• Why We've Had an Ammo Shortage

Obama conspiracy? George Soros? Overzealous Preppers? Nope. Here are some numbers and the facts behind why you can’t find the cartridges you want.

NRA/American Rifleman (Excerpts) - Trying to explain why there has been a prolonged shortage of ammunition is like attempting to understand why people line up outside stores in anticipation of Nike launching its latest basketball shoe or Apple its latest iPhone. A run on a product—or in this case an entire category of products—is the result of a perfect storm of factors.

The tax figure is a useful way to understand overall sales trends. So let’s look at the numbers. In 2000 the U.S. Department of the Interior reported that excise taxes on ammunition generated $68 million, whereas in 2012 that figure was $207 million. With inflation taken into account, that’s approximately a 129 percent increase in 12 years. A lot of that growth has taken place in the past few years. Between 2007 and 2012 excise tax money generated from ammunition sales almost doubled from $108 to $207 million. Tax dollars from ammunition sales were stable from the mid-1990s through 2006, but then started to climb fast as gun sales began surging.

To understand what $207 million represents, it’s helpful to know that in 2012 the NSSF estimated the size of the consumer rimfire, center-fire and shotshell market at about 9.5 billion shells and cartridges. That includes U.S. production in addition to imports minus exports. Last October the NSSF predicted there would be more than 10 billion cartridges and shells made for the American consumer market in 2013 as manufacturers attempt to keep pace with consumer demand.

Can you imagine what would happen if the demand for your other favorite products doubled in five years? Wouldn’t they likely be more expensive and harder to find? Also, ammunition production can be difficult to increase quickly because it takes investment in expensive machinery and additional personnel to increase production. Making more ammunition also requires companies to purchase more raw materials in a competitive and international marketplace.

Some gun owners have been speculating that this supply-and-demand problem is related to large government purchases. A few people have even hypothesized that the Obama administration might see reducing the ammunition supply via massive government buys as a clever way to enact gun control.

The DHS noted that it buys in 

bulk to save money, but overall its 

purchases have actually gone down.

The DHS is a massive umbrella agency that includes more than 70,000 law-enforcement personnel across multiple agencies and more than 40,000 uniformed members of the military in the U.S. Coast Guard. The ammunition the DHS buys is used to support law-enforcement operations as well as routine qualifications and training for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the U.S. Secret Service, the Transportation Security Administration and many other federal entities.

Nevertheless, worries spread in some circles on the Internet when it was reported that the DHS had a contract for a maximum of 450 million rounds of .40-cal. jacketed hollow-points to be supplied during the next five years. Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.) investigated the contract and published a press release noting that, given all the agencies DHS buys for, “450 million rounds really isn’t that large of an order.” Westmoreland’s staff calculated that if the “DHS were to purchase all 450 million rounds over 5 years, then that would equate to only about 1,384 rounds of ammunition” per year per law-enforcement officer.

Some nevertheless wondered why the DHS needs hollow-point ammunition. The answer, says DHS, is simply that hollow-points are the defensive ammunition of choice. A little reporting shows this is certainly the case for federal, state and local law-enforcement officers—as well as for many private citizens

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), meanwhile, asked the DHS for a breakdown of how much it spends on ammunition per agency and how much it uses annually (see table, opposite). The answers Coburn received deflated gun owners’ worries about government malfeasance. The DHS noted that it buys in bulk to save money, but overall its purchases have actually gone down. In 2010 the DHS purchased 148,314,825 rounds. In 2011 the DHS bought 108,664,054 rounds. And in 2012 the DHS purchased 103,178,200 rounds of ammunition.

Ammunition manufacturers back up the DHS’ explanation. For example, Federal Premium Ammunition, which has 1,400 employees making ammunition in Anoka, Minn.—some for federal contracts—published a statement saying that the rumor DHS is “buying excessive quantities of ammunition, thereby restricting availability to the commercial market,” is a “false and baseless claim.” Federal Premium says, “The Department of Homeland Security contract makes up a very small percentage of our total ammunition output. This contract is not taking ammunition away from civilians. The current increase in demand is attributed to the civilian market. Our production volumes on government contracts have been stable since the mid-2000s.”

Scott Blackwell, president of Freedom Group, an American firearm manufacturer holding company that includes Remington, Bushmaster and DPMS, said, “Most of the ammunition we make at Remington goes to the consumer market. Our supplies, therefore, haven’t been affected by government contracts. It’s clear to us that any lack of supply in the marketplace has been from consumer demand for our quality products. To meet this increased demand we’re investing and growing."

Steve Hornady, president of Hornady Ammunition, told AmericanRifleman.org: “We’re working as hard as we can to get as much out as possible … . People walk into the store, they don’t see as much as they want so they take everything they can get. The next guy who comes in can’t get anything, so he panics … But there is no government conspiracy.”

Why Has Demand Gone Up?
There are now more than 5 million women participating in the shooting sports, an increase of 46.5 percent since 2001, according to the NSSF. The number of gun owners in America surpassed 100 million a few years ago and all indicators show it is still growing. More gun owners means more ammunition being shot. Also, as the most popular firearms being sold in recent years have been semi-automatic handguns and rifles, it only makes sense that these gun sales would lead to more ammunition being purchased and shot.

There are a lot of other numbers tracking the growth of gun sales and gun ownership that have led to more ammunition sales. For example, July 2013 was the 38th straight month that the number of background checks called into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) increased when compared to the same month the previous year.

Not every background check results in a sale, but NICS numbers are a good indicator for overall gun sales. Over the 10-year span from 2002 to 2011 there was a 54.1 percent rise in the number of NICS checks. In both 2009 and 2010 there were about 9.5 million NICS checks; in 2011 the number grew to 10.7 million; in 2012 it surged to 13.7 million; and as of this writing it looked like the number of NICS checks would break the annual record again in 2013.

You can also see this trend reflected in the number of concealed-carry permits in the United States. The number of people with concealed-carry permits has grown from fewer than 1 million in the mid-1980s to 6.8 million by the end of 2012, according to the NSSF. This increase has certainly resulted in the sale of more handgun ammunition.

It’s worth mentioning one silver lining to this surge in sales as a parting thought. As previously noted, every time someone buys a box of ammunition they’re paying a tax. This excise tax must be used for wildlife conservation projects, gun ranges and other such outdoor-related programs as mandated by the law. The revenue also must be sent to the states for these purposes—the federal government can’t use these funds except for some administrative purposes. So that $207 million raised from ammunition sales in 2012 is benefitting state wildlife departments, your gun ranges and more.

