Monday, March 10, 2014

The latest gun control law in Connecticut has crossed a very frightening line. A standoff has been created between the government and tens of thousands of gun owners now considered felons. It marks the beginning of an Orwellian new phase. Gun owners saw it coming, as evidenced by their recent adoption in recent years of the defiant expression “molon labe.” The phrase originated from Spartan General-King Leonidas, who reportedly responded with “Come and get them!” to Persian Emperor Xerxes’ demand that the Spartans surrender their weapons at the Battle of Thermopylae. The Spartans fought valiantly, but were ultimately defeated. With the prequel to the Hollywood bestselling movie 300 just released last week, Americans are now even more aware of the phrase.

Until now, gun control laws hadn’t mandated the confiscation of weapons; generally, banned guns were grandfathered in under previous laws so their current owners could continue to legally own them. The Connecticut law changes all that. Passed last year in response to the Sandy Hook shooting, SB 1160 bans so-called “assault weapons” - certain rifles, more recently known as AR-15s, that have been singled out based on purely cosmetic criteria - and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

The firearms have been banned based on how “scary” they look, not their actual usage in crimes. According to a study from the BATF that came out a few years ago, none of the top 10 guns used in crimes in the U.S. were so-called assault weapons; they were all pistols or revolvers. In fact, the #5 gun used in crimes was a shotgun, which Vice President Joe Biden advised Americans last year to use for self-defense.

The only way to legally retain one of these newly banned firearms or magazines in Connecticut now is to register it - but most gun owners do not want their name on a government list. They are well aware that a list of gun owners can someday be used by the government for confiscation. If gun owners didn’t register their firearms or magazines prior to the December 31, 2013 deadline mandated by the legislation, their firearms will be subject to confiscation and the owners considered guilty of a felony.

So far, it appears that the vast majority of gun owners affected by the legislation did not register their guns prior to the December 31 deadline, making between 50,000 and 350,000 gun owners felons. This is frightening, considering the law doesn’t just make the violation a misdemeanor, it makes it a felony, which could result in a prison sentence. Fewer than 50,000 gun owners registered their firearms by the deadline to comply with the law.

Gun owners who sent in their applications for registration after the deadline have reported already receiving letters by the government instructing them to get rid of their guns. The Hartford Courant notes that the government has records of gun owners who went through background checks in order to purchase AR-15s. The government could potentially go after any of those gun owners who failed to register their guns.

There is shock that gun owners are showing defiance. "I honestly thought from my own standpoint that the vast majority would register," said Sen. Tony Guglielmo, R-Stafford, the ranking GOP senator on the legislature's public safety committee. "If you pass laws that people have no respect for and they don't follow them, then you have a real problem."

On January 30, Federal District Court judge Alfred V. Covello upheld the law in Shew v. Malloy.

While he admitted that it placed a substantial burden on the Second Amendment, he claimed that it “substantially related to the important governmental interest of public safety and crime control.” It is astonishing that a judge would use that as justification, considering even Congress sunsetted the federal assault weapons ban due to a lack of evidence showing it was effective.

Many judges come up with rulings based on their personal political views, or are pressured into a certain decision by outside special interests. Judicial activism is nothing new. Judicial activists have successfully forced a tortured, restricted interpretation of the Second Amendment over the years, in order to diminish its validity. Covello’s disappointing decision is currently being appealed, backed by the powerful NRA.

Trying to prosecute 50,000 to 350,000 gun owners would be insanity. The liberal activist politicians who passed the foolish legislation in response to an emotional response to the Sandy Hook Shooting do not represent the will of the people who elected them, who want the Constitution upheld. In many ways, the Second Amendment is our most important right, because without it, we cannot protect any of our other rights. There is a reason why it is the Second Amendment, not the 30th Amendment.

Requiring gun owners to register their firearms puts them on a fast track with sex offenders, who are required to register with the government so they can be monitored for the rest of their lives. If gun owners fail to register for tracking, they are then treated like criminals, just like sex offenders. This is bizarre, considering lawful gun owners are merely patriotic Americans concerned about protecting their cherished rights. AR-15s aren’t guns used in crimes, but are popular guns for self-defense and target shooting.

Connecticut Carry, a leading gun rights organization in the state, is daring the government to come after gun owners. The stage is being set for massive civil disobedience unless the law is changed.

