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

HAPPY THANKSGIVING

RULED BY FEAR: GUN CONFISCATIONS HAVE BEGUN

Gun confiscations have begun, and they have already claimed the life of one victim. According to news sources, police went to the home of Gary J. Willis at 5:17 am. The suddenly woken man retrieved a handgun and answered the door, not certain who it was at such an early hour. When police identified themselves, he put down his weapon. However, when informed they were there to confiscate his weapons under Maryland's Red Flag law, a struggle ensued and a weapon was reportedly discharged. At which point, an officer fired his service weapon, killing Gary Willis.

So far, everything seems to be going according to plan. The state creates a law that allows interested third parties to petition the courts to confiscate the firearms of someone that is possibly dangerous, and the police can show up at all hours and save the day.  However, it seems a few points have been missed in this scenario.The law allows the courts to order the confiscation of person's personal property, based on the word of a third party. This law is open ended and a bit vague, meaning it will create nightmare scenarios for accused gun owners that are completely innocent of any crime.

 Let's take a moment to envision a hypothetical situation that is quite plausible, given the nature of the law and judicial system.
A gun owner and his ex-girlfriend have an argument, the ex-girlfriend feels scared because the man has several guns. The gun owner has never committed a crime, nor is he known to be violent, but he is quick tempered and can be argumentative and loud. So she turns to the courts, in order to calm her fears. The court determines there is reasonable grounds to confiscate the man's weapons, and the police quickly carry out the court's order. The man must now hire lawyers to represent him in court, in order to prove that he is not threat to anyone and is a responsible gun owner.  He wins his case and  receives his firearms from the police, in addition to a bill from his lawyer that adds up to thousands of dollars.

Who besides the man's attorney benefited from the above example? The courts and police have wasted precious time and money chasing an innocent man. The accused has lost time, his reputation, and lots of money, all because an ex-girlfriend was frightened by his demeanor. The ex-girlfriend has neither gained nor lost; she was honestly frightened by his demeanor, and is thus innocent of perjury, but was never in any real danger. The only ones that benefit from such laws are the trial lawyers that charge hundreds of dollars an hour.

In the example above, I could have been the gun owner in question. I am large, loud, emotional, argumentative, quick tempered, and I have been known to inadvertently frighten people with my demeanor.  I happen to be of Greek ancestry, being loud and quick tempered is a cultural thing. I know lots of other people that are also loud and quick tempered, and most of them are of varied backgrounds. Do we qualify as being a threat to society because we are men, or because we are loud and emotional? 

Some folks make the argument that this law will help prevent mass shootings, suicides, and other violent crimes, by allowing the courts to confiscate firearms based on the word of family members or closely associated persons. There is some merit to that argument, many crimes could have been prevented if the courts had been allowed to act proactively against troubled individuals. There is no doubt in my mind that the Maryland state legislature was focused on the safety of it's citizens when it passed this law; however, I don't believe this law is the correct solution.
 

 I do not know what the correct answer is, but I do know that we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty and that a whole lot of innocent people will have their property confiscated based on other people's fear. Fear is a powerful emotion, and people can act rashly when they are afraid. This law plays on the public's fear, and when a government uses fear as a tool to implement policy it becomes tyranny. Let's hope that cooler heads will eventually prevail, and draft laws that are based on reason instead of fear.

EVERYONE IS SO VERY EXCITED ABOUT THE ELECTION

Everyone is so very excited about the election, but nobody has considered if this election will actually change anything. After careful examination, we must realize there is absolutely zero difference between the two parties at the national level. Whether the one or the other party won or lost will make no difference, it will be business as usual in Congress. The Global Elite will continue to control everything, and the public will remain as unaware as always. Americans have lost their liberty, but they gladly cheer whenever they are told the next election will make all the difference.