McCain rejects report claiming Syrian rebels are largely jihadists

1 Comment

This is from The Daily Caller.

Senator John has served America honorably while in the military.

But his last two active brain cells have turned to mush.

Pack up and go home Senator then try to salvage your reputation.


Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain hotly disputed a study claiming that at least half of Syria’s rebels are radical jihadis, repeatedly exclaiming “Not true, not true!”

“Frankly, I just disagree,” McCain told the Council on Foreign Relations audience, challenging the contention by defense consultancy IHS Jane’s that “the insurgency is now dominated by groups with at least an Islamist viewpoint of the conflict.”

“There’s about 70 percent still who are Free Syrian Army,” McCain said, flipping on its head the consulting firm’s research showing that just 30 percent are fighting for secular values.

McCain has frequently called for an increase in arms shipments to rebels groups fighting the Assad regime, and on Tuesday evening he sought to diminish concerns that these arms may one day be turned against the United States or its allies.

“The point, I think, that you and others are missing,” he told the questioner, “[is that] Syria is a moderate nation. Syria has the highest literacy rate of any nation in the Middle East. They are not going to submit to a jihadis or al-Qaida group governing them. They will not.”

“That’s a really a convenient cop-out to say, ‘Oh, we don’t know who they are,’” he continued angrily. “I know who they are. I was in Syria and I met them.”

But at other times, the senator noted that large parts of Syria are now “safe havens for thousands of extremists” and that their numbers grow “day by day.”

McCain also dismissed the Obama administration’s line that negotiations between the United States, Syria and Russia to destroy Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles represented a turning point in the conflict.

“I wish I could see the recent agreement between Russia and the United States . . . as a major breakthrough,” he said. “Unfortunately, I cannot,” he continued, claiming that Russia “led the administration . . . into a diplomatic blind alley.

“The fact is the Assad regime will likely avoid any meaningful punishment for it’s use — not just possession, but use — of weapons of mass destruction,” he lamented.

The senator repeated what has become his mantra over the last few weeks: “Degrade the capabilities of the Assad regime, upgrade the capabilities of the moderate opposition, shift the momentum on the battlefield, and thereby create conditions for a negotiated end of the conflict and the removal from power of Assad and his top henchmen.”

McCain stated that the key to this strategy is “meaningful lethal assistance to moderate opposition forces.” He bemoaned the slow pace of American weapons transfers, which thus far have been facilitated by the CIA.

“It’s long past time to offer significant training and equipment for moderate Syrian forces, and the Defense Department is best suited to lead this expanded mission,” he said.

It’s likely the senator will see his dream of a Pentagon-led armament campaign realized. On Monday, The Washington Examiner reported that President Barack Obama waived a portion of federal law prohibiting military assistance to terrorist groups, paving the way for a large-scale weapons transfer to even some radical elements of the Syrian opposition.


Read more:



#BlackPrivilege: Horrific Week Of Racial Crimes Perp’d Against Whites In Obama’s “Post Racial” America

Leave a comment

Hat Tip To The Mad Jewess.

I thought Obama was going to bring Americans together?

Race relations in America are at a lower point than in the 1960’s.

I recall some real bad race relations from the 60’s.

It scares me to think we are going backwards race relations.

#BlackPrivilege: Horrific Week Of Racial Crimes Perp’d Against Whites In Obama’s “Post Racial” America

Meanwhile, Americans are shaking in their boots hoping the left-wing does not call them ‘racists’.  If you are white and unarmed, you are an irresponsible person.

Colorado is paying the price for voting in Obama: Rash of brutal hate crimemob attacks in Denver

Click: Black nurse indicted after ‘negligent‘ death of 3-year-old White girl

Kayla Andrews

Click-White ‘good Samaritan’ couple repaid by black ‘family friend’ ex-felon who raped and attempted to murder wife

Leanna Whitlock

Click- Raleigh black pleads not guilty in slaying of his white ex-girlfriend, mother of his two children

Laura Jean Ackerson

Click-83-Year-Old Man Attacked, Robbed Of Wallet, Important Papers by Black Male with Corn Rows

Nichola Capozzoli

See all of it:

16 August 2013 archived – (click at left for full coverage)

Blacks have a shoot-down in Oakland, nobody cares and walk on by:

Enjoy your country, we get what we deserve.

-David Ben Moshe


What America Conservatives Can Learn From Winston Churchill

Leave a comment

This is from Patriot Update.