Many prosecutors and law enforcement officers are not going to uphold a law this heavy-handed; nevertheless, this ill-conceived legislation, pushed through by gun-control activists, is going to pit many law-abiding law enforcement officers against thousands of patriotic, American freedom-loving gun owners. It is terrifying that here in America, innocent gun owners would be put in the same category as sex offenders, turning them into felons. Connecticut governor Dannel Malloy (D), who signed SB 1160, seems to have become another King Xerxes. This time around, will the Spartans in Connecticut prevail?
Washington Bureaucrats Issue New Policies Limiting Use of Deadly Force by Border Agents on the Ground  
Katie Pavlich / Townhall Columnist

Late last week, new guidelines and policies about when Border Patrol Agents can use lethal force were released by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection office in Washington D.C. In a directive issued by U.S. Border Patrol Chief Michael Fisher, with the subject line "use of safe tactics and techniques," agents have been ordered not to shoot at fleeing vehicles and have been urged not to put themselves in situations that require deadly force to survive.

In the directive, Fisher acknowledges that since 2010, Border Patrol Agents have been assaulted by illegal immigrants and criminal aliens with rocks 1,713 times since 2010. Deadly force was used only 43 times, resulting in the death of 10 illegals engaging violently with agents. In response, the Mexican government and open border groups have demanded Border Patrol reassess their use of deadly force, arguing rock throwing, a potentially deadly tactic used to distract agents during drug smuggling runs, should not be met with lethal force. What is most alarming is Fisher's urging of supervisors and agents to use less than deadly methods to combat assault, setting up agents on the ground for failure as they try to comply with a bureaucratic process during fast moving and dangerous situations. [Emphasis below is mine]
In order to lessen the likelihood of deadly force situations and reduce the risk of injury or death to agents and others, I am implementing the following directive effective immediately, which clarifies existing guidelines contained in the CBP Use of Force Policy:
(1) In accordance with CBP's current Use of Force policy, agents shall not discharge their firearms at a moving vehicle unless the agent has a reasonable belief, based on the totality of the circumstances that deadly force is being used against an agent or another person present; such deadly force may include a moving vehicle aimed at agents or others present, but would not include a moving vehicle merely fleeing from agents. Further, agents should not place themselves in the path of a moving vehicle or use their body to block a vehicle's path.
(2) Agents should continue, whenever possible, to avoid placing themselves in positions where they have no alternative to using deadly force. Agents shall not discharges firearms in response to thrown or hurled projectiles unless the agent has a reasonable belief, based on the totality of the circumstances, to include the size and nature of the projectiles, that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious injury. Agents should obtain a tactical advantage in these situations, such as seeking cover or distancing themselves from the immediate area of danger.
Supervisors are instructed to address this directive at musters, to include using alternative methodologies, such as setting up controlled tire deflation devices, acquiring additional back-up, utilizing technology and less-than-lethal equipment, taking appropriate cover, and recognizing when to engage or subsequently disengage.
When Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed on December 15, 2010 in Arizona's Peck Canyon, it was revealed that his highly specialized and trained BORTAC team came under AK-47 fire from illegal drug smugglers from Mexico after agents fired bean bag warning shots. They fired bean bag shots in order to comply with Homeland Security policy and received live ammunition fire in return. Those bean bag shots, or what Fisher would call "utilizing technology and less-than-lethal equipment," got Terry killed and will only set up agents in the future for the same fate.

"I cannot stress enough how important it is to physically and mentally prepare yourselves, so that when dangerous situations arise, you increase your chances of survivability while limiting unnecessary risk to others. It is anticipated that these initial steps will help reduce the likelihood of assault against our agents," Fisher wrote.

These new guideline "clarifications" won't result in a reduction in assaults against agents, but instead will do the opposite by increasing them.

The National Border Patrol Council, an organization representing 17,000 Border Patrol agents is pushing back against new regulations and overbearing policies that put agents in further danger.
Restricting agents in their use of force, whether it is against rock or vehicular assaults, will only result in more criminals attacking Border Patrol agents. Criminals will know if agents are prohibited from using deadly force against rock or vehicle assaults, they will quickly employ those means against agents. This is evidenced by the Border Patrol’s previous pursuit policy that was overly restrictive. The vast majority of smugglers would fail to yield and evade agents, since they were well aware of the policy’s restrictions and that there were little to no consequences for fleeing.

