AMERICANS UNDER SIEGE

SWAT team breaking down door in no-knock raid


How much police force is too much? That is a very difficult question to answer; the educated and informed opinions held by experts have great variety in their responses. I believe a correct answer may not always exist, much depends on the circumstances and the information law enforcement has available at the time. Law enforcement must be allowed to use every available option to mitigate the danger to themselves and the community when dealing with potentially violent criminals, but that force must be tempered by sound judgement and an adherence to the law.

There is no doubt law enforcement in the US is under constant threat by every maniac, thug, or fool with having a bad day and a bad attitude. There are countless stories of police getting killed on the job, even when doing the most mundane of duties, such as serving a court summons or conducting a traffic stop. Criminals are sometimes armed and ready for a gunfight, such as the North Hollywood, California bank robbery of 1997. Two bank robbers in body armor gave the local police a very bad morning. The handguns and shotguns used by the police could not penetrate the suspects' body armor, and the police eventually raided local gun shops in order to find rifles of sufficient power to get the job done. This incident caused police departments across the nation to begin issuing AR-15 rifles to patrol officers, in case they ever again encounter such a scenario.  However, law enforcement walks into potentially dangerous scenarios every day, especially when raiding the homes of suspected drug dealers or when dealing with members of organized crime. There is no question about it, law enforcement must be allowed to use the correct tools to get their job done safely.

On the other hand, when dealing with non-violent criminals law enforcement should keep the use of force to a minimum. There are many stories of law enforcement using too much force in a given scenario. Some political leaders, with plenty of political courage, have voiced strong objections to heavy handed police tactics. Members of law enforcement claim they can never be certain and therefore must remain vigilant at all times. However, there are limits to what law enforce can do. These limits are in place to protect innocent citizens from overly zealous law enforcement. One recent example is that of Trump ally Roger Stone. The FBI raided the home of Mr. Stone with 29 agents consisting of: heavily armed special tactical units; 17 vehicles with 2 armored personnel carries; 2 amphibious watercraft which unloaded some agents; and a helicopter armed with a specially trained long range sniper. In contrast, the US military sent far fewer Navy SEALS to capture Osama Bin Laden. Mr. Stone has been cooperating with Congressional investigators and Robert Mueller's special investigation for some time. According to legal expert, Judge Andrew Napolitano,  prosecutors are very well acquainted with both Roger Stone and his attorneys; and there is no reason for anyone to suspect the elderly Roger Stone, who happens to be a bit of a dandy with no criminal record, would suddenly become violent and pose a threat to anyone.

CNN was there, evidence of possible political influence over FBI investigation of Roger Stone

Why did the FBI send such overwhelming forces to arrest one elderly and nonviolent man that had been cooperating with prosecutors? The FBI claims it was done to ensure Stone did not have a chance to destroy any incriminating evidence. What evidence would that be? The FBI's reasoning might be acceptable bu for two caveats, the ridiculously overwhelming quantity of men and materials that were used and a CNN news crew was part of the FBI's raid. These facts suggest that there were political considerations in this matter, and someone wanted to make an example our of Roger Stone; otherwise the prosecutor's office would have contacted Stone's attorney to request Stone turn himself in, as is normally done in such matters.

There is much debate on this matter, of course. Some Republican voices have come out against the FBI and it's tactics, while Democrat voices have supported the FBI, Robert Mueller, and the endless fishing expedition looking for evidence to support the idea that President Trump has in some way violated the law.

I do not know what the correct answer is for every situation, but I am certain it is best to always question the motives of those in positions of power, whether it is the Global Elite, the bankers, the politicians, or members of the legal system. The old adage is still true "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Our nation and it's Constitution were set up by the Founding Fathers in such a way to ensure no person or institution would attain absolute power. The moment we lose sight of the fact that as Americans we are all equal in the eyes of the law, is the moment some have acquired more power than others because men of bad character will always crave power over others.

THE GUN GRABBERS IN OREGON HAVE GONE CRAZY

 

 

This proposed bill in Oregon is complete nonsense. The law is so restrictive it would practically end gun use in the state. For years the Liberals have been saying that "nobody is coming after our guns", and they have been lying! Do not believe the gun grabbing Liberals! The dream of every gun grabber is the ultimate banning of all civilian firearm ownership or usage.

The law limits ammo purchases to 20 rounds a month, per person. Most boxes of small caliber ammo contain more than 20 rounds! A normal trip to the local shooting range, to sight in a scope for example, generally requires more than 20 rounds. Obviously someone wrote this, without having a clue about guns or ammunition.

This piece of legal idiocy bans all firearms with magazines capable of holding more than five rounds. Brilliant! Almost every firearm in existence has a magazine that holds more than five rounds. The list includes: most pistols, rifles, and shotguns. Even the vintage revolvers and lever action rifles of the late 1800's have magazines that hold more than five rounds. This law would basically ban almost all modern firearms. Obviously someone wrote this, without having a clue about guns or ammunition.

 

This nonsense needs to stop. The voters of Oregon should take a long and hard look at their elected representatives, anyone that supports this tyrannical law should be quickly booted out of office. We the People have the Right to Bear Arms. Do not allow misguided Liberals and vote hungry politicians to take away our Rights. 

JUST ANOTHER GOVERNMENT CLOSURE

The government has closed down, pending a budget agreement. SO WHAT? This does not have a real affect on the public. In previous decades, the government would be shutdown on a frequent basis. Nobody ever noticed until it became something for the media to salivate over. The mainstream press will find any number of media "experts" declaring the end of the world has arrived. These experts discuss doomsday scenarios, which will never occur, while keeping a straight face and serious expression. The more creative and nonsensical the fantasy, the higher the ratings. 

 Some folks will blame Trump and his single minded agenda of building walls on the Mexican border. Guess what, the US Government was shutdown under the following Presidents: Obama, Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, and the list goes on. Trump's idea of building a wall is nothing new. I can remember when Ronald Reagan took this idea to Congress during the 1980's, and almost every president since then has had the same idea, but the wall has yet to get built.

Two things will happen, before this government shutdown is finished. Congress will pass a budget of some sort, and government employees WILL get paid for the hours they lost during the shutdown. In the end, life will continue as it always has.

HAPPY NEW YEAR