were actually committed using handguns):

1978 - 113

1979 - 108

1980 - 110

1981 - 121

1982 - 106

1983 - data not available 

1984 - data not available

1985 - 85

1986 - 114

1987 - 103

1988 - 92

1989 - data not available

1990 - 102

http://www.city-data.com/forum/city-vs-city/1286828-top-25-cities-violent-crime-rate-9.html

http://www.disastercenter.com/californ/crime/1191.htm

The raw data tell us that he prized handgun ban had little, if an, effect on murder in San Francisco during her tenure as mayor.  In the years from 1990 to the present, murder rates did indeed drop, but they follow the same general pattern as was experienced by the entire nation, so the drop cannot be linked to her handgun ban. Additional study would have to be done to see what effect, if any, her ban had on rates of armed robbery.

In short, her gun bans had little if any effect on crime in San Francisco during her years in the mayor's office.  Likewise, the bans for which she has fought while in congress have proved ineffectual, as the incidence of violent crimes of all sorts have steadily fallen for the last twenty years, while at the same time firearms ownership and carry have dramatically inreased.

That isn't going to stop her from trying to get all of the guns, though.

VP Biden: "Undocumented aliens are already Americans"

March 28, 2014

Vice President Joe Biden
The White House
Washington, DC

Mr. Vice President:

You recently took a phrase out of Pres. Theodore Roosevelt's remarkable editorial, "True Americanism," "Americanism is not a question of birthplace or creed or a line of descent. It’s a question of principles, idealism and character…,” as if to imply that Pres. Roosevelt would have agreed with your position. 

With all due respect, you need to read Pres. Roosevelt's editorial in its entirety. Pres. Roosevelt also said, 

"The third sense in which the word “Americanism” may be employed is with reference to the Americanizing of the newcomers to our shores. We must Americanize them in every way, in speech, in political ideas and principles, and in their way of looking at the relations between Church and State. We welcome the German or the Irishman who becomes an American. We have no use for the German or Irishman who remains such. We do not wish German-Americans and Irish-Americans who figure as such in our social and political life; we want only Americans, and, provided they are such, we do not care whether they are of native or of Irish or of German ancestry. WE HAVE NO ROOM IN ANY HEALTHY AMERICAN COMMUNITY FOR A GERMAN-AMERICAN VOTE OR AN IRISH-AMERICAN VOTE, AND IT IS CONTEMPTIBLE DEMAGOGY TO PUT PLANKS INTO ANY PARTY PLATFORM WITH THE PURPOSE OF CATCHING SUCH A VOTE. We have no room for any people who do not act and vote simply as Americans, and as nothing else… 

BUT WHERE IMMIGRANTS, OR THE SONS OF IMMIGRANTS, DO NOT HEARTILY AND IN GOOD FAITH THROW IN THEIR LOT WITH US, BUT CLING TO THE SPEECH, THE CUSTOMS, THE WAYS OF LIFE, AND THE HABITS OF THOUGHT OF THE OLD WORLD WHICH THEY HAVE LEFT, THEY THEREBY HARM BOTH THEMSELVES AND US. IF THEY REMAIN ALIEN ELEMENTS, UNASSIMILATED, AND WITH INTERESTS SEPARATE FROM OURS, THEY ARE MERE OBSTRUCTIONS TO THE CURRENT OF OUR NATIONAL LIFE, AND, MOREOVER, CAN GET NO GOOD FROM IT THEMSELVES. In fact, though we ourselves also suffer from their perversity, it is they who really suffer most. It is an immense benefit to the European immigrant to change him into an American citizen. To bear the name of American is to bear the most honorable titles; and whoever does not so believe has no business to bear the name at all, and, if he comes from Europe, the sooner he goes back there the better. Besides, the man who does not become Americanized nevertheless fails to remain a European, and becomes nothing at all. The immigrant cannot possibly remain what he was, or continue to be a member of the Old-World society. If he tries to retain his old language, in a few generations it becomes a barbarous jargon; if he tries to retain his old customs and ways of life, in a few generations he becomes an uncouth boor. He has cut himself off from the Old World, and cannot retain his connection with it; and if he wishes ever to amount to anything he must throw himself heart and soul, and without reservation, into the new life to which he has come. IT IS URGENTLY NECESSARY TO CHECK AND REGULATE OUR IMMIGRATION, BY MUCH MORE DRASTIC LAWS THAN NOW EXIST; AND THIS SHOULD BE DONE... TO KEEP OUT LABORERS WHO TEND TO DEPRESS THE LABOR MARKET… 