The Border Patrol, due to its strategy of putting pressure on smugglers and illegal aliens at the border fence, has contributed to the situation where criminals are emboldened to launch rock assaults from Mexico or just inside the U.S. Tactically this leaves agents little recourse as they are often caught unprotected in the open or between fences when assaults occur. Assaults would decrease if agents were allowed to make arrests away from the border fence, in areas of their choosing that are more tactically sound and with other agents for back-up.

No Border Patrol agent goes to the field wanting to be involved in a deadly force situation. Agents are trained to protect themselves and be aware of their surroundings. No agent would intentionally put himself in front of a speeding vehicle or within range of rock throwing criminals so that they could use deadly force. Assertions to the contrary belittle the training, integrity, and professionalism of Border Patrol agents. These assaults happen for one reason only: criminals make a conscious decision to attack Border Patrol agents. Stop the assaults on agents and the use of deadly force would be unnecessary.

First Egypt, now Saudi Arabia declares Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist group 

Pamela Geller / Atlas Shrugs 

First Egypt, now Saudi Arabia designates Obama’s party Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist group. Shocking that America would become a force for Islamic terror and supremacism the world over.

Imagine, Obama punished the Egyptian people bu withdrawing aid after they threw off the Islamic yoke of tyranny imposed by The Muslim Brotherhood. Obama presents a very real danger to freedom loving people.

Egypt Backs Saudi Arabia’s Branding of Muslim Brotherhood as Terrorists

“Saudis Put Terrorist Label on Muslim Brotherhood” NY Times, March 7, 2014
CAIRO — Saudi Arabia on Friday declared the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, escalating a new campaign against the group across the region with a sweeping ban that imposes lengthy prison sentences for even expressing sympathy with it.

The Saudi decree equates the Brotherhood, which has long denounced violence, with widely designated terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and the Syria-based Nusra Front. The inclusion of the Brotherhood appeared to signal the beginning of a Saudi effort to eradicate the group, demonstrating the deepening polarization that is spreading across the region after the Egyptian military’s ouster of President Mohamed Morsi, a Brotherhood leader, last summer.

The decree was the Saudi monarchy’s latest gesture of support for attempts by the new military-backed government in Egypt to crush the Brotherhood. But it was also a pointed message to a neighboring Persian Gulf state, Qatar, which has provided refuge and support to Egyptian Brotherhood leaders since the takeover. Consistently sympathetic coverage of the Brotherhood by the Qatari-owned news network Al Jazeera has outraged Cairo and the other gulf monarchies.

The Saudi royal family has always viewed the Muslim Brotherhood with apprehension, fearing its rival blend of Islam and politics as well as its avowed embrace of democracy. The Saudi government prefers to align itself with a more puritanical approach to Islam, Salafism, which teaches heavy deference to Muslim rulers. But Brotherhood members living in Saudi Arabia have not usually felt the need to hide their affiliation for fear of arrest.

Since Mr. Morsi was deposed, though, the Saudi monarchy seems to have embarked on an all-out campaign against the group. As the dominant force in the gulf, Saudi Arabia appears to have led a campaign against Qatar over its support of the Islamists. This week, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Egypt withdrew their ambassadors from Doha, Qatar’s capital, in protest. Saudi Arabia and other gulf states donated more than $12 billion to the military-backed government in Cairo almost immediately after it removed Mr. Morsi.

The decree’s scope remained a puzzle. It was unclear if Saudi Arabia meant to extend the terrorist label to every affiliate or ally of the Brotherhood in the region. That would include the prime ministers of Turkey and Morocco, the leading party in Tunisia, and recognized opposition parties in Jordan and Bahrain. Some analysts asked if the Saudis would jail Islamist public officials from those countries if they visited, say, on a pilgrimage to Mecca.

Saudi Arabia is also a close ally of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood in their shared battle against President Bashar al-Assad of Syria. And less than two years ago, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia met in Riyadh with Mr. Morsi on his first foreign trip after his election. The United States and other Western countries do not consider the Brotherhood a terrorist group.

In a statement issued by its London office, the Brotherhood said it was surprised and distressed by the decree. Unlike the militant groups listed, the Brotherhood said it never declared any government to be “infidel” or a legitimate target of violence. “The Brotherhood takes no stance of enmity or confrontation with the state, but rather acts as an adviser or a guider,” it said.

“The Muslim Brotherhood also cooperates with all nations politically in order to achieve common goals, such as having a dignified and free life,” the group said.

Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi commentator, noted in an interview with the Saudi-owned news network Al Arabiya that the Brotherhood was the only organization on the terrorist blacklist that was not an armed group.

“What are the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood in the kingdom?” he asked. “These are not so easy to describe, and the authorities will need to answer the question of how they plan to respond to the group.”

Ted Cruz: I Don't Agree with Rand Paul on Foreign Policy
Image: Ted Cruz: I Don't Agree with Rand Paul on Foreign Policy

By Sandy Fitzgerald

 / Newsmax 
Paul has commented that some people are still "stuck in the Cold War" era when it comes to dealing with Russia. While Cruz says he's a big fan and good friend of Paul's, "I don't agree with him on foreign policy."

Cruz isn't backing down from his other fights, however. In his CPAC speech, Cruz vowed that Republicans "will repeal every single word of Obamacare," a threat that Karl told him may be difficult as long as Obama is in office.

The Texan said that he does believe that Obamacare will be eliminated, and Democrats will help.

"If there's one thing that unifies politicians of both parties, it is their top priority is preserving their own hides," said Cruz, who believes Congressional Democrats may turn their backs on Obamacare so they can win their upcoming elections.

"It is the most unpopular law in the country," Cruz said. "Millions of people have lost their jobs, their healthcare, and forced into part-time work."

State Department spokesman: “Palestinians need not recognize the Jewish state”

/ Jihad Watch
ObamaAbbasNetanyahu has it right: “They say that they will not recognize a Jewish state in order to leave the right of return on the table. So then what are we even talking about here? That a Palestinian state will be established but it will continue its conflict against the state of Israel with more preferential borders?” Exactly so: what the U.S. is now doing is essentially demanding that Israel commit suicide. Obama wants Israel to make peace with a “Palestinian” state vowed to its destruction. And that state, once established, will be showered with aid from the U.S. and elsewhere — all of which it will use to further the jihad against Israel.

“American State Dept. Spokesman: ‘Palestinians need not recognize the Jewish state,’” by Maya Yarowsky for Jerusalem Online, March 9 (thanks to Pamela Geller):
The spokeswoman for the American State Department, Jen Psaki, stated in an interview last night (Saturday) with the “Al-Quds” newspaper that the Palestinians do not need to recognize Israel as Jewish state as part of the peace agreement if they do not wish to do so.
In her statements to the Palestinian daily newspaper, Psaki stated that, “There is no need for the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. The American stance is clear in that it recognizes Israel as a Jewish state, but there is no need for the Palestinians to recognize it as such in a final agreement”.
Only yesterday the Chairman of the Palestinian Authority, Abu Mazen, stated that “there is not a chance” that he and the Palestinian nation will recognize Israel as a Jewish state. He continued to explain the statement by presenting historical examples, like the Israeli peace with Jordan and Egypt, which did not recognize Israel as a Jewish state, but still signed a peace agreement with the country. Psaki responded to those comments stating, “The relations between Israel and the Palestinians differ from Israel’s relations with the surrounding Arab nations”.
Psaki threw out this weekend’s reports in “Al-Quds” that the sides had already been presented with an initial copy of the framework agreement drafted by Secretary of State John Kerry.
“The Palestinians are not answering the difficult questions”
In an interview with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu this weekend, he addressed the question of recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, claiming that the request of the Palestinians in entirely legitimate. “The central question at the end is of course ‘Are you willing to recognize that the state of Israel is the nation state of the Jewish nation?’. If you don’t have the brunt of the agreement, then why turn to the leftovers. Concentrate on the central and difficult questions that they need to provide an answer for, but they don’t provide an answer. If they do give an answer — its negative”.
“They say that they will not recognize a Jewish state in order to leave the right of return on the table”, added Netanyahu. “So then what are we even talking about here? That a Palestinian state will be established but it will continue its conflict against the state of Israel with more preferential borders? We are a lot of things, but we are definitely not fools”.

The 'Race Card' gets played yet again  
By: Diane Sori

“I broke no rules and he broke the decorum of the House.”
- Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrel Issa referring to Elijah E. Cummings' rants after his mic was turned off.

Sounds good on the surface but Darrel so many Republicans before him...cowering in fear of being called a racist changed his tune and ran scared when the race card was indeed thrown at him.

