Search This Blog

Showing posts with label Public Safety. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Public Safety. Show all posts

Saturday, August 29, 2015

Fact vs. Fiction

"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure." — Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 1823

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

In Jefferson’s words the Second Amendment has been construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Yet it has constantly been interpreted by metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure.

The Second Amendment has most recently been interpreted to grant the right of gun ownership to individuals for purposes that include self-defense. At first it was thought to apply only to the Federal government, but through the mechanism of the Fourteenth Amendment, it has been applied to the states as well. (See District of Columbia et al. v. Heller 2008). The Supreme Court has revitalized the Second Amendment. The Court continued to strengthen the Second Amendment through the 2010 decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago (08-1521). The plaintiff in McDonald challenged the constitutionally of the Chicago handgun ban, which prohibited handgun possession by almost all private citizens. In a 5-4 decisions, the Court, citing the intentions of the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment, held that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the incorporation doctrine.

So much for the legal interpretations of the Second Amendment. As of today it is pretty much set that the Second Amendment grants the rights of personal protection to all citizens of the United States. This right can be modified by the states to exclude convicted felons and the mentally ill. Each state has a different interpretation of these exclusions that people of common sense find reasonable, including for most part the NRA.

Recently I posted a Blog where I claimed that guns save lives. I suggest you scroll down through this list to see the various examples of how legally owned guns and Concealed Carry Weapons (CCW) permits have saved the lives of the owner or other innocents.

One case that sticks in my mind, as a person who will be traveling with my family and dog is a recent case in Albuquerque, New Mexico.Lynne Russell (a former CNN anchor) and her husband Chuck de Caro (a former CNN reporter)By0d6TWIQAEmoeO2-400x316 were traveling with their two Weinheimer dogs. Due to traveling with the dogs they had to stay in a dog-friendly Motel 6. On June 30, 2015 armed with a .40 caliber handgun convicted felon Tomorio Walton attempted broke into their room to rob the couple. Fortunately Russell and her husband were armed with Rugger .380 handguns and both had legal CCW permits. A shoot out ensued with de Caro wounded three times and Walton killed. No charges were filed against Russell or de Caro. Both Russell and de Caro were well trained in the use of firearms. Lately a second person has been charged with murder in the Russell case. He is Skyy Durrell Barrs, 30, whom Albuquerque police say put the armed intruder up to the attack.

Then we have county sheriffs and city police chiefs across the nation asking responsible citizens to legally arm themselves to help fight off crime in urban areas where the police are overwhelmed.

With the latest shooting of two reporters in Moneta, Virginia the media’s talking heads, left-wing politicians, and people without a clue on firearm regulations in the United States have climbed once again on the gun-grabbing band wagon. I guess the anti-gun news media’s propaganda campaign of calling every criminal with a firearm, regardless of the crime he commits, a “gunman,” has succeeded when pro-gun media does the same thing! He’s not a “gunman” he’s a murderer! If he used a knife, would you call him a “knifeman”?

This example is shown by a case in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma (a suburb of Tulsa) where 18 year-old Robert Bever stabbed to death 5 members of his family included his 5 year-old sister. Of course not much attention was given to this by the national media. Why? Because no gun was used and the media can’t push its anti-gun narrative. So this story gets ignored.

With this in mind let’s look at the murder rates in the United States. Since 1991 when the national murder rate was 9.8 per 1,000 people the rate has been dropping to 4.7 in 2011. That’s a drop of 52%. This rate may be climbing with recent events in Baltimore and the increase in assignations of law enforcement officers since Ferguson’s “hands up, don’t shoot” and “black lives matter.”

murderrate

According to USA Today:

“After years of declining violent crime, several major American cities experienced a dramatic surge in homicides during the first half of this year.

Milwaukee, which last year had one of its lowest annual homicide totals in city history, recorded 84 murders so far this year, more than double the 41 it tallied at the same point last year.

Milwaukee is not alone.

The number of murders in 2015 jumped by 33% or more in Baltimore, New Orleans and St. Louis. Meanwhile, in Chicago, the nation's third-largest city, the homicide toll climbed 19% and the number of shooting incidents increased by 21% during the first half of the year.

In all the cities, the increased violence is disproportionately impacting poor and predominantly African-American and Latino neighborhoods. In parts of Milwaukee, the sound of gunfire is so commonplace that about 80% of gunshots detected by ShotSpotter sensors aren't even called into police by residents, Flynn said.

"We've got folks out there living in neighborhoods, where . . . it's just part of the background noise," Flynn told USA TODAY. "That's what we're up against."

Criminologists note that the surge in murders in many big American cities came after years of declines in violent crime in major metros throughout the United States. Big cities saw homicides peak in the late 1980s and early 1990s as crack-cocaine wreaked havoc on many urban areas

Baltimore and Ferguson effect

So far this year, Baltimore recorded 155 homicides, including three people who were killed late Tuesday evening near the University of Maryland, Baltimore campus. The 2015 homicide toll is 50 people higher than it was at the same point last year.

On Wednesday, Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake fired Police Commissioner Anthony Batts, citing the spike in murders in the city.

The firing also came as the police union was set to release a report hammering the department's response to the unrest in Baltimore following the death of Freddie Gray, who died one week after sustaining a severe spinal cord injury while in Baltimore police custody. Gray's treatment was held up by protesters as an example of the endemic problem of police brutality in the city and beyond.

"We cannot grow Baltimore without making our city a safer place to live," Rawlings-Blake said. "We need a change. This was not an easy decision, but it is one that is in the best interest of the people of Baltimore. The people of Baltimore deserve better."

The Charm City, which is seeing some of the worst violence since the 1990s when it routinely tallied 300 murders annually, recorded 42 killings in May alone.”

According to FBI 2013 report on crime in the United States:

The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program defines murder and non-negligent manslaughter as the willful (non-negligent) killing of one human being by another.

“The classification of this offense is based solely on police investigation as opposed to the determination of a court, medical examiner, coroner, jury, or other judicial body. The UCR Program does not include the following situations in this offense classification: deaths caused by negligence, suicide, or accident; justifiable homicides; and attempts to murder or assaults to murder, which are classified as aggravated assaults.”

“Supplementary Homicide Data—The UCR Program’s supplementary homicide data provide information regarding the age, sex, and race of the murder victim and the offender; the type of weapon used; the relationship of the victim to the offender; and the circumstance surrounding the incident. Law enforcement agencies are asked—but not required—to provide complete supplementary homicide data for each murder they report to the UCR Program. Information gleaned from these supplementary homicide data can be viewed in the Expanded Homicide Data section.

Justifiable homicide—Certain willful killings must be reported as justifiable or excusable. In the UCR Program, justifiable homicide is defined as and limited to:

· The killing of a felon by a peace officer in the line of duty.

· The killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen.

Because these killings are determined through law enforcement investigation to be justifiable, they are tabulated separately from murder and non-negligent manslaughter.”

Overview

 “In 2013, the estimated number of murders in the nation was 14,196. This was a 4.4 percent decrease from the 2012 estimate, a 7.8 percent decrease from the 2009 figure, and a 12.1 percent drop from the number in 2004.

· There were 4.5 murders per 100,000 people. The murder rate fell 5.1 percent in 2013 compared with the 2012 rate. The murder rate was down from the rates in 2009 (10.5 percent) and 2004 (18.3 percent).

· Of the estimated number of murders in the United States, 43.8 percent were reported in the South, 21.4 percent were reported in the Midwest, 21.0 percent were reported in the West, and 13.8 percent were reported in the Northeast. “

This FBI site is loaded with statistics and tables that are far too numerous to post on this blog. I suggest you visit the site and peruse some of the tables for a clearer understanding of what the FBI is reporting.

So what the top five murder capitals of America? According to Neighborhood Scout, a national data base for home buyers and renters:

“That murder rates in major U.S. cities are on the decline is popular knowledge. New York City is often held up as the example: in 1990, NYC had more than two thousand homicides, by 2014 that number was down to just over 300. It’s a common trend of many cities, including Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and Dallas, among others. Even cities with especially high murder rates have seen a relative decline: New Orleans ranks 9 on this year’s list, down from 4 last year, and St. Louis improved from 10 to 12.