From his own standpoint, IT IS BEYOND ALL QUESTION THE WISE THING FOR THE IMMIGRANT TO BECOME THOROUGHLY AMERICANIZED. MOREOVER, FROM OUR STANDPOINT, WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DEMAND IT. WE FREELY EXTEND THE HAND OF WELCOME AND OF GOOD-FELLOWSHIP TO EVERY MAN, NO MATTER WHAT HIS CREED OR BIRTHPLACE, WHO COMES HERE HONESTLY INTENT ON BECOMING A GOOD UNITED STATES CITIZEN LIKE THE REST OF US; BUT WE HAVE A RIGHT, AND IT IS OUR DUTY, TO DEMAND THAT HE SHALL INDEED BECOME SO and shall not confuse the issues with which we are struggling by introducing among us Old-World quarrels and prejudices. There are certain ideas which he must give up. For instance, he must learn that American life is incompatible with the existence of any form of anarchy, or of any secret society having murder for its aim, whether at home or abroad; and he must learn that we exact full religious toleration and the complete separation of Church and State. Moreover, he must not bring in his Old-World religious race and national antipathies, but must merge them into love for our common country, and must take pride in the things which we can all take pride in. HE MUST REVERE ONLY OUR FLAG; NOT ONLY MUST IT COME FIRST, BUT NO OTHER FLAG SHOULD EVEN COME SECOND... ," True Americanism, Theodore Roosevelt.

Pres. Roosevelt would NOT have agreed with your stance, or that of the administration.  In point of fact, his essay is a repudiation of this administration’s immigration policy.  His essay is based on 1) the premise that such individuals come to our country in accordance with our laws, and 2) that they fully integrate themselves into American society.  What you offer is a caricature of True Americanism.

Sincerely,

Anti-gun OK Senator Sends Sheriffs Packing….

On 03/13,2014, KTUL (Tulsa, OK) reported that an unidentified OK state senator ordered - anonymously and through through intermediaries - that 40 sheriffs gathered at the state capitol for their annual meet/greet/lobby needed to disarm themselves in order to remain on capitol property. Apparently the unidentified senator was fine with armed state troopers in the capitol building, but not elected, armed sheriffs.

Now, as far as I can see, there is nothing in Oklahoma law that requires a sheriff - or anyone else, for that matter - to disarm themselves prior to entering the premises of the state capitol.  Nonetheless, this as-of-yet unidentified senator, who swore an oath to uphold the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Oklahoma, expressed his/her personal discomfort with the idea of an elected and duly sworn sheriff carrying their duty firearm on said premises and ordered them to either disarm or vacate the premises.

The intermediaries or anyone else who knows the identity of the senator who anonymously sent the message to disarm have the duty to reveal the identity of that senator. 

I can tell you this much: they should not have left. They had a legal right to be there and they were carrying in accordance with OK laws. They are also ELECTED OFFICIALS. They should have gone office to office until they found the guilty senator and placed him/her under arrest for interfering with a law enforcement officer in the exercise of their duties. Like it or not, lobbying is part of the job of a sheriff; there is nothing in any law of any state of which I am aware that says that they must be unarmed while doing so. By leaving they gave this gun grabber exactly what he/she wanted; it was a victory for the antis who would even like to see all but an elite, ideologically sound group of law enforcement officers (evidently the OK State Troopers fit this description) unarmed. 

We don't have keystone cops here in the US like they do in Britain. We have LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS who are charged with keeping the peace and given the means to do so.

EPIC - Trey Gowdy gets a standing ovation on House Floor - 'We Make Law!'