• 'Barack Obama: Son of Promise' Audio Book

This children's book, "Barack Obama: Son of Promise, Child of Hope", has been out since 2008 I believe. This audio takes you through the presentation of Obama to children by the author. From my research online I can tell you the following:

As you listen to the book, you are introduced to a child David and his mother. The book is the story of Obama as told to David by his mother. Obama is glorified in David's eyes by the story his mother told.

The book qualifies for "Common Core" curriculum but is NOT a major assignment across the country. If it is assigned, it's probably in schools with a large black student body.

The book does not so much "deify" Mr. Obama as much as it presents him as some sort of uniter. We know that this is completely false. Obama never united anyone, except one side against another.

The reading is subtle but pointed - you can catch all kinds of things in the reading of the book, such as right near the beginning where dead beat dads who leave their children are passed off as just something normal, Barack's dad left, and so did David's.

It would be an EXCELLENT idea to call your local elementary school, and find out if they are assigning "Obama: Son of Promise, Child of Hope" for reading. If they are, start warning your neighbors and friend with children in school. -Jz

• WAS THE POPE MIS-TRANSLATED?

November 28, 2013 at 8:18am

I'm not buying the 'bad translation' argument - regarding Pope Francis' latest statements regarding capitalism - and here's why: The Pope has been CONSISTENT since he was appointed. If the Pope was misquoted, let HIM clarify what he meant. If the Pope's words were misconstrued, he should be outraged and immediately clarify what he meant, and state in English for the record that Capitalism is a good thing.

If all of the media world wide translated his words incorrectly, he must have known it within hours. Why didn't he say, "no, that's not what I said"?

It is important to note that these views are not all that foreign to people in South America. The Pope's thoughts on social issues from abortion to homosexuality mirror accurately the culture of South America. His view of capitalism and wealth fits right in as well with what we can see happening there over the past couple of decades.

AND - We can see homosexuals and pro abortion proponents who have begun to PRAISE this Pope for his open mind, forward thinking and tolerant views!  This should put the fear of God into many Catholics, yet you all continue to scramble for ways to spin and reformat what Pope Francis has said.

Additionally, the justifications for what the Pope said are not really contradicting what the Pope said - they seem to want to SOFTEN what the Pope said.  In statements and interviews, everything the Pope has said so far sounds fishy or outright leftist at first, and then the Catholic people in America try to tell us that, no, we got the Pope wrong. What he MEANT was... blah blah blah.

And then finally I have to wonder, how in the world can it be that THE head of the Catholic Church, the guy who leads over 1.2 billion people, can be so bad at making himself clearly understood?

• Hobby Lobby v Obamacare To The Supreme Court

Long story Short: Hobby Lobby is a hobbyist story catering to people who dabble in arts and crafts, run by a very Christian family. They have said that it is against their Christian beliefs to force them to provide contraception and abortion in the health care insurance they provide to their employees. They have spend gobs of money fighting Obamacare.

Obama basically has told Hobby Lobby and the Catholic Church, and also importantly Catholic Charities (who handle among other things adoption services in a Catholic, Christian principled manner), among others that you all can just shut down if you have to but you must provide these services and procedures in your insurance, even if it's against your religious beliefs.

Hobby Lobby has gone through two or three layers of court proceedings and the last two decisions gave exact opposite decisions, one saying that they don't have to go along with it on the basis of religious beliefs, the other that they must indeed comply.

The LA Times is arguing that it is preposterous that a company or corporation (or even perhaps an organization like Catholic Charities) can in and of itself have religious beliefs. But a company or organization was found by this court to be a group of people, people with beliefs all the same, when the Supreme Court found a few years ago that corporations, companies, organizations and political action groups have the right to speak out, spend money on advertising and donate money to campaigns - just like any person.

This infuriated the Democrats, and it has them very upset now, today, because it could be the same general principle that ultimately gives Hobby Lobby the freedom to decline to offer medical services to their employees that run against their religious convictions.  And if they win, all companies, all employers and organizations - including Catholic Charities - will most likely be able to opt out.

God willing.    -Jz

Today's LA Times Editorial:

The 10th Circuit, citing the Citizens United decision holding that corporations have a 1st Amendment right to communicate about political campaigns, concluded that Hobby Lobby likewise had a right to religious freedom. But while there was long-standing precedent that some corporations have free-speech rights, the notion that profit-making businesses engage in the exercise of religion is a novel — and nonsensical — one.

• The End of Football: Rush Limbaugh

Article Limbaugh is talking about:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2013/11/17/football-game-inherent-conflict/GkAXWtEoJWdjEoqH0dHIAJ/story.html

Audio of this commentary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZuUOVj85Eo

An Astounding 'See, I Told You So'

November 20, 2013

RUSH: I don't remember when exactly it hit me that football, as it's played today, is in its last days.  It was recently, of course, but I can't pinpoint the exact date.  I forget what it was, even, that alerted me to this.  I think it was cumulative events, series of events, that led me to an instinctive conclusion.  And it is happening, and it's happening at a more rapid rate than even I expected it to happen.

It is happening almost exactly as I predicted it.  This is a huge See, I Told You So.  I want to read to you first from Bob Ryan of the Boston Globe yesterday.  Now, who is Bob Ryan?  You sports fans know that Bob Ryan is the dean, the current dean of sportswriters in Boston, at the Boston Globe.  He is a revered figure in the sportswriter community.  He appears frequently on all of the ESPN sportswriter shows.  He appears on Around the Horn.  He is a go-to commentator for anything happening in Boston, be it with the Patriots or the Red Sox or the Celtics or the Bruins.

He's not a quack.  He's a seasoned citizen.  He been doing this a long time.  He's in the Will McDonough league, highly respected.  He is well thought of.  I mean, young sportswriters always wanted to be Bob Ryan.  He's that kind of figure.  Now, he's also politically aligned on the left, but they all are, so that's not a big deal.  The point is that Bob Ryan of the Boston Globe is not some quack.  Bob Ryan's not the kind of guy that would go on ESPN and say, "We need to get rid of the National Anthem because it's a war anthem like Kevin Blackistone did."  He's a serious sports reporter and analyst,  extremely knowledgeable of the game, and again, in no way is Bob Ryan a quack.  I don't mean to be damaging his career here by praising his work.

The point is, when Bob Ryan writes something about sports, it's akin to the New York Times writing something and newsrooms all over America picking it up.  I want to read to you what Bob Ryan wrote in the Boston Globe.  I saw it yesterday.  I don't know actually when he wrote it.  I saw it on Breitbart.  "Popularity of Football Reflects Poorly on America."  Now, after you read this, we're gonna go back to May 7th of 2012 and relive from the Grooveyard of Forgotten Favorites the prediction I made about what was going to happen with football and how it would be taken out, how they would do it.