On our ranking of America’s murder capitals, some cities show up that you might expect: Detroit ranks number 7, St. Louis 12, and Baltimore 13. Until recently large cities dominated murder-capital conversations; now this list is populated mostly by middle-sized cities as well as smaller cities in close proximity to larger ones. The smaller cities either serve or once did serve as industrial satellites to their larger neighbors. These smaller satellites show up on the list, while nearby larger cities sometimes don’t register. Camden ranks at number 2 but nearby Philadelphia does not make the list, Compton ranks 14 and San Bernardino 28, but Los Angeles doesn’t make the list, East Chicago ranks 15 and Harvey 11, but not Chicago proper. Perhaps these inner-ring suburbs and industrial satellites have contributed to the perception of their larger counterparts’ lingering reputations. Misinformed reporting may be to blame as well — using murder counts instead of murder rates, the later which normalize for population size and provide a better indication of your chance of becoming a victim compared to simple counts, which are generally just higher in bigger cities.

As with NeighborhoodScout’s ranking of the 100 most dangerous cities in the U.S., the Pacific-northwest, and the Great Plains don’t have any cities ranked at all. Also, there are no murder capitals in New England. All of the cities on the list, save for those in California, are either on or to the east of the Mississippi River. On the west coast, Oakland is the farthest north.

Big cities can have more murders than small cities, but not as a rate per population. This NeighborhoodScout report factors in population size to determine the number of murders in each city per 1,000 people, thereby normalizing for population and more clearly representing the risk to residents of a city.

While its population is tiny, East St. Louis ranks at #1 with the highest murder rate: 0.86 murders per thousand residents, approximately twenty one times the national average - while Baton Rouge ranks 30th on the list with 0.21 murders per thousand residents, just over four times the national average. We use the FBI’s definition for murder {homicide}, which is “the willful, non-negligent killing of one person by another,” and all cities included on this list are required to have a population of 25,000 or more.” [emphasis added]

So here is the list of the 30 top murder cities in the U.S.

Rank

City

30

Baton Rouge, LA

29

Youngstown, OH

28

San Bernardino, CA

27

Oakland, CA

26

Barberton, OH

25

Poughkeepsie, NY

24

Cincinnati, OH

23

Petersburg, VA

22

Wilmington, DE

21

York, PA

20

East Palo Alto, CA

19

Jackson, MS

18

Wilkes-Barre, PA

17

Birmingham, AL

16

East Point, GA

15

East Chicago, IN

14

Compton, CA

13

Baltimore, MD

12

St. Louis, MO

11

Harvey, IL

10

Newark, NJ

9

New Orleans, LA

8

Trenton, NJ

7

Detroit, MI

6

Flint, MI

5

Saginaw, MI

4

Chester, PA

3

Gary, IN

2

Camden, NJ

1

East St. Louis, IL

Click on the city’s link to see the neighborhoods that are the most dangerous.

NeighborhoodScout’s research reveals the 100 most dangerous cities in America with 25,000 or more people, based on the number of violent crimes per 1,000 residents. Violent crimes include murder, rape, armed robbery, and aggravated assault. Data used for this research are 1) the number of violent crimes reported to the FBI to have occurred in each city, and 2) the population of each city. To view a list of the 100 most dangerous click here. You will be surprised by the facts.

So isn’t it time for the media to begin to present the facts rather than constantly reporting on the emotions of the day.

Thursday, July 25, 2013

A Note to John McCain and the Gang of Eight

“Learned Institutions ought to be favorite objects with every free people. They throw that light over the public mind which is the best security against crafty and dangerous encroachments on the public liberty.” — James Madison

Last Wednesday, police in Austin arrested two Mexican nationals who reportedly participated in the gang-rape of a 13-year-old girl on June 29.

The girl, a runaway, who lives at the Settlement Home for Children, was picked up by three Latino men and driven to the Avalon Arms apartments, where she was raped by a large group of men for several hours, according to police.

article-2370395-1AE49D5A000005DC-599_634x286

As many as 13 men took turns sexually assaulting the girl. Many cheered and filmed the sickening crime on their cell phones, according to court documents.

Juan Lozano Ortega, 25, and Edgar Gerardo Guzman Perez, 26, have been charged with aggravated sexual assault of a child. Both are currently being held in the Travis County Jail on immigration detainers.

58ac4a096d3f5eb3d361892978c29998

Austin’s KTBC, Channel 7 reported:

“The affidavit states the assault lasted until early into the morning of June 30, then the victim was driven to a nearby neighborhood and told to "find somewhere to go."

Police say they were able to track Ortega and Perez from the phone call the girl made to her foster brother with their cell phone. She was able to make it back on her own to the settlement home.”

The teen victim told police she was taken inside an apartment, where Ortega forced himself on her as the other men cheered him on, recording the assault on their cell phones. All the men took turns having sex with her against her will.

The girl was taken to a nearby hospital, where doctors determined her injuries were consistent with her allegations. Austin police are currently searching for the other assailants.

Illegal aliens are leaving a trail of victims from coast to coast – a massive crime wave that most Americans don’t know about – because the media typically plays it down. And so frequently the victims are children or involve children – thanks to a perverse Mexican culture that virtually ensures the victimization of the young.

I doubt they will be deported. They will be given a fair trial and take up two more spaces in our already over-crowded prison system. There, they will be given three squares, water, shelter, a gym membership, reunions with their friends and family members, crafting activities, counseling and a free education. In no time, they will be deemed "rehabilitated", apply for and receive amnesty and be released back into our society. They will have it made in the shade while this poor child's life is in ruins.

There is yet another example of an illegal killing a mother of a 13-year old for denying his sex with the child. This one happened on April 4, 2013 in Aquila, AZ, 45 miles Northwest of Phoenix.

Authorities say the suspect, 25-year-old Jose Zarate, went to 31-year-oldillegal_alien_animal-234x300 Maria Saucedo’s home around 9:30 p.m. Zarate reportedly wanted to take Saucedo’s 13-year old daughter to his home, presumably for sex. When she refused, an argument ensued and Zarate pulled out a rifle and shot her in the chest at close range — in the presence of the teen.

According to the MCSO, “One of several witnesses to the crime apparently disarmed Zarate before he fled the area on foot.” When they arrived at the scene, deputies administered CPR on Saucedo, but she was later pronounced dead.

“How awful this is that a mother loses her life in the process of defending her daughter’s honor,” said Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

Within 24 hours, deputies arrested Zarate. He was found at his home.

The Fox 10 Phoenix report of the crime showed the apparent effects of the Associated Press ban on the term “illegal immigrant” just 24 hours earlier. Fox 10 reported that: “Sheriff’s deputies say Zarate is a non-U.S. citizen who has been living in the country without proper authorization.”

For a more detailed account you need to go to the Daily Mail where they are not afraid to use the term “illegal alien” like the most of the U.S. media.

In other words Zarate is an illegal alien invader. So why not just say that? We don’t want to “stigmatize” illegal alien pedophile murderers?

Zarate was booked into the 4th Avenue Jail on the following charges: 2nd degree murder, two counts of aggravated assault and possession of a weapon by a prohibited person (an illegal).

This was just the latest crime involving underage children by an illegal alien. America has been savaged by illegal alien pedophile crimes. Why? Because the sick culture of Mexico, which disgustingly has a minimal age of consent for sex of TWELVE, and rarely prosecutes child rapes of even younger than that. Punishments for rape and sexual assaults are just minor slaps on the wrist. Many times the rapist just has to pay a small fine or sit in jail for a day. And if they marry the victim, they are completely let off the hook.

When we permit hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens who reflect this sick culture to invade America we shouldn’t be surprised when there is a trail of victims from coast to coast.

In another case police in Barstow arrested Jose Luis Aguilar, 36, at a Greyhound bus station after he reportedly sexually assaulted and beat his girlfriend's baby daughter to death.

A day earlier, the baby's mother, Jennifer Reedy, 31, awoke to find her daughter lying dead in her crib.

Aguilar was gone, as was Reedy's car and money from her purse.

Police were able to find Aguilar using the GPS in his cellphone. At a press conference Benton County prosecutor Andy Miller, told reporters: "It appears that Mr. Aguilar was on his way to flee to Mexico." [Source: Washington Examiner June 12, 2013]

An then there is the case in Omaha, Nebraska where A 19-year-old accused of beating and raping an elderly woman who later died will now face a murder charge.