We all knew it was coming...Issa surely knew it was coming...and so it came to pass that the left did pull out the race card as it's the most effective and feared weapon in their liberal arsenal. And why did they use it this time...simply because Darrel Issa dared to shut off the mic of a BIG mouth Democrat who refused to stop talking...who refused to stop play-acting...after Issa had adjourned the farce of a hearing where the infamous Lois Lerner again evoked 'the Fifth'. "On the advice of my counsel, I respectfully exercise my Fifth Amendment right and decline to answer that question”...she croaked every time she was asked about her involvement... about this administration's involvement... in the IRS scandal targeting conservative and TEA Party groups. And this was after she had 'promised' to answer specific questions as to why she had, in e-mails, referred to the TEA Party in highly critical and insulting ways.

Lois Lerner had 'promised' there's a lesson Issa needs to learn as there's as much credence in a Democrat's promise as there is in Obama beating Vladimir Putin in an arm wrestling match.

And oh yes, besides Lerner's broken promises, the BIG mouth Democrat whose mic Issa had silenced just happened to be black, and rumor has it that he was put on that specific committee just to make sure Lerner didn't crack under pressure and dare to speak 'the truth'...the dirtiest of all the dirty words in the liberal-speak dictionary.

Congressman Elijah E. Cummings was out of order...was most assuredly out of line...but all that matters to Democrats and race baiters is the color Cummings' skin for how dare a conservative white man call, especially publicly, a liberal black man to task. Sad how in today's America skin color trumps all.

Issa felt that Cummings’ anger at being denied the chance to speak was nothing more than a “pre-staged event." I say it was done for 'theater' to set the stage for the race card to again walk out and take a always happens when the left has NOTHING else to use. And true to form when any black leader's actions are questioned, allegations of racism and those now being leveled at Issa....always take center stage.

Cummings “had quite a hissy fit” and “broke the decorum of the House" according to Issa, and that is true for the video of the hearing ( shows a man in meltdown mode...but because he's black that doesn't seem to matter. But also sadly true is that Chairman Issa, cowering in fear of the race card as the Congressional Black Caucus called for his removal from his leadership post did the unthinkable, and in an interview with his local paper he apologized to Cummings...a man who has pulled theatrical stunts just like this before. And to make matters worse several other Republicans on the committee also apologized to Cummings for Issa’s actions.

And so yet another Republican refuses to stand strong on principal, and we wonder why the party of Lincoln and Reagan keeps losing elections in what should be easy wins.

And now into the fray comes none other than America's chief racist, the Reverend Jesse Jackson himself, with this tweet, “Congressman Darrell Issa’s behavior was crude, wrong, racist and mean towards Congressman Elijah Cummings. Do you agree?"

Do I agree...hell NO...for all Jackson is doing is stoking the simmering fires of racial discontent... something we all know he is a master of...and something we all know he needs to put to rest if we are ever going to heal the old racial wounds.

The simple fact is that Darrel Issa was rightfully angry...furious actually...that Lois Lerner...for the second time mind you...wasted both the time of Congress and our taxpayer dollars in what turned into a farce of hearing...a farce because in the time leading up to Lerner's appearance Issa and 'We the People' were led to believe that she would talk. And all Cummings did after Issa adjourned the meeting was to continue on with his bloviating political statement about his, and his alone, perceived unfairness of the hearings instead of asking what Issa was willing to allow him to ask...that being a direct question.

And herein entered the race card for all this tit-for-tat that went on from the point of adjournment had NOTHING to do with the Lerner/IRS issue at hand but had everything twisted around to be about the color of Cummings' skin. And that in and of itself is even sadder than the Lerner debacle for the Democrats have made everything...YES everything about race...about skin color...and in doing so they have in actuality set race relations back decades and the Republicans have fallen into their oh-so-wanted trap. We all know that, unfortunately, true racism still does exist to some degree in today's America, but most of it has either been caused or fueled on by the man currently occupying the White House.

And by making everything about diluting the true meaning of the word 'racism'...Barack HUSSEIN Obama and his minions have allowed true legitimate cases of racism NOT to be taken effect making them irrelevant...for there are only so many times people will listen to, tolerate, or accept the crying of wolf...or in this case the playing of the much overused race card along with its claim that Republicans want to shut down the minority black voice...which we all know NOT to be true. But always remember that what is true in our conservative real world is foreign in the liberal left world of make believe.

And so the race card game continues on via the IRS scandal as Issa's apology has hurt us right now for it showed our side as weak...weak because shame on Darrel Issa to have caved out of simple fear and targeted intimidation...and this surrendering every time the race card is played must stop and stop now if we are to win in November...if we are to take our country back...period.