Conservatives know a large percentage of the American people have

their heads not in the sand but up their a$$es.

Conservative will not only need to learn from Winston Churchill but

Ronald Reagan.

We need to eliminate from power the Establishment Republicans and 

Their RINO stooges.

When it is presented and practiced Conservatism wins every time.


The facts are well known to historians.  The years leading up to World War II were wilderness years for Winston Churchill.  When it came to warning his countrymen about the growing threat Adolph Hitler and his Nazi party represented to the world in general and to Britain specifically, Churchill was a lone voice crying in the wilderness.

British officials and the British people did not hear Churchill’s warnings for the simple reason that they did not want to hear them.

Having lost thousands of young men fighting in the trenches of World War I, the British public did not want to hear about the possibility of another war with Germany.  The prospect of renewed fighting was so distasteful that British politicians and the British public chose to just stick their heads in the sand and ignore Churchill’s prescient warnings.

Then, just barely before it was too late, they were forced by circumstances to listen and at long last admit he had been right all along.  Conservatives now find themselves in a position similar to that of Winston Churchill and they could learn a valuable lesson by studying his example of perseverance in the face of opposition.

True conservatives feel they are being abandoned by the Republican Party as it bends ever leftward in a misguided attempt to attract women and Hispanic voters.  Churchill too was abandoned by his party, a party led by Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin and later by the ultimate appeaser, Prime Minister Neville “Peace-in-our time” Chamberlain.  Like Obama, Baldwin and Chamberlain were more interested in exploiting public opinion for political gain than in influencing it for the good of their country.

What Churchill had to contend with was a British public more interested in comfort than conflict and a political party—his own—more interested in exploiting the head-in-the-sand mentality of the British public than in telling the truth about  Nazi aggression.

Conservatives in America today are in a similar position.  The American public has been wooed by liberals into accepting entitlement, statism, identity politics, class envy, environmental wackiness, and feminism as the new normal in America.  Conservatives who know better and speak out against the looming internal threat of socialism, like Churchill, find themselves on the outside; ostracized by the American public and their own political party.

Like the pre-World War II British conservative party of Baldwin and Chamberlain, America’s Republican Party is focusing more on political expedience than on statesmanship and leadership.

Like Churchill in the long and frustrating years leading up to World War II, true conservatives in contemporary America feel like alien beings in their own country.

No one wants to listen, and the few who listen don’t want to believe.  Spurred on by the false promises and distortions of the left, many Americans—47 percent if you can believe Mitt Romney—have convinced themselves that business is the enemy, government will take care of them, working Americans represent a bottomless well of tax revenue for government programs, entitlement is better than hard work, and identity politics coupled with class envy is a legitimate way to gain and keep power.

These are frustrating times for true conservatives in America.  These are our wilderness years.  This is why Churchill’s handling of his wilderness years prior to World War II can teach us a valuable lesson. This lesson is simple:  When you are right, persevere.

Do not be put off by an alien press, left-leaning media mavens, those who are so addicted to their government entitlements that they refuse to acknowledge the possibility of ever losing them, corrupt politicians who would sell our country out for even a short-term benefit, and a society that has digressed to the point that it no longer endorses the values of our Founders.

When you know that your countrymen have adopted a mentality that appeals in the short run but is destructive in the long run, follow Churchill’s example: speak out and don’t stop speaking out.  Or in the words of Churchill, “Never give up.  Never give up.  Never, never, never, never give up.”

Like Great Britain in the years leading up to World War II, America has a day of reckoning coming.  Liberals like Barack Obama and company can promise, distort, and obfuscate all they want.  Eventually the truth will emerge, and it will prevail.

When this happens, Americans of all stripes will turn to conservative leaders to rescue them from the mess created by misguided leftists, just as Great Britain turned to Churchill.  Unfortunately, when this finally happens, like Churchill, conservatives will face a major challenge: how to extricate our country from the deep hole self-serving politicians and entitled citizens have dug for us.

The United State was there to rescue Great Britain from the destruction wrought by Hitler.  Who will be there to rescue the United States from the destruction wrought by Obama?




Leave a comment

This is from Human Events.

We need to follow Mexico’s example on how to deal with undesirables.

We need to adopt their positions on holding office and being able to

serving in the military.

