Going Down That Road….

Attacks on the First and Second Amendments continue to escalate.  A professor from the University of Miami School of Law recently published what she believes would be “improvements” of these two amendments.

Her rewrite of the First Amendment: 

“Every person has the right to freedom of expression, association, peaceful assembly, and petition of the government for redress of grievances, consistent with the rights of others to the same and subject to responsibility for abuses. All conflicts of such rights shall be resolved in accordance with the principle of equality and dignity of all persons.

 

“Both the freedom of religion and the freedom from religion shall be respected by the government. The government may not single out any religion for interference or endorsement, nor may it force any person to accept or adhere to any religious belief or practice.”

First, do you see what is no longer protected under her proposed rewrite?  There is no right to a free press.  And the “appropriate“ practice of the rights she DOES leave in place is determined by a government-determined  standard of equality.  Your right to practice your religion and speech is free only as long as you don’t violate this government standard.

And the Second Amendment?

“All people have the right to bodily autonomy consistent with the right of other people to the same, including the right to defend themselves against unlawful force and the right of self-determination in reproductive matters. The government shall take reasonable measures to protect the health and safety of the public as a whole.”

You will notice immediately that the right to keep and bear arms has disappeared entirely, replaced with the previously non-existent (Constitutionally) right to abortion on demand.  The overarching right to defense is shifted to the government, the same government that has stated in more than a dozen supreme court opinions that the obligation to defend one self is on OUR shoulders.  And, once again, your ability to exercise your right to self defense is dependent on a government-determined standard of equality and fairness.  Amazingly, that limitation doesn’t apply to abortion and the right of a baby to continue living.

So the upshot of both of these proposed rewrites is that the GOVERNMENT determines what is/is not appropriate and acceptable.  The GOVERNMENT determines when and where we may exercise our “rights” in accordance with a nebulous standard of equality and fairness.

Final thought: a “right” that requires government approval is no longer a right.

https://apps.bostonglobe.com/ideas/graphics/2021/12/editing-the-constitution/redo-the-first-two-amendments

Please Sign This Petition…

Calling on the US Department of Justice to bring federal firearms charges against Kyle Rittenhouse.

Petition to the DOJ

WHO, Exactly, Is Guilty….?

Watch this video carefully.  The agent is being handed firearms by the folks sitting at the table.  Presumably, they are responsible to insure that the guns are unloaded.  After receiving the guns, this “expert” fails to check them himself to insure that they are ACTUALLY “cold” (unloaded); he actually states, without clearing the gun himself, that the gun is unloaded.  As a result, the “expert” shoots himself at point-blank range in the leg with a .40 s&w slug.

Now, using the logic being employed by Alec Baldwin and the “investigators” trying to protect him from any blame in the death of the director he shot, the only people in this video who have ANY guilt for the shooting are the ones who handed him the gun.  The agent has ZERO GUILT in his shooting.  Fortunately, he only shot himself as a result of his personal negligence; he could very well have shot one of the members of his audience.

So tell me, does Alec Baldwin deserve to be prosecuted for negligent homicide for failing to clear the firearm he was handed, or does the blame rest solely with the people who put the gun into his hands?

“… No amendment — No Amendment To The Constitution Is Absolute…“

 So according to Pres. Biden, NO Constitutional right is unrestricted:

“But no amendment — no amendment to the Constitution is absolute…,” April 8, 2021.

No amendment is absolute.  Those are his words.

On that basis, he and a slew of others have proposed what THEY consider to be “common sense” limitations on the Constitutionally protected (NOT GRANTED - that’s a critical distinction) Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms (some of these are already law, others have been proposed):

*No firearms purchase on demand, without limitations 

*Universal background checks

*Emergency protection orders (aka “red flag” laws)

*Minimum purchase age 21

*Licenses required to purchase/own/carry firearms

*Mandatory training as a prerequisite to purchase/own/carry a firearm

*Track multiple handgun purchases

*Register handguns and other specified weapons with the government

*Limitations or outright bans on entire classes of firearms

*Limitations or outright bans on specific accessories 

*Psychological assessment 

*Require all transfers to be made by federal firearms licensees 

These are just SOME of the limitations that have either been proposed or already exist at the federal level; they don’t take into account the limitations implemented by the states or even at the local level.  And these limitations affect a right that is EXPLICITLY PROTECTED by the Constitution.

Ok.  So what?

The president said NO amendment is absolute.  Those are his words.

We’ll set aside for the moment that the Constitution doesn’t actually EXPLICITLY give/protect a right to abortion; that “right” was created out of thin air by SCOTUS.  But for the sake of argument, I will stipulate some sort of Constitutional “right” to abortion.