And I predicted that it would be the media, who derive their living from it, the sports media who make their living covering this sport, are going to be the ones, wittingly, or unwittingly, who take it out.  That's the essence of my prediction.  But it's far more detailed than that.

Bob Ryan.  "Football has an enormous appeal to many people who are borderline psychopaths."  He's talking about the players.  He's talking about the players and the fans.  I want you to remember, too.  When I was critical of a Chargers-Patriots playoff game some years ago, in which I said, "My gosh, I felt like I was watching the Bloods and Crips," everybody came down on me. "How can you say that? That's racist! That's bigoted!"  Everybody just descended on me with untold mountains of criticism.

So now here is the dean of sportswriters, I mean, really everybody in the sportswriter community just loves this guy.  I mean, he's that influential, and he writes, "Football has an enormous appeal to many people who are borderline psychopaths in a manner that no other sport -- and this includes the very virile sport of hockey -- does not.  I come to you as an enabler, and I suspect there are many more out there like me. We are essentially troubled by the casual acceptance our society has of a sport that really and truly maims people. That football is America’s current sport of choice reflects poorly on us as a people."

Now, this guy's made his living reporting on the greatness of people who've played for the New England Patriots.  This is a man who has told every one of his readers how player X, player Y, player Z, is great.  Now all of a sudden Bob Ryan is suffering pangs of guilt over having promoted and enabled the popularity of football.  Which, again, has an enormous appeal to many people who are borderline psychopaths.  And then he writes this.

"The simple truth is that football can never be made safe. Even if the essential 'kill' mentality were changed, football can never be made safe. And it has never been more dangerous than it is now, thanks to a combination of there being larger, quicker, more lethal people delivering the blows and the lingering mentality brought to the game by coaches and players who cannot or will not change."

This is a profound 180.  And you have to ask, "What brought this on?"  Do you realize how fast this is happening?  I don't know how long Bob Ryan has worked at the Boston Globe, but it's decades, and all of a sudden now he's suffering pangs of guilt, the people who play the game are borderline psychopaths, it says horrible things about us as a people because we enjoy and promote a sport that maims people, really and truly maims people.  And he's troubled by the casual acceptance our society has for this.

This is happening at an even more rapid rate than I thought.  I want to take you back to my prediction.  Now, this prediction is twofold, and the last half of what you're gonna hear has not happened yet, but it's the next shoe to drop.  The first half of this prediction is amazing, even if I say so myself.  Let's go back to May 7th, 2012, on this show, talking about the game of football and how and where liberal attacks on the game would take place.

RUSH ARCHIVE:  What happened in the Colosseum that everybody talks about? What is the legend?  That Christians were given to the lions and that the crowd roared! The crowd loved it. And if you don't like that, go further back to the gladiators wiping each other out. Thumbs up, thumbs down. The Roman Caesar and his women sitting there. Thumbs up, thumbs down.

Think Russell Crowe if you're a Hollywood type.  Well, in both those cases, people were dying and it was being cheered.  On the one hand, in the jaws of lions; on the other hand, by swords and other weapons.

Now, I guarantee you, this is going to happen, folks.  It's going to happen in the sports media. It's going to happen in the sports media under the guise of compassion and an attempt to be sensitive and helpful. ... But the idea that it can't be made safe so we have to get rid of the game, I'm telling you: It's a groundswell that's being spun "into control" or "out of control," however you want to look at it.  What's gonna happen is somebody is gonna figure out here pretty soon that since 75% of the players in the NFL are African-American, that 75% of the concussions are being suffered by African-Americans; 75% of the heart attacks, early deaths, whatever, are African-Americans.  And then somebody is going to ask (maybe this week after I put it out here), "How long are we going to put up with the sacrifice of African-American males for a bloodthirsty American audience?

"How long are we willingly going to submit African-American males to maiming, concussions, early death, and perhaps suicide?  For what?  The blood lust of the American population!" And they'll make the obvious connection to the old plantation days.  You watch.  That's what's gonna happen.  It will be used as a further arrow in the quiver to ban the game, not as something we have to protect because it employs so many African-Americans.  That's my little prediction.
RUSH:  Now, the only aspect of that prediction that is not part of what Bob Ryan said is the African-American connection, and it will be next.  It may be implied, but it will be next.

Well, I... Snerdley's asking me, "What do you think the psychopath line is?"  You think that's a reference to gangs?  You think it's a...? (interruption)  I don't know.  I don't want to put words in Bob Ryan's mouth.

He could be thinking of Richie Incognito as a psychopath. There's a white guy.  I don't think he means "psychopathic "is exclusively African-American.  But you'll notice I used the word "maim;" he used the word "maim."  I predicted somebody would say that we are engaging in a game like the Romans used to sacrifice Christians and the lions in the Colosseum, and everybody is applauding it, and he's asking for forgiveness.

He's enabled that.  It's the same thing today.  That's what football is. That's what he's saying: Football is on the way or it already has become that, a sport that really and truly maims people. He's troubled by the casual acceptance our society has. "That football is America’s current sport of choice reflects poorly on us as a people." It's a mess. I expected all this to happen.  I didn't expect it to happen within five years.  It is amazing.

You take what's happening here with the Jonathan Martin and Incognito and the bullying aspect, and look at how quickly people in the media who used to be die-hard fans are now writing these columns. It's the sports media writing this critical stuff.  It's the sports media that is casting aspersions on the game and feeling pangs of guilt over it.  Bob Ryan writing this is not like Anastas Mikoyan at the Charlotte Observer.

Not to insult the Charlotte Observer, but I mean, he's a big guy.  It's not insignificant.  And, by the way, I predict here that somebody's gonna say there's nothing we can do to make it safe.  He says,

"The simple truth is that football can never be made safe. Even if the essential “kill” mentality were changed, football can never be made safe." The people that play it are "larger, quicker, more lethal," and they're "borderline psychopaths."  And it's unlike any other sport in that regard.  It's attracting bad actors. The fans supporting it are promoting and supporting bad actors. The coaches look the other way when the bad actors dominate and triumph.  I mean, it is an astounding See, I Told You So.

I fully expected it to happen, don't misunderstand, but nowhere near this soon.  I'm just telling you, the next shoe to drop on this is gonna be everything that Ryan has said; then they're going to get to the racial component.  Seventy-five percent of the league is African-American.  You add that to every other criticism he wrote here, and it makes the game racist.  Even if the players are handsomely compensated, it's still the evil owners of whom there is no one African-American.

They're basically running a blood sport.

Fans are happily paying to watch permanent injury and maiming.

You wait.  It may happen before the end of next week, at the rate this is going.

I went back to the RushLimbaugh.com website.  I first made reference to the attacks on football perhaps leading to its demise on December 14, 2011.  That's how far back it goes.  The See, I Told You So bite was May of 2012.  It's uncanny. Folks, I just know these people.  I'm not prescient.  I don't have a crystal ball.  I just know liberals.  Like with SUVs, I just know what they're going to do.  I know.

What strikes me about this is that here you have people who made their careers building this sport up and the people who play it and writing puff piece profiles about how great all these guys are. Now (I mean, inside of one season, two seasons), it's stunning to me to watch how a piece of conventional wisdom or groupthink can totally overtake an entire a group of people to where they all end up thinking and writing and reporting the same thing.  It's just so easily predictable.

Every concussion on the field now results in stories on potential suicide.

Every suicide results back to possible concussions while playing.

It just in the cards, folks.  The die is cast.

• White Guy Wins After Voters Believe He's Black

I only wish this trick had been saved for a Congressional seat! -Jz

• IRS refunded $4 BILLION to identity thieves

(And the IRS is going to be in charge of our health care? And they were busy harassing conservative political groups?)

• The IRS sent a total of 655 tax refunds to a single address in Lithuania, and 343 refunds went to a lone address in Shanghai.

• Last year, the IRS issued 1.1 million refunds to people using stolen Social Security numbers

• Thousands more potentially fraudulent refunds -- totaling millions of dollars -- went to places in Bulgaria, Ireland and Canada in 2011

• The IRS issued 1,947 ITINs to individuals at a single address in Mountlake Terrace, Washington.

• In 2011, the IRS sent 194 tax refunds totaling $ 554,866 to that same address -- for returns that should have raised red flags.

AND THESE BUFFOONS ARE IN CHARGE OF OUR HEALTHCARE??

Articles:

Worldwide identity thieves steal millions in tax refunds

IRS refunded $4B to identity thieves

• High School that Banned NRA T-Shirt Backs Down

Anti-Gun Position Retracted in Face of Public Ridicule and Pending Lawsuit 

On September 19, school officials at Canyon High School in Orange California forced 16 year old student Haley Bullwinkle to remove her NRA t-shirt because school officials found her shirt promoted gun violence and violated the school’s dress code. The shirt depicted a deer, an American Flag, and a hunter holding a hunting rifle, with text stating “National Rifle Association of America, Defending America’s Traditions Since 1871”.  Haley was forced to remove her NRA shirt and wear a school shirt instead, or face suspension.

Haley changed her shirt, but came home at the end of the school day upset and afraid she would be suspended.  Haley’s parents were also upset. “She’s never been in trouble before. She gets good grades,” said Jed Bullwinkle, Haley’s father.  “She is not a threat to school safety in any way, no matter what shirt she’s wearing.  I don’t understand how this t-shirt could be made into a safety issue,” Mr. Bullwinkle said.

Mr. Bullwinkle asked the school principal to look into the matter.  In an email, the principal said “The shirt had a gun on it which is not allowed by school police. . . . It is standard protocol to have students change when they are in violation of dress code.”

The family contacted a local NRA instructor, and the case made it’s way to the NRA’s California lawyers at Michel & Associates in Long Beach. The firm has worked with the NRA in the past in successfully assisting several students facing similar school actions. Those cases including getting a case involving a Sacramento student wearing a sporting clays t-shirt dismissed (Steven Huish), getting an expulsion overturned against an early morning duck hunting student who left his unloaded shotgun in his locked off campus pick up truck (Gary Tudesko), and forcing an apology from administrators at Cornerstone Elementary the school after they forced 5^th graders to cut the little plastic rifles off the little green army men they had glued to their graduation caps to show support for the armed forces.

Recognizing the need to bring Canyon High School’s  censorship to the attention of the public, the law firm contacted several local media outlets and began preparing a pre-litigation demand letter to send to the school. The story was picked up nationally and went viral, and the school was inundated with media requests for comment.  Among other things, these stories noted that the school mascot carries spears and arrows, the school football team logo has a spear on it, and the drill team twirls imitation rifles. The apparent double standard did not go unnoticed.

In the face of public ridicule and legal action the school district came to its senses and issued an apology. In a statement published by Michael L. Christensen, Superintendent of Schools, Orange Unified School District, the school district said the shirt was okay to wear to school, and promised to provide training to staff aimed at preventing future incidents. The matter now seems to be resolved, and the NRA has given Haley a carton of the banned t-shirts to give to her friends, to wear to school if they want to.

“This whole thing smelled of political censorship,” said civil rights lawyer Chuck Michel, attorney for the Bullwinkles.  “It was a school administrator applying a personal perspective without even taking the time to look closely at the message the shirt conveyed.”  Michel noted that this kind of incident goes unreported more often than not; students’ free speech issues like this one seem to appear in the national news on a regular basis, and for some reason schools are not fixing the problem.

He’s right. Sadly, these types of incidents are not rare. In Virginia a student faced possible jail time for refusing to remove an NRA t-shirt. Under ill-conceived “zero-tolerance” policies, political correctness is trumping common sense, with students facing suspension of worse for drawing a gun, chewing a pop-tart into the shape of a gun, or just making the shape of a gun with their hand.

The NRA stands ready to assist members and gun owners facing these anti-gun prejudices. To help support its efforts, please donate to the NRA’s Legal Action Project here.

Below are links to other news article related to this issue:

Los Angeles Times – School apologizes for making girl remove NRA T-shirt

• 'Conservatives' For Anarchy

EMOTIONS ARE IRRELEVANT WHERE THE LAW IS CONCERNED

This is a good example of what happens when conservatives get angry with me for setting them straight.

This is a smart phone screen capture of a post from Shawn Hooper, who got his knickers bunched up over a debate we had discussing the aftermath of a Hispanic father in Texas who killed another man he found molesting his daughter.

Let me say right up front, I am not defending any child molesters. It seems like that would be understood, but for people like Mr. Hooper, it must be said.

I explained in the course of the debate on Mr. Hooper's thread that 'self defense' involves the protection of one's own life or the lives of others, or defense from a threat of great bodily harm. Once the threat is gone, one cannot continue to attack the perpetrator. By law.

The father in this case will not be tried for any crime, and I think that is a mistake. Sure, he'd never be convicted of murder (my position that Hooper decided to ignore), but I think that 2nd degree manslaughter could have been called for.

Emotions get us into trouble when we discuss the law. Sure, emotionally, we'd all like to beat all child molesters to death. But that's not how the laws and legal system are set up in this country. Hooper advocates taking the law into his own hands. I asked him that specific question, and he refused at least half a dozen times to answer. But that is what he believes.