Here's how Mexico treats 'undesirable' foreigners

American politicians in both parties are stampeding all over themselves to pander to Mexico and adopt mass illegal alien amnesty schemes. But while the Mexican government lobbies for more “humane” treatment of illegal border crossers from their country into ours, Mexico remains notoriously restrictionist toward “undesirable” foreigners who break their laws or threaten their security.

Despite widely touted immigration “reforms” adopted in 2011, Mexico still puts Mexico first — as any country that is serious about protecting its sovereignty should and would.

Article 33 of Mexico’s constitution establishes the right of the president to detain and deport “any foreigner” and prohibits foreigners from participating “in any way” in the political affairs of the country.

While you read this passage, dwell on the demagogic rhetoric of meddling Mexican consular officials and lobbyists who assail America for its (poorly enforced) detention and deportation policies:

“The President of the Republic shall have the power to expel from national territory any foreigner, according to the law and after a hearing. The law shall establish the administrative procedure for this purpose, as well as the place where the foreigner should be detained and the time for that. Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country.”

Article 32 of Mexico’s constitution unapologetically bans non-native born residents from holding sensitive jobs and joining the country’s military. Preference is given unabashedly to Mexicans over foreigners.

While you read this passage, contemplate the inexorable push by open-borders groups to secure illegal alien “rights” to American jobs, American military assignments, American driver’s licenses, discounted U.S. college tuition and Obamacare:

“Only Mexicans by birth can perform all government employments, positions, or commissions in which the status of citizenship is indispensable. During peacetime, foreigners shall neither serve in the Army nor in the police bodies. During peacetime, only Mexicans by birth can serve in the Army, in the Navy or in the Air Force as well can perform any employment or commission within such corporations.

The same condition applies to captains, pilots, skippers, ship engineers, flight engineers and, in general, to every crew member in a ship or an airplane carrying the Mexican flag. In the same way, only Mexicans by birth can be port harbormasters, steersmen and airport superintendents.

Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners, under equal circumstances, for all kind of concessions, employments, positions or commissions of the government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable.”

While amnesty advocates and civil liberties zealots in the U.S. decry “police state” tactics against illegal aliens, Mexico fiercely maintains laws against illegal border crossings; “verification visits” to enforce visa conditions; requirements that foreigners produce proof of legal status on demand; and enforcement and cooperation between and among immigration officials and law enforcement authorities at all levels in Mexico. Native-born Mexicans are also empowered to make citizens arrests of illegal aliens and turn them in to authorities.

Mexico’s National Catalog of Foreigners tracks all outside tourists and foreign nationals. A National Population Registry tracks and verifies the identity of every member of the population, who must carry a citizens identity card. Visitors who do not possess proper documents and identification are subject to arrest at any time. And for those seeking permanent residency or naturalization, Mexico requires that they must not be economic burdens on society and must have clean criminal histories. Those seeking to obtain Mexican citizenship must show a birth certificate, provide a bank statement proving economic independence, pass an exam and prove they can provide their own health care.

Applicants are assessed based on a point system using factors such as level of education, employment experience, and scientific and technological knowledge. Property acquisition and ownership by foreigners is still severely restricted. Mexican corporations are banned from hiring illegal aliens.

Exit question: If such self-interested “nativism” is right and good for the protection and survival of Mexico, why not for the United States?

Investigate the racial context behind Martin’s death

Leave a comment

This is from The Chicago Sun Times.

The United nations has no say as to what happens in America.

Jessie you and Al need to close your race baiting pie holes.

Jessie and Al have done real well for themselves in this

horrible racists country.


f Trayvon Martin were not a young black male, he would be alive today. Despite the verdict, it’s clear that George Zimmerman would never have confronted a young white man wearing a hoodie. He would, at the very least, have listened to the cops and stayed back. Trayvon Martin is dead because Zimmerman believed that “these guys always get away” and chose not to wait for the police.

Trayvon Martin’s death shatters the convenient myths that blind us to reality. That reality, as the Chicago Sun-Times editorial board wrote, is that “black men carry a special burden from the day they are born.”

Both the prosecutor and the defense claimed that the trial was not about race. But Trayvon Martin was assumed to be threatening just for walking while being young, black and male.

That is the reality that can no longer be ignored. Through the years, gruesome horrors — the murder of Emmitt Till, the shooting of Medgar Evers in his front yard — have galvanized African Americans and public action on civil rights. Trayvon Martin’s death should do the same.