So let’s consider what access to abortion would look like if we applied the same “common sense”, “reasonable” limitations to abortion.

Before we do that, let’s consider why the anti-Second Amendment lobby feels such measures are even necessary.

39,700.  

That’s the number of deaths attributed to “gun violence” last year.  Bear in mind that approximately 66% of those are suicides, but 39,700 deaths is considered reason to limit our Second Amendment rights.  That number, 39,000, per the federal government, has remained steady (with only minor fluctuations) for the last TWENTY-FIVE YEARS.  This, then, accounts for 975,000 deaths during that time period.

Terrible?

Absolutely.

But let’s now contrast that to the number of abortions that have occurred in that same 25 year period.

More  than sixty-four MILLION abortions have been performed since being legalized in 1972, averaging nearly 1.3 million per year.

That’s 32.5 million abortions for the last 25 years.

And those are just the SURGICAL abortions.  That number does not take MEDICINAL abortions into account.  

If 975,000 deaths over 25 years is reason enough to limit an explicit Constitutional right, then 32.5 million abortions should certainly be reason to place limitations on an inferred Constitutional “right.”

So what would that look like if we placed the same kinds of “common sense” limitations on the “right” to abortion?

First, there would be no unlimited, on-demand abortion - yet, that is EXACTLY the kind of access demanded by the abortion lobby and the Biden administration.

Any woman wanting an abortion would have to be at least 21 years old (that’s the new magic age many in the federal government want to impose on ALL firearms purchases; some states already do that).

She would be required to attend training delivered by a licensed doctor (not a PA or nurses) detailing what actually happens during an abortion and the long term affects on her body, including medical imagery of her pre-born child (the equivalent of mandatory firearms purchase/carry training) before EVERY abortion (background checks are run by federal firearms licensees before EVERY firearm purchase).

She would have to submit to psychological testing, after which she would receive a permit/license to have an abortion if she is deemed psychologically fit to receive one and does not pose a danger to herself or others (requirement to receive a license to purchase/own/carry).

She would have to wait a minimum of 10 days before having an abortion in order to reconsider her choice.

Her abortion would have to be performed at a licensed hospital by a surgeon (the equivalent of requiring all firearms transactions to be facilitated by a federal firearms licensee at their registered and licensed place of business.)

She would need to register her abortions with health departments (mandatory firearms registration).

Family members and the baby’s father would have the legal right to petition a judge to intervene to stop the procedure (red flag laws).

Certain classes of surgical abortion procedures could be limited or banned altogether (the equivalent of limiting/banning entire classes of firearms)

Over the counter abortifacients could he limited or banned altogether (think limiting/banning firearms accessories, especially those that make using the firearm easier or more effective).

This is all considered to be “common sense” to prevent future “gun violence” deaths.  Our Second Amendment rights are limited.

But, contrary to what the president claimed about “reasonable limitations“ on that right, he believes that the “right” to abortion should be completely  un-infringed/unlimited.

Which is it?  If “…no amendment — no amendment to the Constitution is absolute…”, then the “right” to abortion is likewise subject to limitations.

To Those Who Call Themselves Christians, But Refuse To Get Vaccinated…

 I offer this:

“…For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another.” Galatians 5:13-15 [NASB].

“Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God,” 1 Peter 2:13-16 [KJV].

Yes, we have certain freedoms, liberties, in this country.  They are intended to be exercised with consideration for the wellbeing of our fellow citizens and the country.  This means that there may be times when we WILLINGLY put the needs of others ahead of our own, even if it means limiting the exercise of a personal freedom. 

Sadly, many of those freedoms have been turned into license.  License is the exercise of our rights regardless of the effect it has on others - even if it hurts them.

What we are witnessing today among those who call themselves Christians is more accurately classified as license. It is the fixation with MY wants, MY needs, MY RIGHTS regardless of how that might  affect others.

The Apostle Paul acknowledged that we do indeed have certain freedoms, liberties.  He also acknowledged that we have the right to exercise those liberties free from the judgement of others:

“All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify. Let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbor. Eat anything that is sold in the meat market without asking questions for conscience’ sake; FOR THE EARTH IS THE LORD’S, AND ALL IT CONTAINS. If one of the unbelievers invites you and you want to go, eat anything that is set before you without asking questions for conscience’ sake. But if anyone says to you, “This is meat sacrificed to idols,” do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience’ sake; I mean not your own conscience, but the other man’s; for why is my freedom judged by another’s conscience? If I partake with thankfulness, why am I slandered concerning that for which I give thanks?

“Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God; just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit but the profit of the many, so that they may be saved” 1 Corinthians 10:23-33 [NASB].

While this passage refers to spiritual salvation, it is not also possible that limiting my liberties might also lead to their physical salvation?  Something to consider.

But at the end of the day, he says we have the obligation to place the needs of others ahead of the exercise of those rights.

Do you have the right not to get vaccinated?  

Yes, you do.

Now honestly ask yourself this question: does the exercise of that right help or hurt others?

If you conclude that it even MIGHT hurt others, then consider that the right decision might be to willingly put your rights on hold, to get vaccinated for the good of others.

That is what ultimately led me to get vaccinated.

Even though I honestly don’t believe I am going to catch the bug - I have worked face to face with thousands of customers since the beginning of the pandemic; I have had ample opportunities to become infected - I did it for the wellbeing of my family, my friends, my coworkers, my customers, even if only for their MENTAL wellbeing.

There has been too much emphasis on MY rights, and that has had the effect of driving us further apart as families, communities, and as a nation.

It is time to begin putting the needs of others ahead of our own.

Self Explanatory….

 

A Note To Those Who Were Relying On The US to Build A Better Afghanistan….

“One Afghan university student described feeling betrayed as she watched the evacuation of the U.S. Embassy.

“You failed the younger generation of Afghanistan,” said Aisha Khurram, 22, who is now unsure of whether she’ll be able to graduate in two months’ time. “A generation ... raised in the modern Afghanistan were hoping to build the country with their own hands. They put blood, efforts and sweat into whatever we had right now,” https://www.washingtonpost.com/taliban-seize-jalalabad-cut-off-afghan-capital-from-east/2021/08/14/131e00aa-fd75-11eb-911c-524bc8b68f17_story.html

Then instead of relying on the US, you need to pick up weapons and fight the taliban yourself - and build the country yourselves.  We spent 20 years shedding our blood, training your military, and left a lot of weapons behind for you to use - if you can get to them before the taliban do.  You grew up in a country that has shaken off foreign powers a multitude of times throughout your history via insurrection.  Time for you to relearn those skills and start your own insurgency against the taliban if you don’t want their vision for Afghanistan to become your reality - again.

Or you can blame everyone else, roll over, and play dead.

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but that is the reality.

Memorial Day 2021….

 

Chief Ramirez: Politicizing A Tragedy….

 “You’re either with law enforcement or you stand with the fringe and believe that everybody should have a firearm, regardless of their character, capabilities and mental capacity,” Chief Ramirez, Miami Police Department.

Let’s discuss that.

First, while I know that there are a few out there - and I mean that, JUST a few - who believe that EVERYONE should be able to own a gun regardless of the issues Ramirez raises, I can confidently say that the majority of us in the Second Amendment do not.  And I will point out, for the umpteenth time, that exclusions for those very individuals ALREADY EXIST WITHIN US LAW AND THE NICS SYSTEM - and the good chief should already know that.

Second, he is once again demonstrating the divide that exists between police chiefs and officers.  I’m going to say this yet again: POLICE CHIEFS ARE POLITICAL APPOINTEES WHOSE VIEWS ALIGN WITH THOSE OF THE CITY COUNCIL THAT HIRED THEM.  

So what do OFFICERS really believe?  Once again, I will refer to the largest survey of law enforcement officers (over 15,000) ever conducted:

“1. Virtually all respondents (95 percent) say that a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would not reduce violent crime.”

“2. The majority of respondents — 71 percent — say a federal ban on the manufacture and sale of some semi-automatics would have no effect on reducing violent crime. However, more than 20 percent say any ban would actually have a negative effect on reducing violent crime. Just over 7 percent took the opposite stance, saying they believe a ban would have a moderate to significant effect.”

“3. About 85 percent of officers say the passage of the White House’s currently proposed legislation would have a zero or negative effect on their safety, with just over 10 percent saying it would have a moderate or significantly positive effect.”

“4. Seventy percent of respondents say they have a favorable or very favorable opinion of some law enforcement leaders’ public statements that they would not enforce more restrictive gun laws in their jurisdictions. Similarly, more than 61 percent said they would refuse to enforce such laws if they themselves were Chief or Sheriff.”

“6. The overwhelming majority (almost 90 percent) of officers believe that casualties would be decreased if armed citizens were present at the onset of an active-shooter incident.”

“7. More than 80 percent of respondents support arming school teachers and administrators who willingly volunteer to train with firearms and carry one in the course of the job.”

“8. More than four in five respondents (81 percent) say that gun-buyback programs are ineffective in reducing gun violence.”

“9. More than half of respondents feel that increased punishment for obviously illegal gun sales could have a positive impact on reducing gun violence.”

There is nothing “fringe” about the views most of us in the Second Amendment community hold.  Our views are actually the mainstream of law enforcement OFFICERS as well as indicated by this survey; contrary to what the good chief would have you believe, HE is on the fringe of law enforcement - not us.

I STAND WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.  

Chiefs, not so much.

BTW, he’s making these pronouncements even though he 1) still hasn’t identified the shooters and 2) has no idea at this time how they obtained the guns they used.  That’s called a rush to judgement and politicization of a tragedy, just so we’re clear.

https://nypost.com/2021/05/30/miami-pd-chief-calls-for-tighter-gun-laws-after-concert-shooting/?utm_source=facebook_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site+buttons&utm_campaign=site+buttons&fbclid=IwAR1FkuWuE_-9zo8efVyHxyjd9THO0ong3z_Q6Sav8taSRjzu_pzrIEHXmjk

Disenfranchised Voters....

 Many voters deal with disenfranchisement.  It appears in many different forms.

One such form is the disenfranchisement experienced by conservatives.

Yes, conservatives. 

It’s the problem many states have: the rural areas of the states tend to be very conservative, but the big cities consistently override them, enacting laws or forcing them to support programs with their tax dollars with which they strongly disagree.  

There is a move in California to allow several counties to secede and form a new, conservative state, several eastern counties in Oregon have voted to join Idaho, and of course many in Texas want to secede from the US entirely to form their own country.  

I hope they can somehow get it done, but I’m not holding my breath.  The ramifications for those states as they currently exist are far reaching; people like Pelosi, Feinstein, and others would lose a tremendous amount of power, and the affected states would lose seats in congress.  The chances that congress would approve such moves - or that the president wouldn’t veto them - are slim at best.

One can always hope.

https://news.yahoo.com/disgruntled-oregonians-five-counties-vote-163025909.html?soc_src=community&soc_trk=fb

 

Double, Double, Boil And Trouble. Standard, That Is....

Of course they’re not going to take action against him, because, on the whole, Chris Cuomo is in lock step with CNN’s agenda and approach to reporting the news.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/cnn-won-t-discipline-chris-185445437.html?soc_src=community&soc_trk=fb

Protect, Yes. Fortify, Absolutely Not....

Stronger windows/doors, I’m ok with that.  Retractable fencing, additional security cameras?  OK, there are certainly times when fencing is probably called for; I certainly don’t want the capitol to look like a fortified camp.  I remember walking past the presidential palace in Lima, Peru.  12’ wrought iron fencing around the entire perimeter, military controlled entry to the palace, russian .50 caliber machine gun emplacements, snipers on the roof, military QRT just out of sight.

But I draw the line at the creation of yet another federal quick reaction force (QRF) - especially if they are drawn from the National Guard.   We already have DOZENS of federal law enforcement and QRT units.  We value our freedoms, especially from the government, yet we are one of the most highly policed and surveilled countries in the world.  The difference is, the vast majority of it is hidden, unlike other countries that constantly remind their citizens that they are under the watchful eye of the government.  The National Guard are under the command and control of the governors of the states of which they are organic.  By design, they are only federalized under defined circumstances; the creation of such a force strictly for the capitol undermines the lines that were drawn to insure that they aren’t misused, deployed as pawns for political gain.

I’m sure that there is a ton of pork in this bill as well that has nothing to do with protecting the capitol.

One last thought: I am on board with PROTECTING the capitol.  FORTIFYING it is another situation altogether.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/house-approves-1-9-billion-225300630.html?soc_src=community&soc_trk=fb

Chicago: Let Them Carry....

I’m sharing this, not to politicize a tragic situation, but because the laws that led to this truly anger me.

Chicago has done everything in its power to limit access to firearms by its residents.  They have to travel outside of Chicago to lawfully purchase one or practice their shooting skills.  A concealed pistol license is nearly impossible to obtain.  And yet, gangbangers are able to get firearms with relative ease.  There are areas where CPD doesn’t go unless absolutely necessary, not that they - or the numerous gun control laws implemented by Chicago - can actually prevent anything.

It doesn’t matter that, if true, most of the guns obtained by gangbangers come from outside of Illinois.  WISHING that wasn’t true doesn’t stop or prevent anything, and with CPD pulling back from troubled areas, primarily communities of color, preventing law abiding citizens from protecting themselves is nothing short of criminal.

It’s time for Chicago, specifically, and the State of Illinois in general, to recognize that its gun control policies and laws have failed miserably - communities of color are paying the price.  THESE ARE RACIST POLICIES, as gun control has been since day one.

Chicago, Illinois, LET YOUR PEOPLE EXERCISE THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2021/05/17/8-year-old-shot-lawndale-romio-mikey-dollaz/?fbclid=IwAR2JCdvH0Hyx-gCP9CpG5PP8eGN8v8xwFxOmbaLKPDlpiKEqOo8VDSAS4UM

Robert F Kennedy Banned From Instagram...

USA Today proclaims, “Instagram removes Robert F. Kennedy Jr. over false COVID-19 vaccine claims.”  According to Instagram, owned by Mark Zuckerberg/ Facebook, Kennedy is a purveyor of false information because he shares “... claims that the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 is man-made or manufactured... The claim that the coronavirus was man-made or engineered has been debunked,”

In point of fact, the human origins of the coronavirus have NOT been debunked.  Rather, alternate hypotheses positing a natural cause of the virus have been offered; this is NOT the same as debunking claims “... that the coronavirus was man-made or engineered“.

Here are some of the problems with the claim that there is no human origin for the virus.

First, debunking the claim of a human origin for the virus would require access to the raw research data; the Chinese government has staunchly denied access to this data.  Instead, it has continued to provide only data that 1) backs its own claim of a natural origin for the outbreak and 2) shields it from any responsibility for the initial outbreak.  The fact that the virus originated in the Wuhan province in close proximity to the only Chinese level 4 virology lab in the country, one that is known to carry out military biological weapons research and development, is well documented.  Whether the coronavirus was developed as a weapon and released, a naturally occurring virus that was accidentally  released from the lab, or a virus that has been around for thousands of years and only recently made a jump from animals to humans cannot be disproved without access to the raw data.

Second, the W.H.O. is the source of the research that 1) argues that the coronavirus CANNOT have been developed as a weapon and 2) argues that China is largely innocent with regard to its spread.  This is problematic for at least a couple of reasons.  First, as they have themselves admitted, they have been denied access to the raw data.  Without that data, it is impossible to exonerate the Chinese military/government.  Second, and almost importantly, the W.H.O. has been well-documented to essentially function as a mouthpiece, an apologist, for the Chinese government in its efforts to save face regarding its role in the release and spread of the coronavirus.  The following is just a sample of the respected entities that have documented this symbiotic relationship between the W.H.O. and the Chinese government: the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Council on Foreign Relations, Deutsche World, The Voice of America, Politico, Foreign Policy, the Brookings Institute, Institute Montaign, Bloomberg News, the Carnegie Endowment, the list goes in.  ALL have documented the enormous, outsized influence exercised by China over the W.H.O. in general, and specifically as it applies to the coronavirus.  A few months ago, our own State Department finally publicly acknowledged the probable role of China in the release and spread of the virus and the probability that it had been intended as a biological weapon.  This aligns with conclusions drawn by the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies (associated with both Israeli intelligence and NATO) that there IS reason to suspect a Chinese government link to the virus, including the following:

“•scientific papers with incoherent data/findings

•unexplained gaps, inconsistencies, and contradictions

•meaningless and twisted chronologies

•illegitimate non-transparency

•elimination and distortion of records and databases

•obscuring and possible destruction of existing viruses (including the index virus) and genomic material

•pressure put on disobedient scientists, physicians, and officials

•disappearance of key persons

•expedient interchangeability between military/defense and civilian institutions (and other entities).”

Third, believing that the Chinese government has no culpability with regard to the coronavirus requires believing that they are, well, believable in the first place.  The Chinese account regarding the origin of the coronavirus has changed several times. Initially, they claimed no knowledge of the virus, when, in fact, they spent the first few months doing everything in their power to prevent word of it getting out of China (just as they did with the SARS virus, which ALSO originated in China, a few years ago).  Then they insisted that it must have found a way to jump from animals to humans.  Then they alleged that, in fact, the virus was a bio weapon developed by the US and introduced into China via US service personnel who had been deliberately infected and then sent to China during a goodwill event.  

Fourth, individuals associated with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the very lab believed by many to be the source of the virus, tried to get the word out to the rest of the world.  They were shut down, imprisoned, eliminated by the Chinese government - but word still went out via dissident websites.  Eventually, some were publicly acknowledged by more mainstream news sources, although the Chinese government and the W.H.O. have done what they can to play down their warnings.

If the Chinese government truly wants to prove their innocence, then they will make the raw data regarding the origin of the coronavirus available to be reviewed.  Until then, the idea that the coronavirus, at worst, began as a bio weapon - an idea that I happen to share - at best was accidentally released from the lab, will continue to persist.