Prosecutors said Sergio Martinez-Perez beat and sexually assaulted 93-year-old Louise Sollowin in her home Sunday. Sollowin died Wednesday, June 24th.

Douglas County Attorney Don Kleine on Thursday said Martinez-Perez will be charged with first-degree murder.

Autopsy results showed that Sollowin's cause of death was blunt force trauma.

Martinez-Perez, who already faces charges of first-degree sexual assault, first-degree assault and burglary, is set to appear before a judge Friday to be arraigned on the new charge. [Source: KETV, Channel 7, Omaha]

Illegal alien child rapists continue their unchecked rampage across America, while politicians in both parties refuse to secure the border, and plot to legalize these criminals instead.

When we permit hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens who reflect this sick culture to invade America we shouldn’t be surprised when there is a trail of victims from coast to coast. But instead of securing the border to stop it, politicians in both parties are working right now to legalize them instead.

These crimes perpetrated by illegals (usually from Mexico) are committed on a daily basis across the United States. If you doubt me I challenge you to watch your local TV news at 11:00 pm each night for a week. You will see reports of murder, sexual assault, home invasion, child abduction, and gang shootings almost on a nightly basis. Pay attention to the neighborhoods where these crimes happen and who the reporter in interviewing. If you can’t see a pattern you are suffering from conative dissidence.

According to a 2006 report by World Net Daily:

“Schurman-Kauflin, who runs the Violent Crimes Institute in Atlanta, participated in a 12-month, in-depth study of illegal immigrants who committed sex crimes and murders from January 1999 through April 2006. The study found approximately 240,000 illegal-immigrant sex offenders reside in the United States — while 93 sex offenders and 12 serial sexual offenders come across U.S. borders illegally every day.” [emphasis added]

Schurman-Kauflin said, “Gang rapes by illegal immigrants appear to be gang related. Many of the cases I reviewed involved gang members. As part of being a cohesive group, they offend together. Inflicting brutal gang rapes brings them closer together as a group. It is a way to demonstrate their power. And it sends a message to anyone who dares to cross them.”

Where are the race hustlers and amnesty apologists when it comes to these cases? Where are La Raza, MEChA, and MALDEF in defending the rights of these little girls? Where is President Obama, Cecilia Muñoz (the past president of La Raza and now Director of the Domestic Policy Council, for the White House and the person behind Obama’s immigration reform), and Luis Gutiérrez the Illinois Congressman and apologist for illegals and the crimes they commit. Where is the Congressional Hispanic Caucus? None of these people or organizations are speaking for these victims. They prefer to make excuses for or ignore the perpetrators of these heinous acts as they run counter to their agenda.

Obama and his race hustling buddies in the media can go around touting Trayvon Martin and how his civil rights were violated but can’t seem to find the time to expose the myriad of crimes committed on a daily basis by illegal immigrants.

Perhaps John McCain and his gang of eight compadres should pay closer attention to the victims of these crimes and less effort on trying to gin up the votes from the Hispanic community.

There needs to be as much emphasis on stories like this as we move closer and close to so-called comprehensive immigration reform.

Wednesday, July 17, 2013

Hey Eric It’s Over

“If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon” — President Barack Obama. March 23, 2012.

The harvesting of Trayvon-mania for political gain marches on, with Attorney General Eric Holder's astonishing announcement of a national tip line to solicit reports of past racist behavior by George Zimmerman. This is not just an outrageous waste of taxpayer resources, instituted by the Attorney General who hides from every scandal by claiming he doesn't know what anyone in the Justice Department is doing. It's absolutely deranged.

How many people in the nation have spent any amount of time getting to know George Zimmerman? A few dozen at most? How carefully will reports of offensive remarks or off-color jokes by Zimmerman be investigated and vetted, and how many real criminal matters will be ignored to free up manpower for the effort? How many "verified" reports of thought crime will be necessary to get a federal civil-rights prosecution of Zimmerman rolling?

This insanity is a natural outgrowth of Big Government's need to politicize everything. Holder, and the Obama Administration's media allies, have already begun using the Zimmerman trial as a soapbox to destroy the "Stand Your Ground" laws they hate, even though such laws played absolutely no role in the trial. The real people, actual events, and case law of the encounter between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin are already fading from public memory like an old photograph, because totalitarian politics sustain themselves by erasing history and editing truth.

By now most rational, thinking people should be over the verdict in the George Zimmerman case. As a liberal, feminist Tamra Holder stated in her Fox News.com article “Stop Insulting the Zimmerman Jury”:

“George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin on a dark and rainy night on February 28, 2012. Zimmerman admitted to the killing but claimed he acted in self-defense. Zimmerman was charged with Second Degree Murder.

Approximately 16 months later, Zimmerman’s trial started. The prosecution and defense mutually agreed on a detailed juror questionnaire that was filled out by 211 potential jurors. Over the course of nine days, both sides sifted through every response, whittled their way down to 40 prospective jurors, and picked a final jury of 6, with four alternates.

Over the course of 14 days, the jury heard opening statements, viewed over 200 exhibits, and listened to the testimony of 56 witnesses (38 for the prosecution and 18 for the defense), and heard closing arguments.

The jury received detailed instructions on the elements required to find Zimmerman guilty of second degree murder, as well as a lesser-included offense of manslaughter.

On July 13, 2013, the jury of six women made a unanimous decision: “Not Guilty.”

The president of the Florida NAACP State Conference also chimed in: “Justice did not prevail,” said Adora Obi Nweze.

Justice did not prevail? How so?

In the same statement, Nweze said “Last year we pushed for the arrest of George Zimmerman and a thorough investigation and trial.”

Not only did “they” push for a trial, they received a trial.

Oh wait, the NAACP and other opponents of the verdict did not ask for a “fair trial.” They wanted a trial without the constitutional requirements of due process and an impartial jury.”

Normally I do not agree with anything Ms. Holder has to say during her appearances on the Sean Hannity Show but this time I think she is right on the money. It’s like the old adage that a stopped clock can be right twice a day.

75492604It appears as though the media just can’t walk away from this case and they are continually rehashing and retrying the case from based on their personal ideology. Let’s face it, this was a simple murder case where the prosecution went for murder in the second degree and the defense claimed it was a case of self-defense. The jury believed the defense and returned a verdict of not guilty. No matter what your opinions on the case are it was a jury empaneled with the concurrence of both sides that heard all of the testimony, saw the evidence and listened to the arguments put forth by the attorneys that made the final decision. That’s how the system works.

There was an interesting article by William Saletan writing for the liberal Slate Magazine where he stated:

“But that’s how Martin ended up dead. It’s how Zimmerman ended up with a bulletproof vest he might have to wear for the rest of his life. It’s how activists and the media embarrassed themselves with bogus reports. The problem at the core of this case wasn’t race or guns. The problem was assumption, misperception, and overreaction. And that cycle hasn’t ended with the verdict. It has escalated.

I almost joined the frenzy. Yesterday I was going to write that Zimmerman pursued Martin against police instructions and illustrated the perils of racial profiling. But I hadn’t followed the case in detail. So I sat down and watched the closing arguments: nearly seven hours of video in which the prosecution and defense went point by point through the evidence as it had been hashed out at the trial. Based on what I learned from the videos, I did some further reading.

It turned out I had been wrong about many things. The initial portrait of Zimmerman as a racist wasn’t just exaggerated. It was completely unsubstantiated. It’s a case study in how the same kind of bias that causes racism can cause unwarranted allegations of racism. Some of the people Zimmerman had reported as suspicious were black men, so he was a racist. Members of his family seemed racist, so he was a racist. Everybody knew he was a racist, so his recorded words were misheard as racial slurs, proving again that he was a racist.”

Mr. Saletan’s comments as those of Tamra Holder are proof that even an unabashed liberal can see the light when it’s bright enough. They may not like the verdict but they have to accept it. Even the trial court judge bent over backwards to give ever possible advantage to the prosecution.