What it dramatizes is what Michelle Alexander calls “the New Jim Crow.” Segregation is illegal; scurrilous racism unacceptable. But mass incarceration and a racially biased criminal justice system have served many of the same functions. Since 1970, we’ve witnessed a 600 percent increase in the number of people behind bars, overwhelmingly due to the war on drugs. Those imprisoned are disproportionately African Americans. The U.S. now imprisons a greater percentage of its black population than South Africa did at the height of apartheid.

Drug usage is not dramatically greater in the black community. But young black males are racially profiled, more likely to be stopped and frisked (something New York Mayor Bloomberg defends), more likely to be arrested if stopped, more likely to be charged if arrested, more likely to be jailed if charged. In schools, zero tolerance — once again enforced disproportionately against people of color — results in expulsions, creating a virtual pipeline to prison.

The results are devastating. Young fathers are jailed. Children grow up in broken homes, in severe poverty, since those convicted never really leave prison. They face discrimination in employment, in housing, in the right to vote, in educational opportunities, in food stamps and public support. As Alexander argues, the U.S. hasn’t ended the racial caste system, it has redesigned it.

As Trayvon Martin’s death shows us, the norm increasingly is to police and punish poor young men of color, not educate or empower them. And that norm makes it dangerous to be young, black and male in America.

There are three possible reactions to this reality. African Americans can adjust to it, teaching their children how to survive against the odds. We can resent it, seething in suppressed fury until we can’t stand it anymore. Or we can resist, assert our rights to equal protection under the laws, and challenge openly the new reality.

We need a national investigation of the racial context that led to Trayvon Martin’s slaying. Congress must act. And it’s time to call on the United Nations Human Rights Commission for an in-depth investigation of whether the U.S. is upholding its obligations under international human rights laws and treaties. Trayvon Martin’s death demands much more than a jury’s verdict on George Zimmerman. It calls for us to hear the evidence and render a verdict on the racial reality that never had its day in court at the trial.


How liberal anti-gun activists view the American Constitution

1 Comment

This is from Fox News Opinion.

We are defiantly through the Looking Glass.

We need to keep the House in Republican in hands and

take back the Senate.


Last month, the House of Representatives unanimously adopted an amendment to the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act to prohibit funding for the implementation of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) for one year.

The Obama administration says it will sign the ATT soon.

The House amendment was vigorously opposed by a group of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) led by Oxfam America, and including Amnesty International, the Arms Control Association, and the National Association of Evangelicals.


Obviously, the NGOs’ lobbying was ineffective. But that won’t keep them from continuing to try to shape the interpretation and the implementation of the treaty, which is a creature of their own making, in ways that seek to impinge on U.S. sovereignty.

And now, the U.N. wants to pay NGOs around the world to keep up their efforts, which include this ongoing and misguided effort to make the treaty trump U.S. law.

The amendment that so angered the NGOs was offered by Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Penn.). And their arguments against it were odd indeed. In an email to lawmakers (see below), the groups claimed the Kelly Amendment would “infringe on the commander-in-chief authority of the president.”

This is an odd and revealing – not to mention completely wrong – reading of the U.S. Constitution. The president has inherent powers as commander-in-chief, but control of the purse strings is not one of them. That authority resides in Congress.

Moreover, the U.S. hasn’t even signed the ATT yet. After it does, the Senate would have to ratify the treaty. The idea that barring the expenditure of funds to implement an unsigned and unratified treaty somehow violates the president’s Constitutional authority is truly bizarre.

The NGO argument contained further oddities. They claimed that the Kelly Amendment “could require the Pentagon to no longer implement the rigorous export control system it currently employs.”

Wrong again: while the Amendment was about the Defense Department’s budget, it’s actually the State Department that controls the U.S.’s export control system.

But leave aside the incorrect implication that the Pentagon runs the U.S. system. The NGOs are asserting that even though the U.S. has not signed anything yet, its entire arms export control system and the ATT are already legally inseparable and beyond Congressional control. To ban funding for the treaty is, according to the NGOs, to drop the entire U.S. export control system.

This is an amazing claim.

The NGOs assert that “maintaining a strong export control system is, in fact, ‘implementing’ the Treaty” and thus that the system the U.S. “currently employs” is mandated by the treaty. It would therefore seem that, according to the NGOs, the ATT already profoundly limits the freedom of the U.S. to run and reform its own export control system.