Hooper instead went into "all laws are not good" and "you're a legalist" and "Obama is bad" and "Nazis are bad", desperate attempts to change the issue in the discussion, and I wouldn't have any of it. Time and time again I took him back to this: If you advocate for taking the law into your own hands, you are advocating for anarchy.

We do not want a country where people think on these things emotionally. The fact is, if your child is being molested, the first thing is self defense. ONCE THE MOLESTATION HAS BEEN INTERRUPTED AND THE CHILD HAS BEEN MADE SAFE, the next step is to call the police and have the perp arrested, NOT to beat him to death.

I feel for the father in that case in Texas, and I understand that people want to celebrate the fact he beat a molester to death. But in our country, with our legal system, you have only the right to defend yourself, not to take the law into your own hands.

There is a new case in Colorado now where a woman who bludgeoned to death her child's molester with a baseball bat is going to be charged with murder. A harsh penalty, no doubt, but Mr. Hooper would be well advised to pay attention to this case and learn from it.

Mr. Hooper said that I unfriended him on Facebook because of his viewpoint. That is nonsense. I could make this case in my sleep. I could spell it out in urine in the snow. Hooper and his friends were so filled up with emotion, they were unable to see the reasons for laws like this.

Hooper warns me not to molest his children; an obvious desperate insult because he feels, rightly, that my argument made more sense than his defense of taking the law into one's own hands.

I unfriended Mr. Hooper because he posted vile, disgusting, blood drenched pictures of an aborted baby, and on Facebook anyone can see these pictures. It is not Mr. Hooper's place to force anyone to see pictures like that, and I won't subject myself to his violent pornography. So I unfriended him for that.

The fact that I don't have to read anymore of his ignorant drivel about laws he does not understand is just a bonus. -Jz

• Evolution Says ...

• LGBT Plans To Disrupt Olympics In Russia!

Plans to smuggle pro-LGBT propaganda into Russia and disrupt Olympics revealed at "gay" journalists convention in Boston. Media, athletes, and even Olympic teams working with LGBT activists

MassResistance exclusive: Homosexual activists in the U.S. are working with media groups, "out LGBT athletes," and both the US and Canadian Olympic hockey teams in a secret plan to smuggle rainbow flags, homosexual propaganda, etc. into Russia. Their intent is to disrupt the 2014 Winter Olympics with homosexual symbolism, according to a presenter at the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Convention in Boston on August 24. The planned disruption is a retaliation by the homosexual movement to Russia's recent ban on the public promotion of homosexuality.

They are also talking about "utilizing diplomatic channels" to help smuggle the homosexual flags and other materials into Russia.

Patrick Burke, co-founder of the You Can Play Project, a campaign to "end homophobia in sports," also referred to plans for athletes to wave rainbow flags on awards podiums and at the closing ceremonies. Burke told the group that "we can't talk about that publicly" but "there's a lot going on behind the scenes.".

Luckily, MassResistance was present and recorded the presentation.

The Park Plaza Hotel in downtown Boston, during the conference.

Russia's ban on public promotion of homosexuality

The 2014 Winter Olympics will be held in Sochi, Russia on February 7-23. This past June, as MassResistance reported, Russia's parliament overwhelmingly passed a bill which bans the promotion of "non-traditional sexual relations" to minors, and which also includes bans on "gay pride" rallies or other public promotion of "homosexual propaganda."

The Russian government has made it clear that the ban also covers participants and attendees of the 2014 Olympics. According to Burke, Russian authorities have decided to preemptively confiscate rainbow flags and pins at airports.

Remarks made at "Out on the Playing Field" session at conference

The National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA) is a powerful national organization of homosexual journalists from major television news, newspapers, radio, and more. Their annual conference was held August 22-25 at the Boston Park Plaza Hotel.

Burke spoke at a conference session titled, "Game Changer: Out on the Playing Field and In the Press Box," Its description: "Hear from sportswriters and athletes who can tell you what homophobia they still see in sports and where there are areas of real improvement." Burke apparently thought he was talking to an all-"gay" audience, and was surprisingly candid about what he's been doing to help organize the disruption at the upcoming Olympics.

Patrick Burke prepares to address his session at the NLGJA conference. [MassResistance photo]

"Rainbow flag on the podium" and more

Here is what Patrick Burke said in his presentation about the plan to infiltrate the Olympic Games and embarrass the Russian government:

We're going to have three weeks of sustained media presence there. We are going to have out LGBT athletes there. We are going to have very vocal and visible allies there.

We've spoken with the Canadian and U.S. hockey teams. We're going to be doing work with both of those teams.

The frustrating part right now is we can't talk about that publicly because if you talk about it publicly, the Russians don't let you in the country. So when everyone keeps asking us "What are you going to do when you get there? What are you going to do when you get there?" and we keep having to say "We can't tell you."

The Russians have said they'll confiscate rainbow flags if you try and bring them in your regular luggage. They've said they'll confiscate pins. We are talking about utilizing diplomatic channels to get things into the country.

There's a lot going on behind the scenes that will frustrate people because it won't be made public until you see an athlete on a medal stand or at closing ceremonies. There are two types of backlash that we're concerned about.

One is government. Where a journalist or athlete whoever it might be, is arrested or is, you know, fined, is deported. Not that anyone wants to stay in Russia if the Olympics are over. That's certainly the type of backlash that we're concerned about.

The second is non-governmental groups. We looked into securing a pride house in Sochi. One of my very good friends basically runs the Continental Hockey League and he knows every Russian billionaire out there. We said what would it take to get a pride house? He said he'd 'need security.' Well yeah, get some security guards. He said 'no, someone would shoot it up.' He said 'you would need ex-KGB to secure it. You guys can't afford that.' Well probably not. So there's concern on my end about non-governmental groups taking matters into their own hands.

I think the athletes are going to be safe. I think if you see an athlete or a journalist do something, unless it's excessively provocative -- and I use that term from the Russian point of view; I wouldn't consider anything excessive -- you're going to see athletes deported. I don't think you're going to see fines. I don't think you're going to see arrests. I think you're going to see, someone waves a rainbow flag on the podium; you go right from the podium to an airplane. You get sent home.

AUDIO: LISTEN to the above comments HERE.

(NOTE: Open recording and video taping of the conference and its sessions were allowed. Some sessions were recorded and/or videoed by several people.)

An outrageous embarrassment to Americans

The Russian government's bold efforts to protect children and society has attracted applause and support from pro-family organizations around the world, and also from countries such as Nigeria and Uganda who are also dealing with these issues.

If this outrageous stunt is successful, it will be an embarrassment not only to the Russian government -- which is working hard to have a clean, wholesome atmosphere for its Olympic games -- but certainly to many Americans, given that American corporations, American athletes, and possibly even our government would be  involved in this.

The pro-homosexual Obama Administration has already complained loudly about Russia's new law. And Obama himself, while visiting Russia this past week, in a purposeful affront to the Russian government met with Russian homosexual activists in St. Petersburg, along with his national security advisor and the US Ambassador to Russia. So it would not be surprising Obama had the US diplomatic corps involved with this, too.

The international fallout from this, given the wide range of those involved, would surely be considerable.

Hopefully, our publicizing this will help severely dampen their plans.

• Very Funny Dialogue On Tea Party Community

*UPDATES BELOW: JIMMY Z BANNED BY TEA PARTY COMMUNITY OVER THIS BLOG POST & THREATENED WITH LEGAL HARASSMENT*
------------------

I am going to post this here for all eternity; a classic smack-down by your show host. The issue was the dismissal of a Colonel who failed a performance inspection and nuclear missiles were his responsibility. The source of the article was Military.com. Jim here felt that any fired military officer means Obama is up to no good, which is ridiculous; and in order to prove he was right, Jim took a guess as to who ran the Military.com website - and this is where we pick up the comment thread from earlier this evening...

------------------

Jim K.

Military.com is run by the Secretary of Defense, a bunch of Obizmal appointed libtards with an agenda. Sorry... Nice try.

Jimmy Z

Oh you should NEVER take a wild guess when I'm around. I smack down wild guesses like the perfect lob in tennis [FYI, this is the reason Jim called me a troll and left]:

"Military.com is the website created by Military Advantage to be a portal for U.S. military members. In early 2004, Military Advantage was purchased by Monster Worldwide. The company's main revenue streams are advertising, military-themed products and lead generation for military recruiters.

"The website was founded by Christopher Michel in 1999 and went live in 2000.

"Military Advantage's advisory board includes two former members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as other academic and business leaders. President of Military.com, Admiral Terry "T" McCreary served as the Chief of Naval Information (CHINFO) on the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"Military.com, which claims more than 10 million members, also owns Fredsplace.org, Defensetech.org, Milblogging.com, DoDBuzz.com and MilitaryBenefits.com."

Jim K.

I'm done feeding the trolls. You can bang your head against a troll all night long and all you will have to show for it is a headache :p

Jimmy Z

Name calling is capitulation. Say goodnight, Jim.

---------------

The really funny part is that a very healthy thread was removed shortly thereafter - there must have been 50 comments in about 30 minutes, presumably because Mr. K begged the person who posted the story originally to pull it down. It has disappeared forever, but I knew this was epic enough to clip and save some of the transcript. I knew Jim couldn't allow it to remain. -Jz
------------------
LATEST: Saturday, 7 September, I was banned without warning and without notice, for who knows what length of time, for posting this on my blog. Never mind how many times folks attacked me personally on their little website, Tea Party Community. Never mind a few times I reported spam and harassment, and no monitor ever responded. Remember, these are supposedly conservatives and they run this social website FAR WORSE than Facebook! Hard for me to believe, and I am very critical of Facebook, but it's true.

Tea Party Community is run by petty, sneering, cowardly people who want anyone who is not in lockstep with the military coup-advocating radical right (can't believe I have to use that term either!) to be removed from their midst. Would I say that these people operate just like petty, sneering cowardly liberals and left wing pond scum? Yes. Which social network is the better website? Facebook. Or if you want a conservative alternative, use Freedom Torch.
------------------
LATEST: Sunday, 8 September, 1:00pm PDT: Today I received an email declaring that my parody/satire alteration of their 'logo' (Didn't they borrow [steal?] that from the Gadsden flag? I think they did) is bothering them and they're going to throw a legal hissy fit: "I see you are using our official logo on your blog and have defaced it in a slanderous fashion. I would advise removing it immediately, or you'll definitely here [sic] from our Lawyer."

Defaced it! Haha, I made it more truthful is what I did. Ah, conservatives. Well we can see here that weak conservatives aren't much better than whiny liberals, are they. Hell, with all the parodies and satire of graphics and logos and everything else that conservatives do online, you'd think Tea Party Community could take it. And by the way, the fellow who wrote to me never answered any of my email asking why I was banned three times, or how long the ban would last. Not very upright these people.

I have more on TPC, shocking stuff, outrageous stuff - but I have to get permission from the source to report it. -Jz
------------------
LATEST: Sunday, 8 September 3:45pm PDT: Latest email from TPC and my response. TPC said, "Parody? I fail to see the humor as will our lawyer. You've been given fair warning about using our copyrighted material." Ooh, and what material it is they copyrighted, isn't it? Their own theft of the Gadsden flag artwork.

My response: "Satire and parody aren't always humorous - and is rarely so for the person being satirized. I pixelated your logos you big baby. But my criticism stands and I will be talking about your site being run by petty, sniveling conspiracy theorists. There was no slander. Who are you kidding? Free speech, remember that? And by the way: You heisted your logo from the Gadsden flag! What a joke.

"You NEVER answered my emails for explanations - you're a coward. I was banned THREE TIMES for no reason, and you are afraid of standing up to the wormy cretins you put in power as moderators. Three strikes - I wouldn't come back to that poorly run site if you begged me to. The truth is out. TPC will fail.

"You can't avoid parody. Who do you think you are? Go pound sand, Tim. The Constitution means more than your little website.

"Funny isn't it? There turns out to be more free speech at Facebook than there is at TPC, which I PREDICTED on Facebook the day I first heard that your social network was opening up. Conservatives hate debating. Conservatives really are not very well informed, as the loudest of the loudmouths on your website prove. They get all bent out of shape when the truth upsets their right wing spin.

"And if you and your people can't stand up to big bad Jimmy Z, how in hell do you think you can stand up to Obama and his machine? What a joke! You should have stood up to the cranks at your website, but you didn't have the balls. See you around." -Jimmy Z

• Can Obama Attack Syria Without Congress?

From the National Review morning email today:

What Is the Consequence of a War Without Congressional Authorization?

Call me schizophrenic. Call me an extremist. You can recall that I'm supportive of air strikes to punish Syrian dictator Bashir Assad for using chemical weapons -- as long as we're sure his side used the chemical weapons and that he ordered the launch.

But if a president were to A) take military action against Syria without seeking a resolution authorizing military action or B) Congress rejected the resolution, but he went ahead anyway . . .Would that be grounds for impeachment? Probably not. There's some precedent for this sort of thing:

The War Powers Resolution passed by Congress in 1973 requires that the president seek consent from Congress before force is used, or within 60 days of the start of hostilities. It also says the president must provide Congress with reports throughout the conflict.