Now we have our Attorney General, Eric Holder, pandering to the crowd at the NAACP convention with his remarks about the case. He wants a new071713_an_holder_640 investigation into possible civil rights violations by George Zimmerman and a review of the Stand Your Ground Laws that some 38 states have on their books. He has even gone so far as to appoint a posse of citizens to troll for tips about Zimmerman and e-mail the “unsubstantiated evidence” that George Zimmerman was a racist to the DOJ kangaroo court.. How will that work out as every Tom, Dick and Harriet with an ideological axe to grind will get on the internet and flood cyberspace with their poison. How will that work out in our system of justice? How will he ignore the FBI reports that found no evidence of such racism in their investigation? As a Fox News article pointed out:

“Though the department announced after Zimmerman's acquittal that it would consider a possible federal case, previously filed FBI documents show agents have not turned up any accounts that Zimmerman, before the February 2012 shooting, exhibited racial bias. Sanford police detective Chris Serino also told FBI agents last year that he considered Zimmerman as having "a little hero complex, but not as a racist."

Attorney General Eric Holder, in his first post-verdict comments, confirmed Monday during a speech in Washington, D.C., that his department continues to investigate while signaling concern for the position of the Martin family and those -- such as the NAACP -- pressuring the DOJ. He said the department is "mindful of the pain felt by our nation" over the "tragic, unnecessary shooting death" of Martin.

"The Justice Department shares your concern -- I share your concern," Holder said.

He added that the shooting provides an opportunity to speak "honestly" about the charged issues involved in the case, and that "we must not ... let this opportunity pass." Holder even appeared to suggest the possibility of bias in this case, saying it's important to address "underlying attitudes, mistaken beliefs and stereotypes that serve as the basis for these too common incidents."

I guess he will handle those reports in the same manner as he did with Fast and Furious and the James Rosen cases — just ignore them as they do not match the narrative he wants to sell the public. This what worried our Founding Fathers the most — government overreach and mob rule.

Here are a few articles and columns I came across that I feel are worth sharing. In an interview on CNN and reported in The Blaze juror B37 shed some light on the trial, evidence and how the jury came to their not guilty verdict. The juror in the George Zimmerman trial said Monday that the actions of the neighborhood watch volunteer and Trayvon Martin both led to the teenager’s fatal shooting last year, but that Zimmerman didn’t actually break the law:

“The woman known as Juror B37 told CNN’s Anderson Cooper that Zimmerman made some poor decisions leading up to the shooting, but that Martin wasn’t innocent either.

“I think both were responsible for the situation they had gotten themselves into,” said the juror, who is planning to write a book about the trial. “I think they both could have walked away.”

The juror said Sanford Police Detective Chris Serino made a big impression on her, because he would have been accustomed to dealing with murders and similar cases. He would have known how to spot a liar, and yet he testified that he believed Zimmerman, the juror said.

Legal analysts agreed that Serino’s testimony was a blow to the state’s case.

The juror was not impressed by the testimony of Rachel Jeantel, who was talking with Martin by cellphone moments before he was fatally shot by Zimmerman in February, 2012.

“I didn’t think it was very credible, but I felt very sorry for her,” the juror said. “She didn’t want to be there.”

“The interview came two days after the six-woman jury acquitted Zimmerman, a former neighborhood watch activist, of second-degree murder in the shooting death of Martin in a gated community in Sanford, Fla. Martin was black, and Zimmerman identifies himself as Hispanic. Zimmerman was not arrested for 44 days, and the delay in charging him led to protests from those who believed race was a factor in the handling of the case.

While prosecutors accused Zimmerman of profiling Martin, Zimmerman maintained he acted in self-defense.

The juror said she didn’t think Martin’s race was the reason that Zimmerman followed him. She said she also believed Martin threw the first punch and that Zimmerman, whom she referred to as “George,” had a right to defend himself.

“I have no doubt George feared for his life in the situation he was in at the time,” the juror said.

Juror B37 also outlined to CNN the process she and the other five jurors went through in their deliberations. She said they spent the first day electing a foreman and getting organized. She said the jury instructions weren’t immediately clear and the evidence was in no order whatsoever.

Juror B37 said all but one juror believed it was Zimmerman screaming for help on the 911 call based on the medical evidence and testimony submitted in court.

Zimmerman was charged with second-degree murder, but the jury also was allowed to consider manslaughter.

Based on an initial vote, three – including B37 – were in favor of acquittal, two wanted manslaughter and one wanted second-degree murder. She said the jury started going through all the evidence, listening to tapes multiple times.

“That’s why it took us so long,” B37 said.

When they started looking at the law, the person who initially wanted second-degree murder changed her vote to manslaughter, the juror said. Then they asked for clarification from the judge and kept going over it again and again. B37 said some jurors wanted to find Zimmerman guilty of something, but there was just no place to go based on the law,

B37 said jurors cried when they gave their final vote to the bailiff.”

There is also a similar article on this on Fox News.com

“We are so programmed by our history with race in America that reaction to the acquittal of George Zimmerman on charges of murdering Trayvon Martin depends largely upon one's individual, even group experience.” writes Cal Thomas on Fox News.com:

“If you are African-American, you might react like former Washington, D.C., homicide detective Rod Wheeler. Appearing on Fox News, Wheeler said many blacks look at quarterback Michael Vick, jailed for taking part in an illegal dog-fighting ring, and wonder why Zimmerman gets away with killing a young black man.

If you are white, or Hispanic, you could possibly see the trial as something whipped up by the always racially conscious media and rhetorical bomb-throwers like Rev. Al Sharpton.

You might conclude that if the victim had been white and the perpetrator black the media would have shown little or no interest.

Your view would be reinforced by a case in Georgia in which four African-American teenagers beat a 36-year-old white man as he emerged from a gas station convenience store. While trying to escape, the man stumbled into the middle lane of a highway where he was struck by a car and killed. The Marietta Daily Journal reported that the four are charged with felony murder, aggravated assault and violation of the Georgia Street Gang Act. The incident occurred two weeks ago, but I have seen no national media coverage.”

“What helps keep us divided is our propensity for labeling and categorizing. Certain behaviors and language are tolerated, while others are not. Some people can get away with language that others cannot. Some faiths can be disparaged while others are insulated from criticism. What is needed is one standard. One national identity. One America. We're not there yet.

Benjamin Crump, an attorney for Trayvon Martin's family, compared Trayvon's death to those of Emmett Till and Medgar Evers. Any attempt to turn Trayvon into a civil rights martyr similar to Till and Evers goes well beyond the apples and oranges analogy.

More to the point was a comment by Zimmerman's attorney Don West: "The prosecution of George Zimmerman was disgraceful." The defense believes he should never have been brought to trial. Co-defense counsel Mark O'Mara speculated about "how many lawsuits will be spawned by this fiasco."

Probably quite a few, given our never-ending racial double standard. As both sides have noted, there are no winners in this case.”

The death of Trayvon Martin was a tragedy. A jury of six in Florida has determined it was not criminal, but George Zimmerman will forever be the man who killed a 17-year-old.

No one can be happy about what happened other than, for Zimmerman and his family, that a jury believed him.

Now the NAACP and others are calling for Attorney General Eric Holder to file charges against George Zimmerman. Never mind that federal investigators looked into the matter and concluded Zimmerman did not engage in racial profiling.

Should the U.S. Department of Justice decide to pursue charges, it would not be double jeopardy. The state and federal governments remain separate entities with separate jurisdictions. A trial in one does not preclude another.

But in this case it should.

Our system is not perfect, but it is preferable to rule by the mob. Juries are not perfect, but they are better than the court of public opinion. Demonstrators react to George Zimmerman's acquittal, Miami Flori

Many will feel justice was not served, but it was. Justice does not mean getting the outcome one side desires. Even so, those who are glad of the verdict should try to understand why so many feel so cold by what has happened and some see injustice.

I see too much politicization by too many people on more than one side. A boy is dead. A man's life ruined. And too many are trying to capitalize on the politics of now.

As the president said yesterday, a jury has spoken. It is time to respect the verdict of that jury and move on. Trayvon Martin will never come back and George Zimmerman may be free, but it will be a long time, if ever, before his life returns to normal.

Then we have the hoodlum element “protesting in the streets of Los Angeles and Oakland. These hoodlums are burning cars, closing down freeways and trashing stores like Wal-Mart. It is really no different than the same gangs of ne’er-do-wells, gang members, and vandals burring cars and trashing businesses when their sports team win a championship. After all when the Lakers win the NBA titles it’s appropriate to burn a car.

Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti said violence and vandalism in city streets resulted in 13 arrests in protests over George Zimmerman's Florida acquittal in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.

Speaking at a news conference with Garcetti late Monday, LAPD Chief Charlie_68769877_68769876 Beck said about 150 people broke off from a larger, peaceful protest and began walking through the streets, committing multiple acts of vandalism and several assaults.

The officials didn't elaborate on the assaults or any potential injuries.

Beck said more than 300 officers were called to the scene. They were slow to directly engage the protesters in an attempt to allow a peaceful end to the demonstration.

He said police would take a much stricter posture if the protests continued for another night.

Protesters ran through Los Angeles streets, stopping traffic, breaking windows and at one point raiding a Wal-Mart store, and a major freeway was blocked in the San Francisco Bay Area in the third night of protests in California over George Zimmerman's Florida acquittal in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.

Several hundred mostly peaceful protesters gathered Monday night at Leimert Park southwest of downtown Los Angeles, many of them chanting, praying and singing.

But a smaller group of about 100 people splintered off and began blocking traffic on nearby Crenshaw Boulevard, some of them jumping on cars and breaking windows.

At about 10 p.m., a few hours after the splinter protest began, police declared the group an unlawful assembly, and many in the crowd began to disperse.

Several protesters ran into a Wal-Mart store, where they knocked down displays before store security chased them out, and police began guarding the door.

TV news helicopters showed some people apparently throwing punches along the street. There were no immediate reports of injuries.

"I commend the prayer rally attendees in Leimert Park for practicing peace," tweeted LA Mayor Eric Garcetti, who returned early from an East Coast visit. "I call on people in street on Crenshaw to follow their example."

In Oakland, dozens of demonstrators briefly blocked all lanes of Interstate_68766000_68765999 880 at the tail end of rush hour Monday evening, stopping traffic in both directions for several minutes before they were cleared by authorities. Several protesters laid their bicycles on the ground in front of stopped cars.

"You've got to go. You will go to jail," one police officer shouted at demonstrators who were blocking traffic, the Oakland Tribune reported. However, police decided not to make arrests as the marchers, chanting "Justice for Trayvon Martin," were directed back to surface streets.

Later, another group tried to march up the onramp to Interstate 580 before being turned away by Oakland police and California Highway Patrol officers.

The freeway protesters broke off from a larger group organized via social media that gathered at Oakland City Hall about an hour earlier. Several people were arrested for acts of violence and vandalism while marching from City Hall, authorities said.

Jonathan Cohen writes in American Thinker that more lies from the main stream media about the Zimmerman case are still obfuscating the truth.”

“Today's Chicago Tribune editorial on the Zimmerman verdict repeats some of the lies and misrepresentations that have helped create so much of the anger over this case for the past 16 months. The editorial which urges acceptance of the verdict none the less begins with the following quote:

"Are you following him?"

"Yeah"

"Ok. We don't need for you to do that".

The quote leaves out Zimmerman's reply of ok, an editorial decision that changes the clear meaning of the exchange which is that Zimmerman accepts the advice. More properly, what the transcript of the call reads

"Are you following him?"

"Yeah"

"Ok. We don't need for you to do that".

"Ok"

The first paragraph of the editorial then repeats the lie that Zimmerman was told not to leave his car. In fact what the transcript of the call shows is that just prior to this exchange, the dispatcher tells Zimmerman "just let me know if this guy does anything else. A few seconds later after Zimmerman says that Martin is running the dispatcher asks him "which way is he running." It is sometime in this period that Zimmerman sounds like he has gotten out of his truck. For the next five or ten seconds there is a sound of wind that is followed by the exchange in which the dispatcher advises him he doesn't need to follow Martin. At no time anywhere on the call does the dispatcher ever tell him not to leave his car or return to it. These five to ten seconds are the only time in the whole encounter in which there is any evidence of Zimmerman following Martin on foot. And since there is so much misinformation about what happened it bears repeating.

Zimmerman was never told to stay in his car and was never asked to return to it!

No evidence at all is ever produced that Zimmerman followed Martin after the above exchange with the dispatcher. In fact, towards the end of the call, Zimmerman tells the dispatcher that he has lost sight of Martin. Clearly Zimmerman could not follow Martin if he couldn't see him. Further evidence of this is that Rachel Jaentel's testimony indicates that Martin had likewise lost sight of Zimmerman until shortly before the start of the confrontation. In other words, after telling the dispatcher "ok", Zimmerman did not follow Martin nor did Martin perceive he was being followed.

The claim that Zimmerman was at fault because he pursued Martin after being told not to has absolutely no basis in fact. It is a made up assumption that has been repeated so many times by the media that people actually believe that is what happened.

The 911 call that was placed by Zimmerman is on the web in both audio and written transcript form. It was played numerous times at the trial. There is no excuse for continuing to lie about the evidence. The Chicago Tribune should know better than to continue to perpetuate lies that have fueled so much anger over this case.”

Then there is a good exposé of the prosecutorial misconduct by the Florida State’s special prosecutor Angela Corey and how many more Black juveniles than whites were arrested and tried as adults in Florida:

“There are many unanswered questions in the handling of the persecution of George Zimmerman by the State of Florida but two of the salient questions are why was Angela Corey, who is noted for her intemperate personality, selected to prosecute the case and why Angela Corey dismissed an impaneled grand jury to wildly overcharge George Zimmerman with second degree murder on her own volition?

I believe if we use Ockham’s (or Occam’s) Razor the answers will become obvious: racial politics.

I think everyone can now agree on one thing, Angela Corey was possibly the worst possible choice for a high profile prosecution.

She has a sense of entitlement that is so typical of small people promoted to jobs that are well above their level of competency but who lack the self-awareness to recognize what everyone else knows. (You need look no further than her bizarre post-verdict press conference that she treated as though it was an Academy Awards acceptance rather than a repudiation to see that she occupies a different reality than most.) In Angela Corey’s world, criticism of her is a basis for legal action. She has threatened to sue Harvard if it did not fire Alan freakin Dershowitz after he pointed out her lack of legal acumen and ethics. In Florida she is something of a legend for threatening her critics.

Her lack of concern for the rule of law was almost immediately apparent. Shortly after she received the case she gave a press conference in which she disclosed that she was not seeking justice, but “justice for Trayvon”:

Corey: The first thing my team and I did upon being appointed was to meet with Trayvon’s family and pray with them. “We opened our meeting with prayer.” Also, Ms. Corey thanked “all those people across this country who have sent positive energy and prayers our way,” and she asked them to continue to pray for Trayvon’s family and for her team. “Remember, it is Trayvon’s family that are our constitutional victims….”

Startling statistics reveal that between 1980-2008, African-Americans were six times more likely than whites to be victims of gun violence and seven times more likely to kill with guns than whites, according to the Justice Department. African-Americans represent a mere 13% of the US population yet more than 50% of federal prisoners are black. You can claim racial bias in the judicial system, but that doesn't explain all of it.

Why aren't so-called black leaders outraged and marching over the recent shooting rampage in Chicago. During the 4 July holiday weekend, including the Wednesday leading up to it, 62 people were wounded by gun violence in Chicago and 12 others killed. The holiday shooting spree raised Chicago's homicide tally to 200 for the year. Last year about 500 people were killed, and most of those killing and being killed in Chicago are black. According to the Chicago Tribune, "blacks make up about 33% of the city's population, they accounted for nearly 78% of the homicide victims through the first six months of 2012".

With the mainstream media's national attention on the Zimmerman murder trial, I think it's stunning that scant, if any, attention was given to the violence raging in Chicago or other cities across the country. As I've said in previous blogs Americans, especially black Americans, have come to accept blacks killing other blacks as normal.

When a white person is accused of killing a black person, African-Americans seem to care more and cry racism, allowing race baiting voices like Al Sharpton, who's a reverend as much as I'm a progressive liberal (hint: I'm not), to organize marches and rallies. The same is now true when a non-white like Zimmerman is accused of killing a black 17-year-old like Trayvon Martin. Last year blacks even got the news media to basically convict Zimmerman as a racist murderer in the court of public opinion before the trial even began.

Even President Barack Obama got in on the act, stoking the racist flames before any facts were revealed, "If I had a son he'd look like Trayvon". Yet Obama has been a lot less vocal on the killings in Chicago, the city from which he hales and served as both an Illinois state senator and US senator.

The tragedy is that blacks who are shouting about racism aren't offering real solutions, especially to the violence issue in African-American neighborhoods. Interestingly, Senator Mark Kirk (an Illinois Republican) has a plan to end gun violence in Chicago. Since 15-year old Hadiya Pendleton was murdered in January in Chicago after performing at Obama's 2013 inaugural, Kirk has been pushing the Federal Bureau of Investigation and federal prosecutors to crack down on gang violence related to drugs, which police believe is driving the gun violence.

Kirk, a Republican, wants the FBI to prosecute these gang related crimes at higher rate given that about 18,000 people belonging to the Gangster Disciple gang, one of the most notorious gangs in Chicago (and beyond). Gangster Disciple stretches into 28 states and amasses more than $100m a year by selling drugs. And that's what we know about.

In a meeting with Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy in June, thegangsterdisciples police superintendent told Kirk more than 100,000 gang members live in Chicago. As Kirk tried to tackle gang violence in his home state of Illinois, Representative Bobby Rush, a black Democrat representing the 1st district of Illinois for 20 years, which includes Chicago, railed against Kirk's plan as "upper middle class, elitist, white boy solution". Well, "the white boy" conservative is coming up with solutions while blacks like Rush and Ali stoop to calling conservatives of all colors heinous names when they highlight or offer solutions to the ills disproportionately harming black Americans.

Today the main people holding blacks back as a race and taking them back to the days of Jim Crow are blacks themselves. Self-appointed black leaders, advocacy groups like the NAACP and black members of Congress cry racist at every turn. Beyond this battle cry, they have no solutions to offer blacks a way towards greater economic prosperity and less violent lives.

The day after George Zimmerman was acquitted of second-degree murder, the President of the United States chose to stir the race-baiting pot again by intimating that America should honor Trayvon by passing gun control:

“Now ask every American to respect the call for calm reflection from two parents who lost their young son. And as we do, we should ask ourselves if we're doing all we can to widen the circle of compassion and understanding in our own communities.”

Barack Obama isn't one to hide his disrespect for federalism or conceal his contempt for the legal system or the U.S. Constitution. The statement Obama made reveals that his motivation was to once again gain personal political expediency from someone else's heartbreak.

Think about it: the president sheds tears over murdered children, but it's always attached to advancing a specific political agenda. That's precisely why, in some circles, as America's most radical pro-abortion advocate, Barack Obama has zero credibility when discussing lives lost to gun violence.

As far as Obama is concerned, Trayvon Martin deserves kudos for delivering a big bang for his anti-Second Amendment buck. Nonetheless, if the Trayvon controversy should miraculously cool down, in due time someone else will come along and provide still more political capital for the president.

Rest assured, if need be, Mr. Obama will move on quickly from Trayvon, just as he moved from Tucson to Sandy Hook to any number of other tragedies he's used as political causes.

Unfortunately, based on what went on in Sanford, Florida, certain African Americans fall into the same category as the president they blindly support.

Black Americans hung up on fomenting racial unrest or buying into the victim mentality lack credibility too, because although they cry racism over the tragic loss of Trayvon Martin, who they call one of their 'babies,' they have shed few tears over the extermination of actual babies taking place for the last 40 years in abortion clinics all over America.

While focused on Trayvon Martin, socially liberal black Americans continue to ignore the genocide that kills thousands of black baby boys (and girls) every day, many of whom, if given the chance to live, much like Trayvon Martin might have grown up to look like the son Barack Obama never had.

Does it matter that blacks constitute only 13% of the population but account for 36% of all the abortions that take place every year? Where are the tears, protest signs, and New Black Panther demonstrations for the deaths of innocent children who didn't break anyone's nose or smash anyone's skull against a sidewalk?

For perspective, 13% of the U.S. population contributed 22,000,000 of the 60,000,000 children aborted since 1973. Each and every day in the U.S., approximately 1,876 black children are aborted. And yet pro-life people are supposed to believe that the angst over Trayvon's untimely end is based on the black community's respect for the sanctity of life?

In her fight to save the unborn, Erma Clardy Craven, the late Minnesota social worker and author of Abortion, Poverty and Black Genocide, once shared that, "17,000 aborted babies were found in a dumpster outside a pathology laboratory in Los, Angeles, California; some 12-15,000 were observed to be black." Does the president care about them? Apparently not.

While Obama is asking America to "honor Trayvon" by doing what Obama wants, we forget that none of the 15,000 black babies found rotting in that dumpster in LA got the chance to wear a hoodie, shop for Skittles and fruit-flavored iced tea, or skulk around in the dark in a Sanford, Florida residential complex.

The difference between Barack Obama and Al Sharpton is, and has always been, that Obama hides it better, he is handled better, and his coldness and lack of conscience express themselves in a manner that passes for sobriety and seriousness with some people. And he has bigger goals, which is to say a bigger ego, than the laughable Sharpton. Obama's statements on this case, from beginning to end, have been spoken like a true community organizer: use pleas for "calm" resignation in the face of alleged injustice to stir up and solidify support for your broader authoritarian agenda. This is the Alinsky way.

Having said all that, if we want to be philosophical about this, we might observe that there is, indeed, a way to honor Trayvon Martin. It is for the white-dominated American media, the white-dominated entertainment industry, the white-dominated Democratic Party, and the rest of white-dominated progressive America to stop telling young black people like Trayvon Martin that they are not "really black" unless they are fighting, using drugs, talking and acting like thugs, and citing "racism" as their excuse for everything. It is for America's first half-white president to stop treating black Americans as an aggrieved underclass that can only be protected against injustice and poverty by voting Democrat. It is for that half-white president to stop trying to earn "his props" by flaunting his friendship with the millionaire "pimps" and "hoes" of the "black entertainment industry" who sell drugs, violence, racism, and sex as the secret path to "coolness," i.e., acceptance, when in truth — as the lives of so many of these "entertainers" beyond age thirty prove -- the heaven they are selling is in fact the pit of an inescapable hell. Enough of the White House gala evenings and Michelle Obama tweetings about Beyoncé, Jay-Z, and the rest of the creeps, punks, and porn stars - cum singers.

Duke Ellington brought American "black entertainment" to the heights, mixing his muse comfortably, and on a footing of real equality, with Shakespeare and Steinbeck, Tchaikovsky and Grieg, always studying, always learning — so that today, his supposed heirs can rant in a drugged-up stupor about killing cops and defiling women. Ella Fitzgerald became America's "First Lady of Song" by expanding her repertoire from the popular dance tunes of her early days to masterful renderings of Gershwin, Porter, and Ellington in the 1950s; her heiresses today slink around like strippers using words and images to enliven the basest sentiments of the perpetual pubescents that comprise today's pop music audience. Today's so-called black leaders, including their "beige" president (to use Ellington's phraseology) are firmly on the side of the glamorizers of cop-killing, rape, and prostitution. They have deliberately squandered or obscured the gains of the twentieth century for their own evil, oppressive purposes.

If you want to "honor Trayvon Martin," stop actively corrupting the character and sentiment of each new generation of Trayvon’s. Stop encouraging, excusing, and even praising behavior that causes broken families, government dependency, moral decay, illiteracy, the degradations of a permanent underclass — and, all too often, sad wastes like the "tragedy" of February 26, 2012.

In short, if you want to honor Trayvon Martin, end American progressivism now.

Monday, February 18, 2013

Who Determines Your Constitutional Rights?

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” Declaration of Independence, 1776

In yesterday’s blog I talked about the case for the Constitution. Today a report has surfaced that demonstrates just how far our political leaders and civil servants have strayed from the Constitution and our unalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. It is a chilling example of how elite statists and masterminds are willing to bypass our fundamental rule of law to advance their progressive agenda.

In this recent and most egregious example Chicago’s Chief of Police, who previously blamed ”government-sponsored racism” and Sarah Palin for Chicago’s gun violence, declared that the lawful exercise of the Second Amendment was a threat to public safety. According to a report by the Illinois State Rifle Association:

“Chicago's embattled police superintendent dug himself deeper into a pit of controversy today by claiming that lawful firearm owners are agents of political corruption. Appearing on a Chicago Sunday morning talk show, superintendent Garry McCarthy expressed his conviction that firearm owners who lobby their elected representatives or who donate money to political campaigns are engaged in corruption that endangers public safety. McCarthy went on to express his belief that judges and legislators should rely on public opinion polls when interpreting our Constitution.

After totally dismissing the citizen's right to redress grievances, McCarthy trained his constitutional wisdom on the 2nd Amendment. Despite recent court decisions to the contrary, McCarthy opined that the 2nd Amendment limits citizens to owning smooth-bore muskets. McCarthy went on to say that he believes that the 2nd Amendment supports mandatory liability insurance for firearm owners and the mandatory application of GPS tracking devices to civilian owned firearms.”

"Garry McCarthy's understanding of our Constitution barely qualifies him as a meter maid, never mind the chief of the nation's third largest police department," commented ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson. "What on earth would possess McCarthy to assert that constitutional rights should be meted out based on public opinion polls? Let's not forget that public opinion polls once opposed a woman's right to vote while it would be a safe bet that, at one time, polls would have shown lynching as an acceptable form of justice. It has been said that our Constitution exists to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. McCarthy's view of our Constitution is dangerous and unbecoming of a civil servant."

There are several statements by Mr. McCarthy that, as the ISRA report state, that are not only chilling, but downright indicative of the ignorance of today’s progressives on the words and meaning of the Constitution and our God given rights.

McCarthy’s assertion that constitutional rights should be meted out based on public opinion polls is absolutely asinine and dangerous. According to a recent Rasmussen poll 65% see gun rights as protection against tyranny:

“Two-out-of-three Americans recognize that their constitutional right to own a gun was intended to ensure their freedom.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 65% of American Adults think the purpose of the Second Amendment is to make sure that people are able to protect themselves from tyranny. Only 17% disagree, while another 18% are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Not surprisingly, 72% of those with a gun in their family regard the Second Amendment as a protection against tyranny. However, even a majority (57%) of those without a gun in their home hold that view.

Many gun control advocates talk of the right to gun ownership as relating to hunting and recreational uses only.

While there are often wide partisan differences of opinion on gun-related issues, even 54% of Democrats agree with 75% of Republicans and 68% of those not affiliated with either major party that the right to own a gun is to ensure such freedom.

As Americans search for answers to the Newtown shooting, attitudes on gun ownership are “not likely to change in a nation where six out of 10 adults would rather live in a neighborhood where they can own a gun and most would feel safer if their children attended a school with an armed security guard.”

If McCarthy’s assertion that our constitutional rights should be determined by public opinion polls were followed abortion would be banned, there would be no gay marriage, and we would have unlimited school vouchers. Perhaps you agree with all of these examples, as I do, but we live in a representative republic where we elect representatives to pass laws and regulations that are constitutional. What Mr. McCarthy is advocating is a mobocracy — something that terrified our Founders.

As George Washington stated in his farewell address of 1796:

“Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.”

Obviously Mr. McCarthy as a high ranking official has expressed a prejudice against law-abiding citizens from an official who has the authority to arrest and give orders to fire at them.

McCarthy’s assertion that the Founders limited arms to smooth bore muskets is demonstrably false as well.

Let’s begin our rebuttal of McCarthy’s assertion with a look at Article I, Section 8.16 of the Constitution that states:

“To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”

This clause in the Constitution gave Congress the authority to organize a well regulated militia. But what exactly is a “well-regulated militia”? To further define this term Congress, under the authority of Article I, Section 8.16 passed the 1792 Militia Act. The Militia Acts of 1792 were a pair of statutes enacted by the second United States Congress in 1792. The acts provided for the organization of the state militias and provided for the President of the United States to take command of the state militias in times of imminent invasion or insurrection. This authority was used to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794. This act stated:

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutered and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.”

It is noted that Congress demanded the arms of the day for the militia. This was a key element in the act. You will note that the Act prescribed either a good musket or a rifle — two distinct and different firearms.

Many anti-Second Amendment advocates use the silly argument that the Founding Fathers’ intent is anachronistic since they couldn’t envision greater weapons capability beyond muskets in their time. Really?

This is easily disproven simply noting the evolution of firearm technology during the time prior to, and during, the Revolution. Matchlit progressed into matchlock, which progressed into flintlock and so forth. In fact, muskets were slowly being replaced byThe-Puckle-Gun long rifles during the time of, and after the Revolution. Rifling gave shots increased accuracy over greater distances. Nock guns were the arms of choice for the British Navy, an experiment of sorts that lasted a short time because the recoil was powerful enough to break the shoulder of those firing them. In 1718 the “Puckle gun,” the first machine gun, appeared. (One could argue that the so-called “assault rifle pre-dated the Second Amendment.) The Colt revolver followed not long after and in the late 1800s the Gatling gun, which fired 200 rounds per minute, appeared on the market. The evolution of firearms was observable during the time that the Constitution was drafted; to argue that the Founding Fathers were unaware of, or not living through, the ever-evolving capabilities of firearms is blatant ignorance of both common sense and fact. Jefferson himself was a noted collector and in letters explained what technological capabilities he favored in pieces over others in his collection.

The Founders were quite clear on their views regarding firearms. In fact, earlier proposed language of the Second Amendment read as such:

“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”

From Jefferson’s drafts of the Virginia constitution:

“No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”

Other figures of the period were of like mind. In the Virginia convention, George Mason, drafter of the Virginia Bill of Rights, accused the British of having plotted “to disarm the people–that was the best and most effective way to enslave them”, while Patrick Henry observed that “The great object is that every man be armed” and “everyone who is able may have a gun.”

Following the Civil War, the legislative efforts which gave us three amendments to the Constitution and our earliest civil rights acts likewise recognized the right to keep and bear arms as an existing constitutional right of the individual citizen and as a right specifically singled out as one protected by the civil rights acts and by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, against infringement by state authorities. This is called the doctrine of incorporation and has been used by the Supreme Court today to strike down gun control laws in Washington D.C. and McCarthy’s home town of Chicago.

Much of the reconstruction effort in the South had been hinged upon the creation of “black militias” composed of the armed and newly freed blacks, officered largely by black veterans of the Union Army. In the months after the Civil War, the existing southern governments struck at these units with the enactment of “black codes” which either outlawed gun ownership by blacks entirely, or imposed permit systems for them, and permitted the confiscation of firearms owned by blacks. When the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was debated members both of the Senate and the House referred to the disarmament of blacks as a major consideration.

Some point to the list of requirements in the Second Militia Act as evidence that Congress has, in fact, required its citizens to purchase a good or service. The Second Militia Act of 1792 indeed states “that every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder.” Since the Second Congress passed the Second Militia Act that requires members of the militia to procure a musket and bullets, it is therefore suggested that the Founders (and the Constitution) would also have supported the recent health care bill that requires all members of society to purchase health insurance. Support of the Second Militia Act does not imply support for the health care bill.

Unlike the reach of the health care bill, the Second Militia Act applies to a narrow sub-section of society: white, male citizens between the ages of eighteen and forty-five who are members of the militia. Section I of the Act, which includes the list of required goods, begins: “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia.” It follows that the Second Militia Act would not apply to anyone not enrolled in the militia: including non-citizens, the infirm, men younger than eighteen, men older than forty-five, or women.

Section II of the Act further exempts a whole host of men, despite fitting the age and fitness requirements, from participating in the militia and therefore the requirement of procuring muskets, bullets, and other such items pertaining to militia service. Specifically exempted from the militia are the Vice-President of the United States, judicial and executive officers, members of the House and Senate, post officers, certain ferry officers and stager drivers to name a few. Moreover, the language of the statute requires to a member of the militia “provide himself” with the list of goods. It is possible that a man could have inherited a musket, bartered for a knapsack, or made his own bullets, and still be in compliance with the Act. In contrast to the Second Militia Act, the health care bill applies to any living breathing person in America (except maybe top Hill staffers) to purchase health insurance. It is unlikely one could inherit, barter, or create one’s own health insurance and avoid the penalty of law.

The greatest difference between the health care bill and the Second Militia Act is constitutionality. There is solid constitutional basis for the Second Militia Act: Article I, section 8, clause 16 states that Congress has the power “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.” Articulating a list of goods required for militia service is certainly within the bounds of this clause. Indeed, Federalist 29 emphasizes that such regulation of the militia is part of “superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.”