But according to the NGOs, the ATT does more than control and freeze the U.S. export control system. The NGOs believe it compels the U.S. to alter its foreign aid programs. As they put it, because other nations may sign and implement the ATT, “Pentagon programs and projects [against arms trafficking] . . . will be required to adapt to this new reality.”

This is a strange “new reality” indeed. An unsigned and unratified treaty cannot “require” the U.S. to do anything. It certainly cannot change programs that exist to pursue objectives approved by Congress. Moreover, these programs have no connection to the U.S. implementation of the ATT, which was the subject of the Kelly Amendment.

The Pentagon does not conduct its activities “pursuant” to the ATT or “in accordance with and in furtherance of these global standards.” It conducts them pursuant to U.S. policy, as directed and funded by Congress. If Congress wants to enact a bill that would explicitly violate the terms of the ATT, it may do so. Such a bill would prevail over the ATT as a matter of domestic law.

Throughout their email, the NGOs completely fail to distinguish between the ATT and the authority of Congress: as they see it, everything the U.S. does in the realm of arms export control is already regulated by the ATT.

In fact, that’s the NGO strategy: Set up the ATT as the controlling moral and legal authority for U.S. policy, then slowly reinterpret the ATT to drag U.S. policy into alignment with their preferences.

It’s hard to think of a more blatant demonstration of the fact that the most vociferous supporters of this treaty see it as a way to constrain the U.S.

Moreover, the U.N. is in on the NGO game too. It recently announced a “Trust Facility” that will “support all aspects of the Arms Trade Treaty’s implementation, including small arms and ammunition controls.” To that end, the Facility will fund NGOs—not to mention institutions such as universities— so they can provide “legal or legislative assistance” to promote ratification of the treaty by “as many countries as possible.”

In other words, the U.N. will fund NGO lobbying for the ATT here, there and everywhere, no matter how erroneous, misguided and counter to U.S. sovereignty their activities may be.

The U.N. has no business doing this. The Trust Facility is further evidence that the U.N. is far too cozy with the NGOs. The only consolation is that, if the success of last month’s NGO lobbying effort is any evidence, the U.N. is backing the losers.

Read more:


Obama’s Failed record

Leave a comment

Like every thing Obama touches fails.

Pretty soon America will fail because of Obama.

The 2014 midterm election to reverse course.

It is important Conservatives stay fired up and vote.


President Obama To Ban Importation of Ammo, Magazines and Gun Accessories Without Congressional Approval

Leave a comment

This is from Jews For The preservation of Firearms Ownership.

We better be vigilante or Obama will shaft us.

Obama thinks he can dictate laws and what laws he will obey.

Over the course of the last month, while Americans were distracted with the threat of nuclear war on the Korean peninsula and the devastation wrought by the Boston bombings, President Obama was quietly working behind the scenes to craft laws and regulations that will further erode the Second Amendment.

Congress, and thus We the People, may have unequivocally rejected federal legislation in March which aimed to outlaw most semi-automatic rifles, restrict magazine capacity, and force national registration, but that didn’t stop President Obama from ceding regulatory control over firearms importation to the United Nations just two weeks later.

What the UN Arms Trade Treaty, passed without media fanfare by 154 counties, would do is to restrict the global trade of, among other things, small arms and light weapons. Opponents of the treaty argue that loopholes within the new international framework for global gun control may make it illegal for Americans to purchase and import firearms manufactured outside of the United States.

To further his gun-grabbing agenda, however, President Obama and his administration didn’t stop there.

Now they’re taking another significant step against Americans’ right to bear arms — and they’re doing it through Presidential Executive Action, a strategy that, once again, bypasses Congressional oversight and the legislative process.

…it appears that the BHO Administration is taking executive action on firearms importation. Take a few minutes to read this: After Senate setback, Obama quietly moving forward with gun regulation. Here is the key portion of the article:

“The Importation of Defense Articles and Defense Services – U.S. Munitions Import List references executive orders, amends ATF regulations and clarifies Attorney General authority “to designate defense articles and defense services as part of the statutory USML for purposes of permanent import controls,” among other clauses specified in heavy legalese requiring commensurate analysis to identify just what the administration’s intentions are. Among the speculations of what this could enable are concerns that importing and International Traffic in Arms Regulations [ITAR] may go forward to reflect key elements within the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.”[Emphasis added.]