Since 1973, the United States has used military force in Grenada in 1983, Panama in 1989, Iraq in 1991, Haiti in 1994 and Kosovo in 1999. In all those instances, presidents -- both Democrats and Republicans -- sidestepped Congress and committed U.S. military forces without obtaining congressional approval.

• On Homosexual Marriage: It's Not Over

It's not over
August 29, 2013 | Share with Friends

Dear Jimmy,

"It ain't over till it's over," as the old saying goes.
And the fight for marriage in America is far from over.

The media would have you believe, and the radical homosexual activists would have you believe, and the liberals in Washington would have you believe that the case is closed because the Supreme Court ruling on DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) was the last word.
But they're wrong.

The high court's DOMA ruling, wrong-headed as it was, only struck down Section 3 of the law: this means people in same-sex "marriages" who live in states that allow it, can receive federal marriage benefits -- technically, once you get beyond the bluster of Justice Kennedy, the ruling accomplishes nothing more.

So those seeking to redefine marriage out of existence are engaged in a massive propaganda campaign selling the erroneous view that same-sex "marriage" is now "the American way." And that those holding the traditional view are bigots that have been defeated by those of a progressive mindset.

Meanwhile, they're taking advantage of their public relations momentum to mount a strong drive to completely strike down DOMA and to do what the Supreme Court didn't -- and truly make same-sex "marriage" the law of the land: legalized in all 50 states.

They're pushing the ironically named "Respect for Marriage Act" to eliminate DOMA so the ederal government would recognize "same-sex" marriages in every state. Already there are some 161 cosponsors in the House, and 41 in the Senate. If supporters of traditional marriage are lulled into inaction by the radical Left's misinformation campaign, this bill will become law. And something far worse than the Supreme Court ruling will happen to America.

• On an economic level: disaster. The Government Accounting Office has determined there are some 1,138 mentions of marriage in federal law. This means nationwide legalization of same-sex "marriage" will make an enormous negative impact on the government's budget and thus the country financially.
  
  
• On a social level: danger. Forcing the redefinition of marriage on all states will mean a loss of religious liberty. It already means parents are no longer in control of what their children are taught about sexual morality in public schools. It already means bakers and florists and photographers are being forced to participate in same-sex "weddings" or face fines and lawsuits. Christian business owners are suffering the consequences as provisions of this law are imposed upon them.
  
  
• On a spiritual level: persecution. The radical homosexual lobby wants to cause massive disruption to our culture by making homosexual activity "normal" -- and objections to homosexual activity "hate." They call us "haters" because we will not affirm and celebrate their sexual deviance. In fact, warning them about the risks is the loving thing to do.
  

There is nothing hateful about standing for marriage and doing our best in public policy to ensure that a child has a mother and a father. But once this position becomes "hate," and hate becomes a crime, Christians will be in more trouble than ever.

Yet there is hope.

FRC Action is fighting back, and with your strong support, we will keep fighting. I urge you to stand with us, for the truth of God's Word regarding marriage and its benefits to society, and regarding the harms of homosexual behavior on individuals and society.

We are not alone in this battle. There are strong, principled conservatives in Congress and they are standing firm.

The stakes are huge. Since the Supreme Court ruling, the lines have been drawn. This is no longer simply about marriage. This is about the federal government maneuvering a step closer to being able to silence Bible-believing churches and their values...

We must put maximum pressure on conservative leaders to take a bold stand in defense of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

We're approaching the end of our fiscal year on September 30th, and we must meet our $400,000 goal by this date in order to keep operating in the black and continue our critically important work, without pause or delay, on Capitol Hill.

Your generosity today will help us finish our fiscal year strong and empower our Action team to pull out the stops and protect America from the dangerous "Respect for Marriage Act" or any similar bill. We've got to be there on the Hill to support strong conservatives and to bring every possible influence to bear on those who remain "on the fence" and are open to persuasion.

This fight is not over. FRC Action will stand for this foundational truth. But we need you to be part of it. Please sign and return the petition, and give as generously as possible. We will represent your interests on Capitol Hill, we will fight hard, and we will put all of our experience and expertise to work on your behalf. But we need you to send us and keep us there.
Standing (Ephesians 6:13),

Tony Perkins
President, Family Research Council
P.S. Please forward this to at least one friend.

• Syria: Who's Gassing Who?

This is a story a friend told me today, and we've decided to keep it anonymous. This friend is completely credible. We are looking into it further. -Jz

Right down the road from my house is a store that is owned by 2 brothers from Yemen. They are wonderful people and they love America. The oldest brother and myself have an ongoing conversation about politics and what is going on over in Syria.

I asked him about the Syrian government gassing the citizens with nerve gas. He told me that it was not the Syrian government that used the nerve gas: He said it was the Muslim Brotherhood.

Yesterday I went into the store and he showed me a video of the Muslim brotherhood testing the nerve gas on rabbits and they showed hundreds of canisters and bottles of the nerve gas in the video. He translated the video for me since it was spoken in Arabic. If what he translated was true, then it was the Muslim Brotherhood that gassed all of those children.

He said that Obama is blaming it on the Syrian government so that he can send troops over to help the Muslim Brotherhood. He said that Obama is arming the Muslim Brotherhood with weapons and chemicals.

All of his relatives still live in Yemen as does his wife and children. He is trying to get them here but it cost him $115,000 to get here himself. He talks to his family over there everyday and he gets reports about what is going on.

• Federal judge's ruling against Pastor Scott Lively

Ruling could have horrible international consequences for pro-family movement!

On Wednesday, August 14, a federal judge, denying a motion to dismiss, ruled that a Soros-backed pro-homosexual "civil rights" organization, Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) based in New York, can move forward and sue Pastor Scott Lively of Springfield, Mass. for allegedly committing international "crimes against humanity."

Pastor Scott Lively refuses to back down and is being bitterly attacked by the homosexual movement.

Absurd charges against Lively

This unprecedented lawsuit is based on pro-family speeches and writings critical of homosexuality by Pastor Lively at conferences in Uganda and in the United States. CCR is claiming that Lively's opinions were the direct cause of about a dozen minor incidents of harassment in Uganda over a period of ten years, which they consider "crimes against humanity." They offer no evidence that the perpetrators of these incidents had ever communicated with Lively, or had even read or heard anything by him! Instead, they make the preposterous charge that somehow Lively's few speeches and writings created a "virulently hostile environment" in the entire country of Uganda, and thus he is responsible.

In our exclusive coverage of the hearing back in January on the motion to dismiss, we reported how we sat in the courtroom and heard Lively's Liberty Counsel lawyers eviscerate virtually every argument brought up by the plaintiffs. At one point Federal Judge Michael A. Ponsor even told the CCR lawyer that he is "struggling to see actionable behavior" in anything Lively did or said, and that he can't see that any of Lively's conduct that amounts to "persecution" or "conspiracy."

Unusually harsh and hostile ruling on motion to dismiss

But that was then. In his 79-page ruling issued last week, Judge Ponsor accepts all of the points raised by the Soros-backed plaintiffs and denies all of the points raised by Lively's lawyers. In addition, Ponsor excoriates Pastor Lively's "offensive conduct" relating to his pro-family activity and his "distasteful" use of the First Amendment.

We're living in a time of outrageous and hostile anti-family court rulings. The Supreme Court and state "gay marriage" rulings, the rulings against pro-family businesses, recent "transgender rights" rulings, and rulings against parents of schoolchildren are just a few. But this ruling goes far beyond anything we've ever seen or even read about.

Detailed analysis coming up. Because of the egregious and convoluted nature of this case and the ruling, MassResistance is preparing a detailed analysis of the judge's ruling and how the judge has determined that Pastor Lively -- presumably no longer protected by the First Amendment -- can "legally" be sued in an American court on these charges.

What this is REALLY all about: a new international standard for "crimes against humanity"

Why is this New York-based Soros-based group going to such unusual efforts and expense to prosecute Pastor Scott Lively for international "crimes against humanity" -- simply because of things that he said?

This is not an accident. It could represent for them an unprecedented weapon for the international homosexual movement going forward.

A major driving point of the hardcore homosexual movement is the internal narrative among themselves that criticism or distaste of homosexual behavior (what they call "homophobia") leads to genocidal extermination of homosexuals. To us (and most people) that may seem to be a paranoid delusion. But that is what they tell each other that pro-family people really desire. And it's a big part of what drives them to relentlessly silence any disagreement of their behaviors through intimidation and harassment as well as oppressive anti-bullying laws, "anti-discrimination" laws, and other tactics.

However, their bigger goal is worldwide. At the end of their complaint against Lively the plaintiffs declare what they are asking for. Included is: "a declaratory judgment holding that Defendant's conduct was in violation of the law of nations." And a preponderance of the arguments in the complaint clearly lead in that direction. Thus, it's clear that their real goal is much bigger than just punishing Scott Lively.

This case could essentially make Uganda the Nuremburg of the gay rights movement. They are seeking an official declaration from a United States Federal Court that "homophobic" speech and writings constitute international crimes against humanity because of the "climate of terror" that they would cause in a country.

This would have huge value to them. It's one thing for Barack Obama to go to other countries and chastise them about their laws and customs reflecting traditional values regarding homosexuality. But it's another to have the club of "crimes against humanity" behind it.

This case represents the declaration of a new global standard. The entire world would be put on notice that all disapproval of homosexuality must be ended. You can't criminalize homosexuality in your country anymore, or even have laws curtailing it in any way -- because that would be considered on the level of the Nazis' actions against the Jews.

And it would certainly be used against any number of individuals and groups here in America and around the world.  That's the real problem. That's why they're putting so much effort into it. It's the opportunity they've been waiting for.

Pastor Scott Lively and his legal team outside the courthouse. From left: Horatio Mihet, Pastor Lively, Steve Crampton, Philip Moran

The next step: Lawsuit moves forward with "discovery" phase

The plaintiffs appear to be moving as quickly as they can to start the "discovery" phase of the lawsuit in Springfield Federal District Court. Basically, the plaintiffs will demand to see tons of Lively's emails, records, and other material -- largely a fishing expedition, it would appear, to find anything that might strengthen their case. As usual, we will keep you informed.

A final note: We have been critical of pro-family legal defense efforts in important, high-profile cases over the years. Much of it has been terribly weak and simply second-rate. Not so with Liberty Counsel. In this case they have really impressed us. They've done a first-rate job and fought brilliantly. Unfortunately, they're just up against a completely corrupt and irrational legal system on a scale that resembles something out of the old Soviet Union. This is a disgrace. In our opinion, Judge Ponsor should be impeached and disbarred. But Lively's legal team is not giving up, and we're behind them.

• Growing Conservative Hysteria On Social Media

Here is an exchange with a 'conservative' (I believe more like an anarchist) on Tea Party Community, on the topic of America being a supposed 'police state'.  My guess is that those who believe such nonsense have never experienced a true police state. Conservatism is becoming dangerously irrational lately. This will lead to another election loss if we're not careful. But in any case, here you go.


David F 
[To Jimmy Z] The "POLICE" don't PREVENT Robberies, Rapes, Murders, Burglaries, Mob Attacks, Child Molestation, Domestic Violence, or even Drinking & Driving ...

They "SHOW UP", AFTER THE FACT, to "collect evidence", process the crime scene, ARREST homeowners, if they DEFEND THEMSELVES, especially with a FIREARM, INTERROGATE EVERYONE in the house, hoping to "pin something on somebody", etc, etc, etc.

They are more like "Garbage-Men", than "Protectors", because they show up AFTER the CRIME has OCCURRED, to "CLEAN UP THE MESS" !!!

Most of them MAY be "GOOD COPS", but there are MORE THAN ENOUGH "BAD COPS" to DESTROY any "CREDIBILITY" the rest of them may have.

The "actions of a few" have cause me to NEVER "trust the many" !

BTW - Too bad the "bad cops" don't visit YOU ... TROLL !!!

Jimmy Z

Geez David, this is the kind of hysterical anti-police rant I'm talking about. The police prevent enormous amounts of crime just by being on patrol! 'Garbage men' indeed. God forbid you would ever need a police officer.

 

David F

I have no "need" for cops to "protect" me ... Come kick in my door sometime !!!

 

Jimmy Z

This comment of yours, David, is an example of crazy talk. Consider: Let's say the cops have no good reason, or even have the wrong address, and they kick in your door, and you 'take a stand' with your trusted firearm. Guess what happens next?

 

David F 
Well, Jimmy, put the events in order:

(1) Door gets kicked in, without warning.

(2) 8 rounds of 00 Buck go off in 2-3 seconds

(3) Surviving "intruders" realize they have the "wrong house"

(4) If I'm lucky, I get to leave this place for an eternity in Heaven.

(5) The "Garbage Men" clean up the mess.

(6) Who "won" ???

Chuck

What happens next? Simple. 40 cal bullets come my way and 30-06 bullets go their way. See, anybody can bust in a door and yell "police". If it were really so simple, every robber would just do the same thing.

 

Jimmy Z 

David F's list above is insane. I think the police with their gear come out better, and you die, and your family is left without you. What's the point? He think that it goes from 8 rounds of buckshot to police 'realizing they have the wrong house'. Not likely. What happens most likely is that David ends up shot by police. I take no pleasure in saying so, but this is craziness here, this idea that one should shoot it out with the police. Oy vey.