Then there are those progressives that claim the militia is defined today as the National Guard. This is blatantly false. In a Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States Senate of the Ninety-Seventh Congress entitled The Right To Keep And Bear Arms:

“The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms therefore, is a right of the individual citizen to privately posses and carry in a peaceful manner firearms and similar arms. Such an "individual rights" interpretation is in full accord with the history of the right to keep and bear arms, as previously discussed. It is moreover in accord with contemporaneous statements and formulations of the right by such founders of this nation as Thomas Jefferson and Samuel Adams, and accurately reflects the majority of the proposals which led up to the Bill of Rights itself. A number of state constitutions, adopted prior to or contemporaneously with the federal Constitution and Bill of Rights, similarly provided for a right of the people to keep and bear arms. If in fact this language creates a right protecting the states only, there might be a reason for it to be inserted in the federal Constitution but no reason for it to be inserted in state constitutions. State bills of rights necessarily protect only against action by the state, and by definition a state cannot infringe its own rights; to attempt to protect a right belonging to the state by inserting it in a limitation of the state's own powers would create an absurdity. The fact that the contemporaries of the framers did insert these words into several state constitutions would indicate clearly that they viewed the right as belonging to the individual citizen, thereby making it a right which could be infringed either by state or federal government and which must be protected against infringement by both.

Finally, the individual rights interpretation gives full meaning to the words chosen by the first Congress to reflect the right to keep and bear arms. The framers of the Bill of Rights consistently used the words "right of the people" to reflect individual rights--as when these words were used to recognize the "right of the people" to peaceably assemble, and the "right of the people" against unreasonable searches and seizures. They distinguished between the rights of the people and of the state in the Tenth Amendment. As discussed earlier, the "militia" itself referred to a concept of a universally armed people, not to any specifically organized unit. When the framers referred to the equivalent of our National Guard, they uniformly used the term "select militia" and distinguished this from "militia". Indeed, the debates over the Constitution constantly referred to organized militia units as a threat to freedom comparable to that of a standing army, and stressed that such organized units did not constitute, and indeed were philosophically opposed to, the concept of a militia.

That the National Guard is not the "Militia" referred to in the second amendment is even clearer today. Congress has organized the National Guard under its power to "raise and support armies" and not its power to "Provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia". [65] This Congress chose to do in the interests of organizing reserve military units which were not limited in deployment by the strictures of our power over the constitutional militia, which can be called forth only "to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions." The modern National Guard was specifically intended to avoid status as the constitutional militia, a distinction recognized by 10 U.S.C. Sec 311(a). (Emphasis added)

The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.”

If Mr. McCarthy wants to curtail the crime and killings in Chicago he should look at the causes this problem and not at guns. It would be tantamount to banning cars because there are drunken drives killing and maiming people with their automobiles.

The real cause of the gun violence in Chicago, as it is in other major metropolitan areas is the culture that has been fostered by progressive policies of the past 50 years.

According to an article in the Christian Post:

“Studies show that about 40 percent of children in the U.S. have absent fathers, a condition which Rutledge called an "epidemic." Children who grow up in fatherless homes are twice as likely to be incarcerated, 63 percent of youth suicides are from fatherless homes and 71 percent of all high school dropouts are from fatherless homes, according to statistics.”

Despite having some of the toughest gun laws in the nation, Chicago saw more than 500 homicides last year for the first time since 2008, and some 43 murders took place in January. That has prompted several pro-gun rights groups to say it proves new gun control measures aren’t the answer.

Even President Obama addressed this issue on his recent visit to his home town. Today 70% of babies born to African-American women are born out of wedlock. This is the real problem and the cause of much of the gang activity in Chicago and other urban centers. It’s not guns. The guns these gang members use to kill with are in the most part illegal. If Mr. McCarthy wants to address the high murder rate in Chicago he and other civic leaders need to address the cultural issues of fatherless homes and the continuing out of wedlock births.

Glenn Fairman writes in American Thinker:

Without the anchor of a moral center, politics and culture move in tandem to and fro inexorably like a living pendulum — first migrating to one extreme at a glacial velocity and always alighting on the tempting antipode that evades moderation like a drunken man heading homeward. The victim in these cultural mood swings of political perception is always truth: whose tragic wreckage is caused both by the consequences of our destructive philosophies and the haunting desire to salvage whatever intellectual pride we have left, once our idols have come crashing down upon us.

While in the newspapers or on television you will not be informed about it in a form that makes sense, a growing cancer of racially-based violence is metastasizing in our cities. Moreover, unless you were to see these outrages first hand or in media outside the mainstream organs, you would know nothing of it — for it is being withheld from you. For reasons that we may want to speculate on, the news media have made an overt decision to avert your eyes away from the stone cold reality that a spectrum of young black men and women, motivated by race, rage, or entertainment, are increasingly committing crimes against life and property by the medium of flash mob violence.

From Oregon and Washington to New Jersey, packs of youth are targeting markets, shoe stores, county fairs, beach walks, and city parks in conducting brazen crimes by overwhelming police and security who find themselves increasingly unable to counter the element of surprise and viciousness that goes hand in hand with this phenomenon. As a result of this, brutal beatings of whites and Asians have become commonplace occurrences, resulting in public facilities being closed down to traffic as roving hordes materialize and vanish into the night like specters. And yet, the 900 pound gorilla in the room (that no one will dare look in the eye) is that there is an unassailable racial component involved. Furthermore, in the interest of multicultural harmony, cities which have long been in the clutches of Democratic political machines have lulled themselves to become anxiously oblivious to the mayhem. Because of this, those molders of opinion have taken to calling a serpent a stallion in hopes that the world, in turn, would also close its eyes.

In speaking to this epidemic of interracial mob beatings, robberies and maimings, Colin Flaherty's 2012 book, "White Girl Bleed a Lot:" The Return of Racial Violence and How the Media Ignore it, offers an exhaustive account of this racial brand of violence. Moreover, it charts the reprehensible actions of: police chiefs, intellectuals, and media editors to sweep the undeniable racial aspects underneath the rug. In the media accounts of these crimes, rarely are the races of the perps and the victims given, except in the rare instances where blacks are on the receiving end of the injustice. Only then does unholy hell breaks loose as the usual coterie of racial extortionists flood the airwaves with their travelling Dog and Pony Shows of white racial condemnation. Rather than face the fact that an urban pandemic of this brand of violence, theft, and robbery is tantamount to a subculture gone amok, the newspeak term generally applied towards these perpetrators is simply "youth." If, however, one scans the areas wherein these incidents occur or views the ubiquitous You-Tube videos, often posted by the assailants themselves, the shocking images provide the necessary information as to their salient identities.

While the media remain intent on echoing the drum beat of white America's persistent Jim Crow mentality or the perpetual congenital debt owed to African Americans for past discrimination, the pendulum has nevertheless swung Left to rationalize or diminish this reversed incarnation of racial violence. And as the racial component of this wilding is dismissed as uninteresting by the Usual Suspects, for he who has eyes to see, it is a direct consequence of a volcanic hatred that has been brewed from a well-cultivated array of cultural grievances. Grievances kept enflamed by liberal narratives of a divided society kept perpetually at war.

If one looks to the 2011 FBI crime statistics, one notices that whites (Hispanics included) make up 78.1% of the U.S. population while Blacks comprise 13.1%. By race, blacks commit 45% of their crimes against whites while 43% target fellow blacks and 10% of their victims are Hispanic. when Whites commit violent crime, only 3% of their victims are black. By considering these crimes as a percentage of the population at large, blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against whites than vice versa and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.

Holding a segment of a population to a lesser standard by excusing them from the burden of responsible conduct is the apex of pathological discrimination. This is akin to pronouncing a people exempt from accountability and thereby condemned to a state of ethical incoherence and perpetual adolescence. Moreover, by knowingly obfuscating the truth behind this novel form of racial wilding, government and civil society give assent to a volitional blindness that becomes outraged only when a pre-certified pack of wolves devour innocent sheep. In the end, those minorities afflicted by this Progressive ethical cancer are themselves revictimized as a result of liberal society's cowardice in feeding a Frankenstein-like evil they have wrought with their own hands. Through the recurring injustice of denial, such lives are again fated to be crushed by that blind pendulum whose bitter inertia truth would not forestall.

One way of addressing this issue is to stop the progressive policies of the past 50 years of aid to dependent children, welfare, and the myriad other Great Society programs that are the real cause.