Depending on how it is implemented, the implications of this change could be huge. With the stroke a of a pen and without the consent of Congress, ATF bureaucrats could make ANY gun part or accessory (including magazines) or ammunition that were originally manufactured or perhaps even those designed for military use no longer legal for importation for civilian use.

That might mean no more milsurp parts sets. No more milsurp magazines. No more milsurp ammo. No more milsurp optics. Perhaps not even spare firing pins. This could be ugly.

I strongly recommend that you stock up on magazines, ammunition and spare parts for any of your imported military pattern guns, as soon as possible! Once an import ban is implemented, prices will skyrocket.

Source: James Rawles‘ Survival Blog via The Prepper Website

Just five days ago the President vowed to push forward on gun control without Congress (see video below) and Nancy Pelosi argued that no matter what Congress says, gun control is inevitable.

This latest round of Executive Actions is what they meant.

A direct on attack on the second amendment is difficult if not impossible, so they are trying to slither their way in through the backdoor by restricting international trade so we can’t import new firearms, by restricting access to accessories and gun parts, by heavily taxing ammunitionand gun purchases, by mandating policies like forcing gun owners to have liability insurance, and of course, by identifying potentially dangerous gun owners and simply taking their firearmsbecause of public safety concerns.

The President recently suggested that the American people have spoken, and that they want guns to be restricted, banned and heavily regulated.

If that’s so, then how is that a bipartisan Congress overwhelmingly rejected the President’s bid to restrict and outlaw private ownership of millions of weapons and gun accessories?

Going through the United Nations and now implementing Executive Actions to bypass America’s Constitutionally mandated system of checks and balances is an act of desperation.

Those who would take our rights have been left with no choice but to try and force their agenda upon us through dictatorial means.

This article is brought to you courtesy of Mac Slavo.


JPFO, Fierce Defenders of the Second Amendment

Leave a comment

This is from Jews For The preservation Of Firearms Ownership.

The title says it all.

Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership was featured in this article. Read about all our work to help protect the Second Amendment along with an interview with our Executive Director Charles Heller. For more information on Gun Laws or law in general, please click on the links.

On April 17th, the Senate rejected a plan to expand background checks for gun buyers. The plan to extend background checks to gun-show purchases and online purchases failed to get the 60 votes needed to pass in the Senate, receiving only 54 votes in favor and 46 against it. The proposed ban on military style assault weapons also failed to pass.

The background check amendment drafted by Republican Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Democratic Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia was President Obama’s best hope to pass gun-control legislation after the massacre of 20 children and six educators at an elementary school in Connecticut. He had hoped that this amendment would offer enough of a compromise so as to pass in the Senate. Most Republicans and four Democrats voted against the amendment.

Gun rights and gun control are certainly contentious issues in the United States that continue to divide public opinion. Opponents of the Manchin-Toomey have emphasised that it only served to infringe upon the right to bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment and would do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals or mentally ill.

Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership (JFPO) is a non-profit educational civil rights organization that was founded in 1989. Its initial aim was to educate the Jewish community about how Jews had suffered in history when they were disarmed. It welcomed and expanded its aims to educate people of all faiths on what it views as potentially dangerousvictim disarmament policies.

The following is an interview with Charles Heller, Executive Director of JPFO, on his thoughts and feelings about the failure of the gun-control legislation to pass in the Senate and the work of his organization in the realm of gun rights.

1. How do you feel about the rejection of the Senate of the gun-control legislation?

We think it’s a good thing. Criminals have a tendency not to go to legitimate sources for guns. As such, restricting private sales via a prior restraint, strikes us as just a reversion to Jim Crow. If you liked segregation, you will love gun control.

2. What message would you send those in the Senate who supported this legislation?

Go home, and let freedom ring. Help elect someone to replace you who grasps the concept of individual liberty.

3. Do you think that maybe what is truly needed is to simply keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have access to them (e.g. the mentally ill) rather than make it tougher for law-abiding citizens to purchase firearms?

Yes. Devote all the resources that would be used on prior restraints, and focus them on criminal and insane misuse of arms. Also, be open to the lawful arming of people in sensitive places, such as schools.

4. What are some of the accomplishments of Jews for The Preservation of Firearms Ownership?

We discovered and published the fact that our 1968 “Gun Control Act,” was based largely on the 1938 Nazi Weapons Law, and that the work was done to translate that law by our State Department at the behest of Thomas Dodd, a prosecutor at Nuremberg.

We created a movie, “Innocents Betrayed,” which shows the history of genocide by government outside of war in the 20th Century. It illustrates that the predicate act in every case was disarmament of the victims.

Our Rabbi, Dovid Bendory, has done a video with us called “The 10 Commandments of Self-Defense,” stating the biblical principles as to why gun control is evil.

We have published “The Kosher Gun Laws,” showing exactly which gun laws are moral.

We have engaged medical professionals to openly discuss the progression of irrational hatred of guns, and investigate possible cures.

We have produced a DVD called, “The Gang,” documenting some of the dishonest acts of the BATFE.

We have published “Dial 911 and Die,” written by Arizona Attorney Richard Stevens, documenting the Supreme Court cases which relieve the police of the duty of protecting the individual citizen of the U.S.

We have produced the DVD “No Guns For Negroes,” with The Congress of Racial Equality, about the history of violence and suppression of the rights of Blacks.

We have produced the DVD “No Guns For Jews,” showing the history of oppression against Jews, via arms control. We have produced several music albums about the Bill of Rights.

We have translated the Bill of Rights into 15 other languages for all the world to adopt.

5. What are some of the future plans for the JPFO?

We plan to continue to publish the facts about gun control, its evils, and lawful methods that can be used to end it.

For more information on Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership, please visit their site. For more information on gun laws and news, please visit our Gun Laws Page.

Interviewed with Charles Heller of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms, Tucson, Arizona

Police and Military Facing Tough Choice: Constitution or Gun Control

Leave a comment

This is from Godfather Politics.

I can see the problem out military and police officers

are facing not want to disobey their superior’s orders.

Yet not wanting to arrest or even using deadly force against

friends,family or their neighbors.

Yet they did take an Oath to Protect and defend the Constitution.

So that oath means not enforcing unconstitutional laws.

I have family and friends that have been in law enforcement or still are.  When they took their oath of office, they all swore to uphold the Constitution and laws of their city, state and nation.  When anyone joins the military, they take a similar oath to protect the country and uphold the Constitution.

There is another thing that all of those oaths of office have in common.  The section about protecting the country and Constitution says that they will protect against foreign and domestic threats.  Our Founding Fathers and the people that established our military and various law enforcement agencies knew back then that we may face threats to our way of life from within the country as well as from without.  Domestic threats have always been a real possibility.

Today, it is more than a possibility, it has become a reality.  State and federal governments are the ones posing the domestic threats to the US Constitution and laws of the land.  All of the attacks being made at the state and federal level against the Second Amendment are, by definition, domestic threats to the US Constitution and as such could be considered to be acts of treason.

So what do law enforcement officers and military personnel do in this situation?  They have all sworn an oath to protect the Constitution.  Do they stand by that oath and defy state and federal government officials by not enforcing these unconstitutional laws?  Do they face being fired or court martialed for defending the Constitution?  These are the tough choices that many will soon be faced with.  Listen to this powerful video about them having to make this decision:

The question is easier for county sheriffs because the US Supreme Court has already ruled that they are the supreme law enforcement officers in their jurisdiction, even over federal agencies.  Many county sheriffs have already signed letters and told their citizens that they will not enforce any federal gun control law that they believe to be unconstitutional.

But what about city and state cops?  What are they going to do?  For instance, in Colorado, they recently passed a whole barrage of unconstitutional gun control laws.  Do city and state police enforce those laws or do they defend the state and federal Constitution?

This is surely a difficult and troubling time to be in law enforcement or the military.  Careers are sure to be ruined by the decisions these men and women are about to make.  If their careers are not ruined, then their personal values and duty to country will surely be compromised and they will have to live knowing it.

Years ago, I applied for the city police department back home.  I passed the written and physical test and was waiting to hear if I would be accepted to attend the training academy.  Then I got a call telling me that they discovered that my eyesight without my glasses was just over the allowable qualifications and I was rejected.  Had I been accepted and became a police officer, I know that I would choose to defend the US Constitution over the anti-constitutional gun control laws being passed.  Even though it could mean my career and retirement, I believe it’s more important to stand for the Constitution.  If not, then the Constitution will inevitably be replaced by something far inferior and totally un-American.

What would you do?  What do you want your local and state police to do?  What do you expect military men and women to do?  The last time they were faced with a situation like this, it resulted in the American Civil War.  Are we on the verge of a second one?

Read more:


Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: