Two Justin Smith Submissions & Kenosha Seeds of Civil War


Blog Editor: John R. Houk

Posted August 28, 2020

 

Jacob Blake Resist Arrest Concealing Knife

 

Right in the midst of one the most unique and best Republican National Conventions I have witnessed, more seeds of an American Civil War were planted in Kenosha, Wisconsin. A Black criminal resisting arrest was shot by a White Police Officer. A 17 year-old White teen was defending property was attacked by BLM and Antifa criminal thugs then shot killing two and wounding one. The MSM and Dem-Marxists blast the White Officer and falsely call the White teen a White Supremacist racist (Hello Nick Sandmann!). READ the details from Justin Smith to offset the lying narrative spewed by the Leftmedia and Dem-Marxists.

 

Kyle Rittenhouse Defends Self from Thug Attack

 

JRH 8/28/20

Your generosity is always appreciated – various credit, check 

& debit cards are accepted by my PayPal account: 

Please Support NCCR

Or support by getting in the Coffee from home business – 

OR just buy some FEEL GOOD coffee, that includes immune boosting products.

*****************************

America Wonders Where the Violence Ends  

American Cities Look More Like Beirut

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 8/26/2020 11:47 PM

 

Seeking “justice” for wrongful acts by those in power and the government is as normal a thing to do in this country, as going to Mom’s cafe for a good ol’ piece of homemade apple-pie, but destroying entire cities in the name of such “justice” is pure evil, extreme racial prejudice and sheer, unadulterated ignorance at play, with the justified shooting of Jacob Blake on August 23rd used as the excuse in Kenosha, Wisconsin. If a city must burn, at least know that the cause is, in fact a just cause and not something that could have been prevented, if only Blake had complied with lawful orders. What we have witnessed, through these communist inspired, communist led violent riots, these so-called “peaceful protests”, from Portland to Seattle and Minneapolis to Kenosha and elsewhere across America isn’t anything remotely concerned with justice and everything to do with creating chaos and destroying the natural order, the rule of law, the republic and America.

 

On January 20th, 2017, one of the main backers of Black Lives Matter, the Communist group Freedom Road Socialist Organization, hear its secretary, Steff Yorek, tell its membership, “We need to stay in the streets the entire four years opposing Trump and making the country ungovernable.” BLM and Antifa both took his message and they have done their best to disrupt every segment of society, nearly everyday since the President was sworn into office. [Blog Editor: Does anyone else find it interesting Communist Yorek’s riot suggestion implies an impending Trump reelection in November?]

 

Yes, black people quite often get shot by white police officers. They get shot by black police officers too. And guess what? So too do people of all colors, especially white folks, when they’re acting ignorant and do not comply with lawful police orders. I won’t get into the statistics of it all, since I’ve addressed the topic to death previously, but suffice it to say, white folks get shot by police a whole lot more than black. Some blacks have been shot under extremely questionable or even wrongful circumstances, and so too have some whites and people of Hispanic decent; it does happen.

 

And although, I am myself one of the largest advocates for passive, firm resistance and even violent resistance under the right set of circumstances, even I would have allowed myself to be taken, rather than endanger my own children by escalating the situation. How ironic was it that Blake supposedly was merely attempting to “de-escalate” a situation between two women who were fighting?

 

Blake was shot on the 2800 block of 40th Street, as he walked away from officers after being tazed, appearing to be concealing a knife in his waistband, as shouts to “Drop the knife” are heard on recently released video. He went to the driver side of his car and entered it, reaching down to get something, that could have been anything — even a gun. However, just today, Wednesday, August 26th, authorities in the Wisconsin Justice Department revealed that Blake had a knife in his possession when he was shot, and it was recovered from the “driver’s side floorboard” of his car; so, Officer Rusten Sheskey, a seven year veteran of the police force was, in fact, completely justified in shooting Blake.

 

Blake got shot while being STUPID.

 

However, the Blake shooting really is separate from the violence we are witnessing today, across the country, as is the George Floyd case.

 

One should also note that no one has ever seen a “peaceful protest” at night. All of Martin Luther King, Jr’s truly peaceful protests of the 1960s took place in the light of day.

 

Warzone after warzone is opening up in one city after another, and the good American people are astounded by the sight of Black Lives Matter and Antifa trying to destroy their fellow countrymen, their businesses and the cities where they exist. America is wondering where this all ends.

 

As one man recently told a reporter for OneNewsNow: “My city (Kenosha) looks like Beirut today. It is unfathomable to me.”

 

The protests are growing more violent, and on the third night of the riots in Kenosha, a seventeen year old young man, Kyle Rittenhouse, shot three rioters, two in the process of destroying a car dealership, at the northwest corner of Sheridan Road and 63rd Street, and one more who pursued and attacked him; another pursuer was seen with a handgun in his right hand. As he fell to the ground from being kicked in the head, by a BLM thug, another man hit him with a skateboard; Rittenhouse fell to the ground, Ar-15-style rifle in hand. In the ensuing struggle for the rifle, Rittenhouse managed to snatch it back, whereupon, he opened fire from a sitting position, on those closing upon him, with bad intentions.

 

[Blog Editor: Marxist-Dems, Leftist MSM and clueless RINOs are idiots to express consternation a White person (no matter how moderate or extreme) has not stepped up to the plate to forcefully confront Leftist rioting, looting and vandalism. Dem-managed cities and States are doing nothing to stop the violent onslaught. It has only been a matter of time individual or groups would form to confront what Dem-controlled police have been hamstrung from doing. It might take the initiative of a 17 year-old kid to inspire adults to protect themselves from Communist thugs. Articles you probably will not find on MSM outlets nor intimidated Conservative News:

 

 

 

 

The BLM/Antifa casualties were identified, by Fox News, as a 26 year old resident of Silver Lake, Wisconsin, and a 36 year old from Kenosha. A 36 year old from West Allis, Wisconsin was wounded, but is expected to survive.

 

One really sees the hypocrisy of the BLM anti-Americans as they scream “No justice, No Peace” while indiscriminately burning everybody’s businesses down, even some owned by other black people. Their concern for black people is touching to hear, as they rush from a store they’ve just looted, screaming, “I got the phones”. This also reveals that at the core of this problem, America finds that a lot of malcontents are smashing store windows, stealing merchandise, assaulting and killing people, and setting fires because they can escape any serious consequences, due to the retreat of so many mayors and governors.

 

In even more surreal fashion, we even hear young white Antifa screaming their justification for burning the towns down, saying, “We paid for that shit” and “… the insurance companies will pay to rebuild it”, even though they’ve obviously never worked a real job in their lifetime, never paid taxes and are still in school somewhere, in a university that has successfully brainwashed and indoctrinated them full bore into the depths of the Marxist ideology.

 

A jewelry store owner told Fox6 News, that “this is not protesting”, after looters in Kenosha fled with something close to $200,000 in jewelry, before they destroyed the business, and the owner of a car dealership called the events “domestic terrorism” after fifty cars were torched on the first night of the riots. On the second night of the rioting, the fire department answered thirty-seven fire calls, as residents of Kenosha watched more homes and businesses go up in flames.

 

American cities are literally on fire, and it’s particularly troubling to see such a dynamic — rioters and armed militia standing off against one another — in a city like Kenosha, on Lake Michigan, with less than 100,000 people, a fairly small town, that is also considered part of the Chicago combined statistical area, by the Census Bureau. And, to date in 2020, America has witnessed riots in Atlantic City, Trenton, Philadelphia, DC, Boston, Atlanta, Louisville, Columbus, St Louis, Chicago, Detroit, Minneapolis, New York, De Moines, Denver, Phoenix, San Jose, Dallas, Los Angeles, Bakersfield, Sacramento, Oakland, and Seattle, and I’m sure there have been many more riots that simply weren’t large enough to receive as much press as the aforementioned. And in the meantime, the people of Portland have suffered through 87 straight nights of protests and seventeen declared riots on their streets, within the last three months, along with 100 arrests over the past three weeks and 23 more arrests on August 23rd.

 

These aren’t simple, “peaceful protests”. This is unhinged, arson, looting, maiming and killing, and violence aimed at traditional America and the people who uphold those principles that founded and built America. These are riots with the sole purpose of destroying America, without anything better to take its place, only gibberish filled slogans and mindless chants, that are sure to absolutely not grow jobs or prevent other criminals from doing something stupid one day in the near future, getting their ass shot off in the process.

 

Governor Tony Evers is as much to blame for this situation as anyone, since he mouthed the popular BLM anti-police narrative and only had 250 National Guard soldiers patrolling Kenosha’s streets, although County leaders had pleaded for 1500 to control the streets, and on the third night of the riots a void was filled, when good and decent militiamen confronted the rioters in the streets. And now, finally, after rejecting President Trump’s offer of help, in breaking news this morning (Wednesday August 26th 2020), President Donald Trump announced that Governor Evers had agreed to “federal assistance” for this hard-hit city, explaining that federal law enforcement and more National Guardsmen were headed to Kenosha.

 

Less than six years ago, President Barack Obama stated that he had “no sympathy at all” for the rioters in Ferguson, Missouri, and he sent fifteen-hundred National Guard soldiers into Missouri to enforce a curfew and to quell the violence that followed a police officer shooting Michael Brown. Nothing has really changed with the greatest percentage of Americans, who believed that action was warranted, just as a similar action underway today by President Trump is also warranted. Yet, the majority of elected Democrats seem too beholden to the Far Left Communist and Nihilists, or too complicit with them, to actually speak very forcefully, intelligently or effectively to this current existential threat and a growing insurrection.

 

The Democratic Party’s assurances, and those of presidential candidate Joe Biden and his running-mate Kamala Harris, that they can end this violence and the rioting, are meaningless, when they weakly condemn actual violence and still insist the protesters are “mostly peaceful”. Even if most of any particular group of protesters are mostly peaceful at any given point in time, it’s not a great distinction, when we see cities consumed by chaos and burning to the ground.

 

Stopping the riots will require more police on the ground, rather than less, at least in the short term. Many elected officials, especially in the Democratic Party, will be uncomfortable with this fact. Those communists driving their anti-American agenda most certainly will scream like stuck hogs over any increase, as they place their phony narrative on a high platform, demeaning and slandering police and declaring their distrust of police; but most police officers are heads above these commie rat bastards, when it comes to maintaining a moral character and integrity. And we can’t simply rely on the weak and ineffective calls for calm or simply sit back and hope for the best, while American cities burn.

 

Some people just want to watch the world burn.

 

The Communist and Socialists and Nihilists attempts to destroy America have continued into this long, hot summer of 2020, as they work to force their desires for the darkest of authoritarian socialist regimes, upon us all, refusing to follow any semblance of the rule of law, while they wreak havoc upon America’s greatest cities. And so, in our communities, the fine Americans of our country, business owners and just plain hard-working people who love America, have faced off against these radicals, who prey on the weakest of our towns, those radicals intent on creating greater political and racial unrest and even civil strife so serious as to drag the nation into certain civil war.

 

America is still on a trajectory towards civil war, a messy, bloody war that will be fought city to city and community to community, even pitting neighbor against neighbor, since this will be a war that pits those who subscribe to Marx and socialism against those who hold dear the principles of Thomas Jefferson, freedom and liberty. So too will factions be split among these groups, and if matters keep disintegrating as they’ve been, we aren’t far away at all from an even greater social upheaval than we’re currently experiencing. While we may not be so deeply immersed in difficulties as of yet, to even remotely be to the point of civil war any time soon, perhaps not even for another decade, there isn’t any doubt in my mind and the mind of several other renown national security analysts, that we’re not as far away from civil war as we were six months ago, or even a decade ago.

 

By Justin O. Smith

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Violence Grows Where BLM and Antifa Go

By No Means Will American Patriots Stand Silent – It’s Us Or Them 

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 8/27/2020 10:07 PM

 

“These guys (President Trump and conservative America) are rooting for violence. That is what it is all about.”  ~ Joe Biden, speaking to CNN on August 27th 2020

 

Sane Americans across America want to see an immediate end to the violence, including everybody I know, but let’s be clear and recognize that every single bit of this violence has been facilitated and initiated by his Democratic Party’s members, whether they live in the House of Congress and the Senate, State Governors’ Mansions or they are the radical nihilists and communists of Antifa and Black Lives Matter, who seek to bring the entire U.S. system down. Americans want the violence halted, but they also want the assault against America and this radical communist insurrection halted too, so by no means will we stand silent, while these radicals loot, maim, kill and burn our cities to the ground; at some point, most of us will make use of our God-Given right to self-defense and act to stop it ourselves, in the absence of clear and effective leadership and an active, unrestrained police force.

 

Time and again, America has witnessed city mayors telling their police forces to essentially stay back and allow the “peaceful protester” Looters and Rioters have their way with their cities, as occurred in Portland, Seattle, New York, Chicago, Minneapolis and even here in Nashville, Tennessee where they have another raving lunatic for a mayor. These police do just the modicum to attempt to keep Antifa and BLM radicals separated from conservative counter-protesters, and the conservatives and liberals alike who have just simply been trying to get to their businesses. And in the process, we have repeatedly seen them injured by the scores and hit in the head with bricks and frozen bottles, even shot and killed.

 

The shooting of Jacob Blake was a good and justified shooting, because he had an outstanding warrant against him, he had already fought the police on the scene, he was armed with a knife, and he was refusing to comply with lawful orders from the police. However, now, under the new Black Lives Matter narrative, any shooting of a black person, no matter how justified, is just an excuse for violence by these Radicals, who need the illusion of “Systemic Racism” to advance their subversion of the Constitution and the rule of law. They could give a damned less about Black Lives or anyone else’s life, since racism is a divisive Marxist social construct always used to divide and conquer; they care only that communism rules the day in America and they get to raid and rape Her of Her wealth.

 

A slightly different perspective on these Radicals comes from Eva Silvers, political activist, American patriot and a great friend of mine, from Columbus, Ohio, who recently broadcast a video, stating, in part [Blog Editor: Link is to a Facebook video by Eva Silvers openly upset about rioters & their violence. Justin graciously edited profanity from her valid point.]: “I’ve never been to a protest where the city (has) been obliterated, where we’ve looted and stolen and destroyed shit. No! … This is an entitled bunch of kids (I disagree in that most of them are grown-ass men and women well into their prime and radical Antifa and BLM thugs) and the Cancel Culture generation (thugs) who want an excuse to go steal shit because they’re too sorry to get a job.”

 

And, if any American of any color, especially those Black Brothers out there, doesn’t want to be shot by police or anyone else, don’t act stupid and unhinged around reserved, polite, decent, moral and cultured Americans, don’t become violent in situations that don’t warrant violence, and just act like a normal human being. Don’t go into communities for the sole purpose of looting, burning and destroying them under the pretense of one’s false grievances, attacking, maiming and killing innocent Americans.

 

We sure didn’t hear a peep from Black Lives Matter, [White Lives expendable to Blacks in Sessoms community] when Darius Sessoms, a black man, executed little five year old Cannon Hinnant, a white child, with a shot to his head from a pistol, as he played in front of his two sisters. And where was the outrage from BLM, when little seven year old Natalia Wallace, a black child, was murdered by Terrell Boyd, a black man, on July 4th 2020?

 

Finally, on August 25th, the radicals of Antifa and Black Lives Matter were handed a taste of their own medicine, in Kenosha, Wisconsin, by a young seventeen year old Kyle Rittenhouse, a resident of Antioch, Illinois, twenty miles away from Kenosha, who killed two animalistic radicals [notice I didn’t say “humans”] in self-defense and wounded one, close to midnight, after one of them had assaulted employees at the store he was protecting. The “law” can be twisted and get murky once a case hits the courtroom, but there exists an abundance of cases of decent people shooting criminals who were stealing property or assaulting someone, in which the shooting was ruled justifiable homicide.

 

Joseph Rosenbaum, a white man thirty-six years old and a convicted sexual abuser of children, was one of the first men killed by Rittenhouse. One should also note that earlier in the evening, Rosenbaum had stepped up on Rittenhouse and angrily screamed, “Shoot me nigga“, and as the events unfolded, it wasn’t Rittenhouse who fired first; this fact is caught on video and undeniable.

 

From all the witness statements and available video, at the point Rittenhouse retreats and flees from the gathering mob of Radicals, i.e. Antifa and BLM, seeking revenge against him, he displays that he isn’t the threat here. And once they caught him and attempted to disarm him, as they beat him with fists and a skateboard, it does, in my estimation, exhibit a clear cut case of self-defense.

 

Anthony Huber, 26, was also shot and killed by Rittenhouse, during the riot of the Radicals. He chased Rittenhouse, along with others, and hit him with a skateboard as he lay on the ground. Huber has a criminal record of numerous assaults against innocent people, especially women.

 

The third Radical shot by Rittenhouse was Gaige Grosskreutz, who unfortunately survived. He’s a twenty-six year old member of the People’s Revolution Movement, and he was shot, nearly blowing his arm in half, as he held a pistol in his right hand and chased Rittenhouse. He too has a criminal record that involves alcohol and firearms.

 

Good-riddance to bad rubbish. Young Rittenhouse was defending his life in self-defense. As far as I’m concerned, the kid deserves a medal.

 

Now, young Rittenhouse faces first-degree murder charges; however, any prosecutor worth a plug nickel cannot support such a charge, in light of the facts, and if he does, he needs to shred his law degree and leave the business. Even without Rittenhouse’s viable assertion of self-defense, the facts of the case simply do not support a charge of first degree murder.

 

The Radicals, criminals and thugs one and all, I see on the streets under the pretense of “peaceful protests”, beating people into a bloodied mess and to the point of death, for the crime of being conservative and white and valuing and defending their property — these things that are less than human themselves have nothing of humanity left in them. They represent something barbaric and foreign to civilization.

 

Many of the great American patriots across this land knew it was only a matter of time before these Radicals of Antifa and BLM were brought down a notch by one or more of their countrymen, who would finally say “enough is enough” and hand them a hard day of reckoning. And Kenosha represents a dividing line all America recognized, as we watched a young man, who was clear in his purpose to defend people and property from roving groups of criminals, thugs and commies and nihilists, forced to kill two of the animals, and this is a line that we might not withdraw too soon.

 

These Radicals seem to think conservative freedom and Liberty-loving Americans are supposed to simply take whatever abuse and violence they serve up, because the media and many other weepy, weal-minded liberal have accepted the false narrative that America is a racist nation and that they have suffered being oppressed because of it. Most Americans, the greatest percentages in fact, have moved far past worrying about skin color, because we full well know it means absolutely nothing in the world today, and we’re sick to death of being beat over the head with the constant barrage of “race issues”, when any man and women in our society, as it has restructured itself over the past 60 years, can achieve a fine living and lifestyle, if they are of good moral character and willing to exert the necessary hard work to achieve it. And, if anyone wishes to hate me for this hard truth and the color of my nicely browned white skin, I really could give a damn less.

 

However, as Black Lives Matter propaganda gains ground in some of our largest cities and the halls of power, to the point that the Mayor of the District of Columbia, Muriel Bowser, paints its communist logo down the center of DC to honor BLM, all America should tremble at the import of this act, by an elected official. Every patriotic American must come to understand that communists, fascists, and nihilists are the driving force behind this escalating violence, and if that isn’t cause for enough concern to move good Americans to fight back hard on every front, at this point in America’s history, we are in for the darkest times this nation has ever seen.

 

The violence and the riots won’t die down until our nation’s radicals are taken to task and treated as the domestic enemies that they are. They’re growing more intense, and if one doubts the fact, just look at Kenosha, Wisconsin that pretty well appears to be a war zone at the moment.

 

America will not find peace, so long as a communist movement and domestic terrorists are allowed to continue their insurrection against America’s Founding and they are enabled by other communists in high government office, like Governors Kate Brown, Tim Waltz, Tony Evers and Andrew Cuomo and Mayors Ted Wheeler, Lori Lightfoot, and Bill DeBlasio. They are forcing their will against good Americans, outside of any Constitutional norm and any real sense of the rule of law, in a manner that has brought many various groups, factions and individuals into the violent civil upheaval; and given their malcontent, evil agenda and their unwillingness to actually compromise and follow the set order of our system and the principles of liberty, this civil strife and bloodshed will continue to plague our communities for quite some time.

 

Sadly, this is only the beginning of our troubles, since police forces are being decimated across the country and ineffective at a time they are most needed, and whatever “law” still exists is being used against good citizens, such as the McCloskeys, and anyone else, who dare question the “new order” making its way into our system. It is this new order of things, communist at its roots, that is making many choose between staying silent and accepting the suppression of their rights or potentially facing surreal charges, as they stand up for their rights and defend all they have worked to acquire and all they love. And, as the Radicals, Antifa and BLM, overwhelm our streets and threaten our homes and lives, many American’s reluctance to cross the line into violent self-defense is diminishing rapidly, as we lovers of true liberty will not stand for this anarcho-tyranny and chaos in our streets any longer.

 

It’s becoming increasingly unlikely that the Radicals and normal, conservative America are going to be able to live with each other, especially since the Radicals won’t cease and desist their attacks against America on all fronts. And without them leaving us be in peace and simply going about their lives under “the rule of law”, conflicts can only grow and spread.

 

The Radicals tolerate no limits on their criminal behavior, and as communists, they believe the ends justify the means in the pursuit of their evil, tyrannical agenda. In this sense, the only natural conclusion to this is “it’s us or them”, and I only know that I’m not submitting to any Marxist vision. Rather than allow them to prevail, I’d just as soon fight them to the death, when that day arrives, since I’m a firm believer in “Better dead than red” and true freedom and liberty for all.

 

By Justin O. Smith

_______________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text embraced by brackets and embedded links are by the Editor. Bold text in Justin’s narrative indicate Blog Editor’s complete agreement.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

Standing Firm in the Face of Tyranny


Consider this quote from Justin Smith:

 

Some poor law enforcement agent will be placed between a rock and a hard spot, if he truly understands the Constitution, whenever he is serving under some Democratic majority government and has orders to confiscate the firearms of the people in his area — those who have not relinquished them and sold them “back” to the government. Those men who go against their oaths to uphold the Constitution, in favor of illegitimate and illegal orders from the new rising despots and tyrants will create a collision juncture between the forces of tyranny and the immovable forces of freedom and liberty. And for those in law enforcement who do understand the full import of their oaths, they will stand with liberty and freedom first.  

 

The United States probably hasn’t faced such political division among Americans since the Civil War when the first Republican President would not allow a divided union over the issue of slavery. Today’s divide is between Americans who actually understand the principles of our Founding was primarily to resist the tyranny of a powerful government (the Conservative Right) and Americans brainwashed an all powerful government will take care of all life’s needs – OR ELSE (the Left-Wing).

 

Such a division will force law enforcement at all levels and military members to make a choice if a Left-Wing government asserts control over people’s lives: Namely whether or not to support the edicts of an all-powerful government or their oath to the U.S. Constitution that resulted after our Founders forced out a tyrannical government.

 

JRH 9/20/19

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support NCCR

Support this Blog HERE. Or support by getting in 

the Coffee from home business – OR just buy some healthy coffee.

**********************

Standing Firm in the Face of Tyranny

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 9/18/2019 4:19 PM

 

Live Free or Die. Some of us mean those words when we say them.

 

Americans may mouth the words, but when push comes to shove, too many either really don’t care or they are cowards deep down, who will allow the status quo to carry on, no matter how sorry a state of affairs has grown around it; or, their own ignorance is so deep that the God Given nature of our individual rights is beyond their grasp and understanding, and those words in the mouths of the timid, the weak and unsure become mere noises like the squeaking of a mouse eking out an advertising catch-phrase. Their words are empty and void of any sense of duty and obligation to themselves, their families and their country and what one must do to actually maintain a free society.

 

Today, in astounding fashion, we see a majority of the Democrats and even quite a large number of Republicans bowing to their feelings and the communists and statists within the House and the Senate, as the whine over the scourge of “gun violence” reaches a fever pitch. These gun-grabbers personify firearms, as if these inanimate firearms are chaotically running about America slaughtering innocent citizens. And we now hear many Democrats and television network hosts and pundits asserting “assault weapons ownership is not synonymous with gun ownership.”

 

A brick or a hammer is an “assault weapon”, and if anything, the AR-15 is simply a tool for the defense of home and person. It is no different than the 1905 Remington .308 semi-automatic, from the days when mass shootings were unheard of and an unthinkable and evil act, and the good morals of society prevented such things, through the people’s own self-restraint and will to only act for each other’s well-being.  Firearms are harmless left at rest, and the damage they do, the good or evil, lies with the intent of the man holding it.

 

It makes no difference to the weak of America that the Second Amendment was enacted after America had just come off the bloody battlefields from a terrible war against the tyranny imposed by the British. Memories of what happens when citizens are disarmed have long faded, and the Founding principles have seemingly been very nearly eradicated by the flood of revisionism history and the constant asinine assertions that the “right to keep and bear arms” is somehow only for hunting, as they completely ignore the part that says, “shall not be infringed”. This plain language has not been enough to secure our freedom, even today, because those fine words in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution cannot help us, if the ideas they express are not engraved deep within the hearts of all Americans.

 

Despite the clear negative right telling government that it cannot “infringe” on our right to carry firearms for the lawful purpose of self-defense, it has long been more than obvious that Democrats want to take our firearms. The Democrat communists and statists continue to politicize mass shootings, as they rally and advocate for the further infringement and the outright abrogation of the Second Amendment.

 

During the Democratic Party presidential candidates’ debate, on September 12th 2019, the Far Left radical Beto O’Rourke gave the firearm debate a hard electric jolt, when he flatly stated:  “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47. We’re not going to allow them to be used against fellow Americans anymore.”

 

Shortly after Beto’s revelation, Cheryl Chumley, journalist at the Washington Times wrote: “All the Democrats who’ve tried for years to deny the gun confiscation motives behind their gun control pushes went — nooooooo. There’s the golden ticket the NRA, the Republican Party, the patriotic Second Amendment supporters of this country needed to prove their argument. … Democrats want to confiscate guns, pure and simple.”

 

Recently on the Jimmy Fallon Show (Sept. 16th), Kamala Harris, Democrat candidate for president, advocated for mandatory buyback programs the “right” way, by giving “people their value, the financial value of what they have and not just taking things from people that have value without compensating them”.

 

A recent poll from the Washington Post suggests, however accurate or inaccurate, that thirty-one percent of Republicans and fifty-five percent of independents would support mandatory buybacks. If true, this should be more than troubling to America’s freedom loving patriots, as it suggests a certain willingness by many to subvert the nation’s founding and erode liberty.

 

But I did not buy my firearms from the government, and so, the government cannot legitimately enact a mandatory buyback program that is flagrantly unconstitutional and strips U.S. citizens of their rights, while the criminals are still largely untouched by any laws it may pass. I don’t want to sell my firearms “back” to the government. What now?

 

Some poor law enforcement agent will be placed between a rock and a hard spot, if he truly understands the Constitution, whenever he is serving under some Democratic majority government and has orders to confiscate the firearms of the people in his area — those who have not relinquished them and sold them “back” to the government. Those men who go against their oaths to uphold the Constitution, in favor of illegitimate and illegal orders from the new rising despots and tyrants will create a collision juncture between the forces of tyranny and the immovable forces of freedom and liberty. And for those in law enforcement who do understand the full import of their oaths, they will stand with liberty and freedom first.

 

Our right to keep and bear arms shouldn’t even be up for debate, that time having long passed. However, no deluge of facts and statistics will change the minds of the Democratic communists and their radical brown shirts, since their true desire is to render the law abiding Americans defenseless and unable to defend our families, our property, our communities and ourselves and stand in the breach in defiance of their numerous depredations and treason, while they reduce everything and everyone to the common denominator of poverty and misery and nothing more than serfs, who are forced to surrender to their socialist super-state, the Leviathan. These radicals absolutely will try to take our weapons.

 

Thirty-two years after the Battle of Bennington (August 16th 1777), in a letter to Veterans of the War for Independence, General Stark wrote: “They were men who had not learned the art of submission, nor had they been trained to the art of war. But our astonishing success taught the enemies of liberty that undisciplined freemen are superior to veteran slaves”.

 

For any knowledgeable patriot, it is an easy choice. Any move to disarm America must be met with swift action and massive force, since no mystery is found in the progression of what follows the disarming of any people, revealed time and again in the annals of history and a trail of death, genocides and tyranny. Standing firm in the face of rapidly advancing tyranny is not a hard choice.

 

Free men understand that slavery begins with the end of the government’s acknowledgement of our right to keep and bear arms and its role as a supposed defender of the Bill of Rights, and as such, anyone supporting the suppression of our right to bear arms, through their mistaken belief that only the State should possess the tools of violence, is fit only for the cattle cars; whether malicious in their intent or just plain ignorant, it is of little importance at this point, since they hold a statist vision that seeks to shame and browbeat good and decent Americans into submitting to totalitarianism. There isn’t any prescription or solution to any problem that can start by signing away a God given right that will always exist despite such a foolish act, a right that preexists government. And Free Men with liberty engraved and blazing upon their hearts, who are forced to meet the forces of tyranny, repression and subjugation with steely grips on their weapons, can only answer with a blistering inferno of bullets and intensely wielded hot, blurring blades, that are, in fact, the final arbiter of freedom.

 

By Justin O. Smith

_________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All source links are by are Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

Shoelaces Because He Might Strangle You


There is nothing more American than the Right to protect oneself with a gun. With that in mind I discovered a Gun Rights post on the G+ Community Conservative posted by pseudonymous Sheepdog SpecOps. In no uncertain terms (maybe a little bit of a rant) stipulates any concept of gun control has zero value in self-protection.

 

Sheepdog’s thoughts were inspired by a post entitled, “Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals” by Peter Kasler on the FireArmsAndLiberty.com website. I am cross posting both the Sheepdog thoughts and the Kasler essay on this blog.

 

JRH 1/23/19

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support NCCR

**********************

Shoelaces Because He Might Strangle You

 

Posted by Sheepdog SpecOps

January 23, 2019 7:01 AM

G+ Community Conservative

 

“Shoelaces because he might strangle you” That is perfect!

But, let’s face it. Most criminals purchase their firearms on the black market, yet, the gun control laws affect the law-abiding citizens of the United States.

 

Originally shared by marcus easterling

Gun control B.S.

 

My thoughts on background checks, huge waste of taxpayers’ money.

Thomas Jefferson said, ” no freeman shall be debarred the use of arms “. If a person is so dangerous that he cannot have a firearm then he needs a CUSTODIAN! Period! Like in prison or an asylum. If a person who is so dangerous that he cannot have a firearm but is free to roam to and fro unabated. The person can purchase or make without a background check; axes, machetes, knives, bows, crossbows, spears, any kind any amount of chemicals, any kind any amount of fuel, he can drive a semi tanker full of fuel or a car, ammo, brass, bullets, gun powder, a reloader, a complete upper, a 80 % lower, magazines, triggers, an on an on an on etc. Picture a cartoon caricature all armed up. He has access to infinite arms and you’re going to pick one tool that is going to be restricted (put a minor impediment, a minor restriction, some words on paper, on one inanimate object out of an infinite arsenal) and deem yourself safe??? That is irrational. It’s delusional. You might as well have picked his shoelaces because he might strangle you. To pick one tool out of an infinite arsenal then deem yourself safe? Really. And especially to place restrictions on the tool that is most useful for self-defense?

 

Almost all the others require you put yourself in more danger by having to actually come in contact with the person.

The police department didn’t even exist until the late 1800s. And then only in a couple of large cities. And they were an auxiliary force to the people. Not pursuing criminals but as a deterrent.

 

The Founders were against such a force as they considered it a standing army. Even today the supreme Court says you are responsible for your safety. Check it out:
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html

So you’ve picked one tool, one inanimate object that you wish to restrict, now you’re safe? Lol, I have to ask, are you the one responsible/entrusted with your (your family’s) safety (plan)? Lmoa! [Blog Editor: For the Social Media slang challenged – like me.]

By the way, governments have killed way-way-way more people than criminals, after disarming their citizens. Check it out. (you know history) http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm
(I find the one where they rounded up all the educated people and killed them, interesting & sad)

So it can’t happen to you and you’re betting your life on it, huh?

There is no such thing as safety, it does not exist in nature nor among men.

Gun control, background checks etc. do absolutely nothing. They are for blithering idiots to “feel” good. Facts not feelings.

Kings, Emperors, Caesar wasn’t safe, with their high walls, castles, armies & guards. Safety does not exist.

Being unprepared, disarmed doesn’t make you safe.

Where’s Waldo? Being able to magically predict who’s going to flip their nut & when they are going to flip their nut is also DELUSIONAL. There are literally infinite numbers of reasons for people to flip their nut. The very same reasons that a gazillion other folks have been through or worked out, that didn’t flip their nut over. It is just impossible to predict out of infinite reasons & infinite time.

Laws/consequences are for people not inanimate objects. (A gun wielding a deranged man shot…. lol!) The person should be held accountable for his actions. And cannot be dealt with till he performs those actions. He is a murderer not a shooter, the blame is on him (murderer) not the gun (shoot). The media calls them shooters. Look back before the 1960’s, the media called them murderers.

The law up until the early 1900’s was about personal injury/death. And personal property, damage/theft. Nowadays you have the government going around pretending to be the “injured party” in order to collect taxes revenue & control the people. Instead of the people controlling the government.

Ultimately you are responsible for your safety, your protection. Your spiritual fitness, getting yourself right with God.

 

Police Have No Duty to Protect Individuals

firearmsandliberty.com

+++++++++++++++++

Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals

 

By Peter Kasler

FireArmsAndLiberty.com

 

Self-Reliance For Self-Defense — Police Protection Isn’t Enough!

 

All our lives, especially during our younger years, we hear that the police are there to protect us. From the very first kindergarten- class visit of “Officer Friendly” to the very last time we saw a police car – most of which have “To Protect and Serve” emblazoned on their doors – we’re encouraged to give ourselves over to police protection. But it hasn’t always been that way.

 

Before the mid-1800s, American and British citizens – even in large cities – were expected to protect themselves and each other. Indeed, they were legally required to pursue and attempt to apprehend criminals. The notion of a police force in those days was abhorrent in England and America, where liberals viewed it as a form of the dreaded “standing army.”

 

England’s first police force, in London, was not instituted until 1827. The first such forces in America followed in New York, Boston, and Philadelphia during the period between 1835 and 1845. They were established only to augment citizen self-protection. It was never intended that they act affirmatively, prior to or during criminal activity or violence against individual citizens. Their duty was to protect society as a whole by deterrence; i.e., by systematically patrolling, detecting and apprehending criminals after the occurrence of crimes. There was no thought of police displacing the citizens’ right of self-protection. Nor could they, even if it were intended.

 

Professor Don B. Kates, Jr., eminent civil rights lawyer and criminologist, states:

 

Even if all 500,000 American police officers were assigned to patrol, they could not protect 240 million citizens from upwards of 10 million criminals who enjoy the luxury of deciding when and where to strike. But we have nothing like 500,000 patrol officers; to determine how many police are actually available for any one shift, we must divide the 500,000 by four (three shifts per day, plus officers who have days off, are on sick leave, etc.). The resulting number must be cut in half to account for officers assigned to investigations, juvenile, records, laboratory, traffic, etc., rather than patrol. [1]

 

Such facts are underscored by the practical reality of today’s society. Police and Sheriff’s departments are feeling the financial exigencies of our times, and that translates directly to a reduction of services, e.g., even less protection. For example, one moderate day recently (September 23, 1991) the San Francisco Police Department “dropped” [2]157 calls to its 911 facility, and about 1,000 calls to its general telephone number (415-553-0123). An SFPD dispatcher said that 150 dropped 911 calls, and 1,000 dropped general number calls, are about average on any given day. [3]

 

It is, therefore, a fact of law and of practical necessity that individuals are responsible for their own personal safety, and that of their loved ones. Police protection must be recognized for what it is: only an auxiliary general deterrent.

 

Because the police have no general duty to protect individuals, judicial remedies are not available for their failure to protect. In other words, if someone is injured because they expected but did not receive police protection, they cannot recover damages by suing (except in very special cases, explained below). Despite a long history of such failed attempts, however, many, people persist in believing the police are obligated to protect them, attempt to recover when no protection was forthcoming, and are emotionally demoralized when the recovery fails. Legal annals abound with such cases.

 

Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate’s screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: “For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers.”

 

The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.’s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a “fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.” [4] There are many similar cases with results to the same effect. [5]

 

In the Warren case the injured parties sued the District of Columbia under its own laws for failing to protect them. Most often such cases are brought in state (or, in the case of Warren, D.C.) courts for violation of state statutes, because federal law pertaining to these matters is even more onerous. But when someone does sue under federal law, it is nearly always for violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 (often inaccurately referred to as “the civil rights act”). Section 1983 claims are brought against government officials for allegedly violating the injured parties’ federal statutory or Constitutional rights.

 

The seminal case establishing the general rule that police have no duty under federal law to protect citizens is DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services.[6] Frequently these cases are based on an alleged “special relationship” between the injured party and the police. In DeShaney the injured party was a boy who was beaten and permanently injured by his father. He claimed a special relationship existed because local officials knew he was being abused, indeed they had “specifically proclaimed by word and deed [their] intention to protect him against that danger,” [7] but failed to remove him from his father’s custody.

 

The Court in DeShaney held that no duty arose because of a “special relationship,” concluding that Constitutional duties of care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves. “The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State’s knowledge of the individual’s predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf.” [8]

 

About a year later, the United States Court of Appeals interpreted DeShaney in the California case of Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department. [9] Ms. Balistreri, beaten and harassed by her estranged husband, alleged a “special relationship” existed between her and the Pacifica Police Department, to wit, they were duty-bound to protect her because there was a restraining order against her husband. The Court of Appeals, however, concluded that DeShaney limited the circumstances that would give rise to a “special relationship” to instances of custody. Because no such custody existed in Balistreri, the Pacifica Police had no duty to protect her, so when they failed to do so and she was injured they were not liable. A citizen injured because the police failed to protect her can only sue the State or local government in federal court if one of their officials violated a federal statutory or Constitutional right, and can only win such a suit if a “special relationship” can be shown to have existed, which DeShaney and its progeny make it very difficult to do. Moreover, Zinermon v. Burch [10] very likely precludes Section 1983 liability for police agencies in these types of cases if there is a potential remedy via a State tort action.

 

Many states, however, have specifically precluded such claims, barring lawsuits against State or local officials for failure to protect, by enacting statutes such as California’s Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846 which state, in part: “Neither a public entity or a public employee [may be sued] for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals.”

 

It is painfully clear that the police cannot be relied upon to protect us. Thus far we’ve seen that they have no duty to do so. And we’ve also seen that even if they did have a duty to protect us, practically- speaking they could not fulfill it with sufficient certainty that we would want to bet our lives on it.

 

Now it’s time to take off the gloves, so to speak, and get down to reality. So the police aren’t duty-bound to protect us, and they can’t be expected to protect us even if they want to. Does that mean that they won’t protect us if they have the opportunity?

 

One of the leading cases on this point dates way back into the 1950s. [11] A certain Ms. Riss was being harassed by a former boyfriend, in a familiar pattern of increasingly violent threats. She went to the police for help many times, but was always rebuffed. Desperate because she could not get police protection, she applied for a gun permit, but was refused that as well. On the eve of her engagement party she and her mother went to the police one last time pleading for protection against what they were certain was a serious and dangerous threat. And one last time the police refused. As she was leaving the party, her former boyfriend threw acid in her face, blinding and permanently disfiguring her.

 

Her case against the City of New York for failing to protect her was, not surprisingly, unsuccessful. The lone dissenting justice of New York’s high court wrote in his opinion: “What makes the City’s position [denying any obligation to protect the woman] particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law [she] did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her.” [12]

 

Instances of police refusing to protect someone in grave danger, who is urgently requesting help, are becoming disturbingly more common. In 1988, Lisa Bianco’s violently abusive husband was finally in jail for beating and kidnapping her, after having victimized her for years. Ms. Bianco was somewhat comforted by the facts that he was supposedly serving a seven-year sentence, and she had been promised by the authorities that she’d be notified well in advance of his release. Nevertheless, after being in only a short time, he was temporarily released on an eight-hour pass, and she wasn’t notified. He went directly to her house and, in front of their 6- and 10- year old daughters, beat Lisa Bianco to death.

 

In 1989, in a suburb of Los Angeles, Maria Navarro called the L. A. County Sheriff’s 911 emergency line asking for help. It was her birthday and there was a party at her house, but her estranged husband, against whom she had had a restraining order, said he was coming over to kill her. She believed him, but got no sympathy from the 911 dispatcher, who said: “What do you want us to do lady, send a car to sit outside your house?” Less than half an hour after Maria hung up in frustration, one of her guests called the same 911 line and informed the dispatcher that the husband was there and had already killed Maria and one other guest. Before the cops arrived, he had killed another.

 

But certainly no cop would stand by and do nothing while someone was being violently victimized. Or would they? In Freeman v. Ferguson [13] a police chief directed his officers not to enforce a restraining order against a woman’s estranged husband because the man was a friend of the chief’s. The man subsequently killed the woman and her daughter. Perhaps such a specific case is an anomaly, but more instances of general abuses aren’t at all rare.

 

In one such typical case [14] , a woman and her son were harassed, threatened and assaulted by her estranged husband, all in violation of his probation and a restraining order. Despite numerous requests for police protection, the police did nothing because “the police department used an administrative classification that resulted in police protection being fully provided to persons abused by someone with whom the victim has no domestic relationship, but less protection when the victim is either: 1) a woman abused or assaulted by a spouse or boyfriend, or 2) a child abused by a father or stepfather.” [15]

 

In a much more recent case, [16] a woman claimed she was injured because the police refused to make an arrest following a domestic violence call. She claimed their refusal to arrest was due to a city policy of gender- based discrimination. In that case the U. S. District Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that “no constitutional violation [occurred] when the most that can be said of the police is that they stood by and did nothing…” [17]

 

Do the police really harbor such indifference to the plight of certain victims? To answer that, let’s leave the somewhat aloof and dispassionate world of legal precedent and move into the more easily understood “real world.” I can state from considerable personal experience, unequivocally, that these things do happen. As to why they occur, I can offer only my opinion based on that experience and on additional research into the dark and murky areas of criminal sociopathy and police abuse.

 

One client of my partner’s and mine had a restraining order against her violently abusive estranged husband. He had recently beaten her so savagely a metal plate had to be implanted in her jaw. Over and over he violated the court order, sometimes thirty times daily. He repeatedly threatened to kill her and those of use helping her. But the cops refused to arrest him for violating the order, even though they’d witnessed him doing so more than once. They danced around all over the place trying to explain why they wouldn’t enforce the order, including inventing numerous absurd excuses about having lost her file (a common tactic in these cases). It finally came to light that there was a departmental order to not arrest anyone in that county for violating a protective order because the county had recently been sued by an irate (and wealthy) domestic violence arrestee.

 

In another of our cases, when Peggi and I served the man with restraining orders (something we’re often required to do because various law enforcement agencies can’t or won’t do it), he threatened there and then to kill our client. Due to the vigorous nature of the threat, we went immediately to the police department to get it on file in case he attempted to carry it out during the few days before the upcoming court appearance. We spent hours filing the report, but two days later when our client went to the police department for a copy to take to court, she was told there was no record of her, her restraining order, her case, or our report.

 

She called in a panic. Without that report it would be more difficult securing a permanent restraining order against him. I paid an immediate visit to the chief of that department. We discussed the situation and I suggested various options, including dragging the officer to whom Peggi and I had given the detailed death threat report into court to explain under oath how it had gotten lost. In mere moments, an internal affairs officer was assigned to investigate and, while I waited, they miraculously produced the file and our report. I was even telephoned later and offered an effusive apology by various members of the department.

 

It is true that in the real world, law enforcement authorities very often do perpetuate the victimization. It is also true that each of us is the only person upon whom we can absolutely rely to avoid victimization. If our client in the last anecdote hadn’t taken responsibility for her own fate, she might never have survived the ordeal. But she had sufficient resolve to fend for herself. Realizing the police couldn’t or wouldn’t help her, she contacted us. Then, when the police tried their bureaucratic shuffle on her, she called me. But for her determination to be a victim no more, and to take responsibility for her own destiny, she might have joined the countless others victimized first by criminals, then by the very system they expect will protect them.

 

Remember, even if the police were obligated to protect us (which they aren’t), or even if they tried to protect us (which they often don’t, a fact brought home to millions nationwide as they watched in horror the recent events in Los Angeles), most often there wouldn’t be time enough for them to do it. It’s about time that we came to grips with that, and resolved never to abdicate responsibility for our personal safety, and that of our loved ones, to anyone else.

###

 

  1. Guns, Murders, and the Constitution (Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, 1990).

 

  1. A “dropped” call in police dispatcher parlance is one that isn’t handled for a variety of reasons, such as because it goes unanswered. Calls from people who get tired of waiting on hold and hang up are classified as “drops” as well.

 

  1. KGO Radio (Newstalk 810), 6:00 PM report, 09-26-91, and a subsequent personal interview with the reporter, Bernie Ward.

 

  1. Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).

 

  1. See, for example, Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579, 293 NYS2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. Ct. of Ap. 1958); Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1968); Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1983); Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So.2d 560 (S.Ct. A;a. 1985); Morris v. Musser, 478 A.2d 937 (1984); Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252, 649 P.2d 894 (S.Ct. Cal. 1982); Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup.Ct. Penn. 1981); Weutrich v. Delia, 155 N.J. Super 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930 (1978); Sapp v. City of Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla.Ct. of Ap. 1977); Simpson’s Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E. 2d 871 (Ind.Ct. of Ap.); Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (S.Ct. Minn. 1969) and Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 61 (7th Cir. 1982).

 

  1. 109 S.Ct. 998 (1989).

 

  1. “Domestic Violence — When Do Police Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect?” Special Agent Daniel L. Schofield, S.J.D., FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin January, 1991.

 

  1. DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 109 S.Ct. 998 (1989) at 1006.

 

  1. 901 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1990).

 

  1. 110 S.Ct. 975, 984 (1990).

 

  1. Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579, 293 NYS2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. Ct. of Ap. 1958).

 

  1. Riss, Ibid.

 

  1. 911 F.2d52 (8th Cir. 1990).

 

  1. Thurman v. City of Torrington, 595 F.Supp.1521 (D.Conn. 1984).

 

  1. “Domestic Violence — When Do Police Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect?” Special Agent Daniel L. Schofield, S.J.D., FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin January, 1991.

 

  1. McKee v. City of Rockwall, Texas, 877 F.2d409 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 110 S.Ct.727 (1990).

 

  1. McKee v. City of Rockwall, Texas, Id. at 413.

 

______________________

Shoelaces Because He Might Strangle You

Edited by John R. Houk

_____________________

Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals

 

COPYRIGHT – 1992 – Peter Alan Kasler

 

Until My Last Dying Gasp


President Trump has drawn back a bit on his support for the NRA in reaction to the recent Parkland Massacre in which 17 people (students & adults) were killed by an ex-student of the High School Nikolas Cruz. Second Amendment proponents view this as a betrayal. Justin Smith shares his feelings on the issue.

 

On a personal level I believe something must be done to protect soft targets (like schools, but there are many more soft targets) from terrorism and nut jobs. HOWEVER, gun confiscation or restriction is NOT the solution. I won’t delve into alternative solutions here, but I will state my largest concern about gun control that will affect in law abiding American.

 

Especially due to Obama weaponizing government agencies – including law enforcement and intel agencies – I have zero trust in government to not force some unwanted way of life down my throat. Gun control will lead to tyrannical totalitarianism. Justin Smith’s thoughts below should warn of future potential government tyranny that begins with gun control.

 

JRH 3/3/18

Please Support NCCR

****************

Until My Last Dying Gasp

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent March 2, 2018 7:18 PM

 

Let me be as clear as I can be. I don’t give a good damn how many Americans have died in recent shootings, when their lives are placed next to the liberty of millions of Americans, for generations to come. President Trump and Democrat and Republican senior senators, those who beamed at the prospect of exerting greater gun control during their February 28th meeting, seemed to forget that so many more lives have been saved by the right to self-defense, as they attacked the Second Amendment, due process under the law and individual liberty; and regardless of any new illegitimate and unconstitutional “law” they may implement, through coercion or “might makes right” action, they will still be wrong and spitting in the faces of the Founders and the American people.

 

Today’s criminals are nearly always armed with semi-automatic weapons, so police are not the only ones who need AR-15s. Criminals victimize the public, and if citizens are to stand a fighting chance against criminals, they too need effective weapons.

 

However, America now finds itself saddled with a Trump administration, which is not so different from a Clinton administration on the Second Amendment after all. Trump endorsed the “assault weapons” ban, background checks for private sales at gun shows and raising the age for purchasing firearms to twenty-one. He also contended Congress was “petrified of the NRA”, as he tore into fellow Republicans as tools of the NRA and handed Democrats a propaganda victory.

 

As Katie Pavlich, journalist and Fox News contributor, recently noted [Outnumbered Video], despite the AR-15s popularity, data from Homeland Security shows that handguns are the weapon of choice when it comes to mass shootings. She also stated: “And let’s not forget that during the church massacre in Texas … it was an NRA-certified instructor who used an AR-15 to stop the killing … “.

 

During the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court stated that the right to self-defense pre-existed government, which had already been confirmed by U.S. v. Cruikshank in 1875 and never overturned. The court went further in Heller, and it articulated the right of the individual to use firearms, that are at the same level of sophistication as firearms one’s potential adversary might have, whether that person is a criminal bad guy, psychopath or a soldier of a tyrannical government. And this must negate any attempt to ban semi-automatic rifles, even those deemed “assault weapons”.

 

The suggestion to raise the age limit is a non sequitur argument, and once again, a punishment of law abiding Americans. Age is not indicative of good sense or good moral character. Timothy McVeigh was in his late twenties when he bombed the Murrah Federal Building and the Las Vegas shooter was sixty-four. Aside from this, guns aren’t the problem any more than age can denote one’s mental stability, or lack thereof.

 

Forty-eight years ago at the age of thirteen, I would often walk through the main streets of Dixon, Missouri, with my twelve gauge shotgun slung across one arm and on my way to the fields and backwoods trails to shoot wild hogs, and I would happily wave at the police and sheriff’s deputies, as they drove by. No one thought this to be anything unusual.

 

Mental illness and its role in gun violence was also part of the discussion, and President Trump revealed his despotic side, when he explicitly denounced due process of the law, saying: “… take the firearms first, and then go to court … because a lot of times, by the time you go to court, it takes so long to go to court to get the due process procedures, I like taking the guns early … take the guns first, go through due process second.”

 

Who deems these people dangerous? the government? family? friends? It takes more than just one assertion, one allegation, and it must receive due process consideration, as guaranteed by the Constitution. Otherwise, the mere accusation of mental illness might become a subterfuge to disarm thousands of normal people, perhaps political opponents, by any future administration.

 

Trump’s far left suggestion to grab guns without legal cause was radical, idiotic, fascistic and unconstitutional. Such a comment from any Democrat president would have resulted in armed stand-offs with the police, calls for impeachment and a fury from the American people hotter than a thousand 100 megaton nukes exploding.

 

Senator Ben Sasse, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was the only Republican to openly oppose President Trump, as he stated: “Strong leaders don’t automatically agree with the last thing that was said to them. We have a Second Amendment and due process of the law for a reason. We’re not ditching any Constitutional protections simply because the last person the President talked to today doesn’t like them.”

 

At what point are Trump’s supporters going to hold him accountable for his outlandish statements? At what point will they stop excusing him?

 

God forbid that America should ever descend into real tyranny, however, Trump’s remarks show precisely the reason America must not allow the Second Amendment to be eroded. Modern history is replete with examples of fascist and communist regimes that exterminated a combined total of 160 million of their own people, between 1940 and 1980 [Closest citation I could in cursory search], and, in light of our own early history under the British, it is ever more important for Americans to retain the right to possess modern semi-automatic weapons, to ensure that our government never feels it is more powerful than its citizens.

 

Foremost among our unalienable rights, the Framers of the Constitution recognized our right to life and to defend life — one’s self, one’s family and one’s property — by ratifying the Second Amendment. They wrote the amendment understanding that it did not grant this right and the right to self-defense was not dependent on that instrument for its existence. It was written to ensure that all future U.S. governments would respect the right to keep and bear arms, as a natural extension of the right to self-defense, in natural law and God’s law, standing alone and independent of the Constitution.

 

President Trump is a damned dangerous fool, and anyone who seeks to undermine our right to self-defense and to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, through Trump’s proposals, isn’t a friend to the American people. Those who seek added “security”, in any manner other than targeting the criminals, who mock our existing gun laws, rape laws, robbery laws and homicide laws, only ensure security will not exist, our liberty will be eroded, and we will cease to be a free people. And for everyone who thinks Trump and his fellow despots are right, you can relinquish your rights like sheep, and I’ll keep and defend my God-given Rights Until MY LAST DYING GASP.

_____________________

John R. Houk, Editor

All source links or any text enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

Unalienable Rights vs. Security


Decl of Independence

Understanding Justin Smith’s essay, you have to understand the nature of Unalienable Rights:

 

Unalienable rights are those which God gave to man at the Creation, once and for all. By definition, since God granted such rights, governments could not take them away. In America, this fundamental truth is recognized and enshrined in our nation’s birth certificate, the Declaration of Independence:

 

“[A]ll men are created equal…[and] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

 

It is important to understand that the very premise of our nation is the fact that these rights are “God-given.” If they are not given to us by an Authority higher than human government, then any government action to abolish those rights would be against God’s will. Rights that is subject to government restriction or license is called a privilege rather than a right. The Founding Fathers understood this principle and created a revolution in political theory by enacting, for the first time in history, a government specifically established to protect the rights that had been given to man by God. … (Unalienable rights; Conservapedia; page was last modified on 5/27/2016, at 14:52.)

 

The Founding Fathers considered self-defense an Unalienable Right and NOT a government given privilege. In the Founding Fathers’ wisdom, the Second Amendment is recognition of a God-given Right.

 

JRH 6/18/16

Please Support NCCR

*********************

Unalienable Rights vs. Security

Weapons of War

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 6/18/2016 1:58 PM

 

President Obama and U.S. Senators such as Chris Murphy (D-CT) are intellectually challenged in ascertaining the limits of their authority, when in the face of the worst act of domestic terrorism in decades, on June 12th in Orlando, FL, they divert time and resources from the real threat of Islam inspired terrorism to advocate, filibuster and place legislation for a vote designed to infringe upon, limit and impede the “unalienable” right to “keep and bear arms” under the Second Amendment. And in the process, they have placed the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments on the chopping block too.

 

Barely a day had passed, and with 49 Americans lying dead in the morgue and many more in Orlando regional Medical Center’s critical care unit fighting to stay alive, President Obama stated: “We have to make it harder for people who want to kill Americans to get their hands on weapons of war that let them kill dozens of innocents.”

 

“Weapons of War”? Damn Straight. Any firearm is a weapon of war and it is good for only one thing — killing; killing the robber, crazed drug addict, rapist or murderer breaking into one’s house, as innocent Americans fight a war on crime; and killing anyone, including a Muslim terrorist, on the street in defense of one’s self or a group of innocent bystanders. Even a single-shot revolver or a single-shot bolt action 30.06 can be “a weapon of war”, but more than that, whether a semi-automatic Sig Sauer CMX or a single-shot muzzle-loader, these are weapons for self-defense.

 

Obama and company have taken this crisis — this tragic, horrific act of Islamic terrorism — and twisted it towards their oppressive goals to place every principle of the Bill of Rights and every invaluable and most sacred privilege of man at the mercy of government. Self-defense is our “unalienable” right as witnessed in Nature’s Law, which is God’s Creation, and thus, our unalienable rights are God-given.

 

Rather than focus on the Muslim Students Association, an arm of the terroristic Muslim Brotherhood, which is busy on all of America’s college campuses advocating “grand jihad” against America, and unindicted terrorists like Siraj Wahhaj — a black Muslim convert, and indicted terrorists such as Ramadan Shalah — still fleeing the FBI, the Democrats are assaulting the Constitution’s Bill of Rights. Rather than focus on mosques that spread anti-American, violent propaganda, like the Darul Uloom Institute [DTN info on founder Maulana Shafayat Mohamed] and the Husseini Islamic Center [Gay-hating Sheikh Dr. Farrokh Sekaleshfar spoke there], Democrats and Hillary Clinton would destroy our right to self-defense, as they echo Obama’s words.

 

A few weeks prior to Omar Mateen committing mass murder at Pulse Night Club, the Husseini Islamic Center of Orlando hosted an imam who preached that “gays must die”, according to Michelle Malkin on June 15th, and that Muslims should not “be embarrased about this … let’s get rid of them now.”

 

With full knowledge that the Islamic State terrorists are using Muslim immigration to infiltrate America and European nations, Obama still insists on bringing more Muslim “refugees” into the country, and simultaneously, he and his “progressive” fascists seek to disarm us all in the face of the greatest threat America has faced in decades. Whether they are Muslim American citizens or foreign born islamofascists, Americans are not fooled, and the pattern is clear from 9/11 to Ft Hood, Boston to Chattanooga and San Bernadino to Orlando.

 

Todd Starnes, conservative journalist, asked on June 15th, “… does he [Obama] plan on confiscating our pressure cookers?”

 

It is also worth noting that in 1995, Timothy McVeigh committed the worse most heinous act of domestic terrorism in U.S. history, when he bombed the Murrah Federal Building, murdering 168 Americans and wounding over 650 more. His weapon of choice? — 350 pounds of “Tovex Blastrite Gel” and approximately 2000 pounds of fertilizer and diesel fuel.

 

Incredibly (by the time this piece is released) the Senate is poised to vote on June 20th on a bill that effectively abrogates much of the Bill of Rights. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) caved to pressure from Chris Murphy’s recent filibuster and other harangues and harassment from Democrats Diane Feinstein (CA), Harry Reid (NV) and Chuck Schumer (NY). Feinstein’s bill blocks gun purchases by anyone on the vague and subjective “no-fly-list” and if “a reasonable belief” exists that he “may” use the gun “in connection with terrorism.” And if passed, it becomes too easy to strip anyone of their 2nd Amendment rights — political opponents, Christian conservatives, Veterans — anyone; through their own reasoning, half the Democratic Party would be disqualified from owning a firearm.

 

Under Feinstein’s bill “probable cause” and the entire premise underlying the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments, from one’s right to forcefully defend against any actual charge to facing one’s accuser and “due process” under the law is thrown out the window. This bill presumes one guilty without any crime having been committed, and it presents the same government officials who cannot protect America now as mind-readers seeking to prosecute “thought-crimes.” Feinstein’s bill rips the Bill of Rights asunder.

 

Howard Stern exclaimed on June 16th: “The sheepdogs are protecting you, but some of them can’t be with you all day. There’s not a sheepdog for every citizen, and a wolf is eating one of you every night. ‘Baaaaaaa, oh I know, let’s remove all the guns from the sheep.’ What?”

 

Less liberty is not the answer, but abolishing “gun-free zones” is certainly part of the solution. Stop giving cowards intent on murdering scores of Americans an easy access, free and open range of innocent Americans, who simply want to live their lives in freedom. Stop trying to illegally disarm U.S. citizens; otherwise, we will continue to witness one mass killing of defenseless innocents after another.

 

Even some in the LGBTQ community see the truth of the matter. Pink Pistols has 45 chapters across America. Their spokeswoman, Gwendolyn Patton recently stated: “… let us not reach for the low-hanging fruit of blaming the killer’s [Mateen’s] guns. Let us stay focused on the fact that someone hated gay people [and Americans] so much they were ready to kill. A human being did this [though this is debatable]. The human being’s tools are unimportant compared to the bleakness of that person’s soul. I say again, GUNS did not do this … [Don’t] demonize the man’s tools … condemn his acts and work to prevent such acts in the future.”

 

We saw Obama and the Democrats run roughshod over America concerning Obamacare, immigration and other laws, when they held the majority. Can you imagine what the Democrat “progressives” would do to the country if they could disarm all Americans?

 

The Framers of the Constitution would not ratify the Constitution until the Second Amendment was included. They knew that this one thing would always stand as a safeguard for all of our rights against any future government that might seek to once more impose tyranny on the people.

 

Our Second Amendment Rights, the rights of all Americans, are self-evident, inherent and inalienable, whether or not the disingenuous, uneducated and ill-informed idiots of the Far Left Democratic “Progressive” Party wish to acknowledge the fact, and whether or not those rights are written down in black and white on paper in a document anywhere, it does not make this fact any less true. And in this sense, any license, tax or regulation on the Second Amendment is unConstitutional, since Americans do not possess our natural rights by contract or grant from the federal government. Americans regained and secured their natural rights once upon a time by revolution, and we can do so again.

 

By Justin O. Smith

________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All links as well text embraced by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

Profiling Harper-Mercer via Media Sources


John R. Houk

© October 2, 2015

Chris Harper-Mercer is the latest mass murderer giving fuel to the leftist dream of disarming all Americans. Which we all should know would mean Americans would be an even easier target for lunatics like Harper-Mercer who wouldn’t have to worry about buying a gun a legally if he so chose to kill unarmed unprotected Americans such as those shot and killed at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon.

When I first heard on the news that a spree-killer was targeting Christians for death by shooting them in the head who so identified themselves, my first thought was that another psycho-Muslim was on the loose in America. As more information has flowed in it has become apparent that Harper-Mercer was a lunatic most likely of the fringe Right. Just to be clear Harper-Mercer was not affiliated with Conservatives that the SPLC often mislabels as the fringe Right (Gun Rights groups, Family Values Christians, Counterjihad writers and so on). Rather Harper-Mercer was attracted to the actual fringe Right such as Nazis, Christian-haters, Jew-Haters and so forth.

I place Harper-Mercer among the fringe Right based on some logical guesses from media investigations looking at the killer’s web history leading to some fairly intelligent guesses. I suspect as the authorities investigate further some more relevant details will emerge. Until then below are some excerpts and articles into the mind of a young man who loathed Christians and had a disregard for human life.

JRH 10/2/15

Please Support NCCR

*************************

The ONE Thing The Press Will Say Over And Over Again About Chris Harper-Mercer: He Was A Republican

By ROBERT GEHL

OCTOBER 1, 2015

Downtrend.com

Here it comes.

The bodies aren’t even cold and liberal gun-grabbers, starting with the Commander-in-Chief himself are going to trample all over the victims of the Oregon College tragedy to call for more gun control.

They’ll ignore all the facts. They always do.

ONE OF HARPER-MERCER’S TWO MYSPACE FRIENDS WAS A SUPPORTER OF JIHAD AND POSTED THIS PHOTO

They’ll ignore that Chris Harper-Mercer, the 26-year-old shooter, had one of two friends who was apparently an Islamic terrorist-in-waiting.

They’ll ignore that this man was a crazed loner, who was a fan of Nazi propaganda and “supported the IRA.”

His username on a dating website was “ironcross45,” clearly a reference to the Nazi symbol.

They’ll ignore that he was not white. He was mixed-race.

They’ll ignore that he was singling out Christians to slaughter.

He was clearly insane. Deranged. A killer.

Here’s what they won’t ignore.

Tucked into all this information about Chris Harper-Mercer, is one nugget the media will glom onto: He identified as a “conservative Republican.”

You’ll hear that a lot.

They’ll ignore everything else that screams “insane killer” about READ THE REST

Blog Editor: Not connected to Harper-Mercer’s story but may be chillingly informative: “Neo-Nazi Islamic White Radicals?

+++

Here’s What We Know About Shooter Who Targeted Christians at Oregon College

By Fox News Insider – As seen on Hannity

Oct. 1, 2015 10:22 PM

Fox News Insider link

The gunman who killed at least nine people and wounded seven at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Ore., has been identified as 26-year-old Chris Harper Mercer, law enforcement sources confirmed to Fox News.

Police have said little about Harper Mercer’s background or his motive for the attack.

There is a heavy law enforcement presence outside Harper Mercer’s home, and authorities are running his name against terror watch lists, in addition to combing through his email history, phone logs and social media footprint.

According to witnesses, he lined up students in a classroom and asked their religion. Those who answered Christian were shot in the head, while those who answered another religion or did not answer were shot in the legs.

A MySpace page in his name contains photos of IRA gunmen and points to support for the organization.

In an online dating profile, the shooter purportedly identified himself as a “conservative Republican” and expressed a disdain for organized religion, Daily Beast reported. He also specified that he was in college, lived with his parents and did not drink, smoke or do drugs.

According to CBS News, the shooter wrote a blog post about Vester Flanagan, who fatally shot a Virginia news reporter and a cameraman in August.

“I have noticed that so many people like [Flanagan] are alone and unknown, yet when they spill a little blood, the whole world knows who they are. A man who was known by no one, is now known by everyone. His face splashed READ ENTIRETY

+++

The anti-Christ shooter is a mixed-race, teetotaling Nazi

By Joe Tacopino

October 1, 2015 | 11:54pm

New York Post

Chris Harper-Mercer, the gunman who went on Thursday’s rampage at an Oregon college, idolized the Nazis and the IRA, despised organized religion — and talked of how killing could bring a person fame.

A profile on an online dating site, Spiritual Passions, shows the 26-year-old Harper-Mercer “doesn’t like organized religion” and identified as a “conservative Republican.”

On his MySpace page, he posted a number of pictures related to the Irish Republican Army.

“He appears to be an angry young man who was very filled with hate,” one source told The New York Times.

Harper-Mercer, who lived in Winchester, Ore., identified himself as mixed race. On the dating site, he wrote that he does not smoke or drink.

His name on the site was Ironcross45, alluding to a Nazi military badge.

He also used the moniker on the website iOffer to laud the excellent “customer service” received when ordering a leather Nazi SS officer’s cap.

READ ENTIRETY

+++

Oregon shooter targeted Christians

By Michele Hickford, Editor-in-Chief

October 2, 2015

Allen B. West – Steadfast and Loyal

It is unknown why Christians were targeted specifically. Harper was a frequent poster on an image-based bulletin board called “4Chan.” A quick review shows many of the users are obsessed with death and suicide, see themselves as outsiders and resent “normies” – anyone conventional or mainstream.

This was clearly a terribly sick individual. It is a READ ENTIRETY

+++

Chris Harper-Mercer: Everything we know about the Oregon school gunman on Friday afternoon

Shooter encouraged followers to watch grisly images online and posted that the “more people you kill, the more you’re in the limelight”

By Rob Crilly, New York and Tom Morgan

4:02PM BST 02 Oct 2015

The Telegraph

Police in Oregon have identified the gunman who opened fire at a college on Thursday, killing 10 people, as Chris Harper-Mercer.

The 26-year-old, whose social media profiles featured content supporting the IRA, apparently demanded to know his victims’ religious beliefs before opening fire at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon.

He left behind a complex web of online identities which offer a possible insight into his personality – or at least a glimpse of the way he wanted to present himself to the world.

He maintained a myspace page, on which he posted a photograph of himself holding what appears to be a rifle, alongside images of masked IRA gunmen.

Obsession with Nazis

He offered the fullest description of himself on an online dating profile, saying he was “shy at first, but warm up quickly, better in small groups”. He also said he was not religious but was “spiritual” and described his political views as conservative.

His username on the dating site Spiritual Passions was ironcross45 – a handle often used by far-Right sympathisers in reference to the German military symbol reintroduced by the Nazis.

He was also linked, via the username Lithium_Love, to a video upload site, where he also posted about Vester Flanagan, the former TV reporter who shot dead two former colleagues live on air.

[Harper-Mercer post on] Vester Flanagan Shooting

Opposition to religion

During the attack he apparently asked victims whether they were Christians.

According to Kortney Moore, 18, the shooter told people to reveal their religion during the rampage. She had been in her writing class when her teacher was shot in the head.

A woman who said her grandmother was inside Snyder Hall, where part of the attack took place, described what happened in a tweet.

A Twitter Description of Harper-Mercer Singling Christians

British connections

The gunman has a British father, Ian Mercer, who is aged in his mid-50s and from the north-west of England.

The father, from Lancashire, is believed to have moved to America to live with the killer’s mother, Laurel Harper, who is the second-oldest of four sisters.

Mr Mercer told reporters READ ENTIRETY

+++

CHRIS HARPER MERCER: OREGON COLLEGE SHOOTER ADVERTISED DISTASTE FOR RELIGION

By WARNER TODD HUSTON

2 Oct 2015

Breitbart.com

Big Government

Late Thursday evening, police named 26-year-old Chris Harper Mercer as the man who shot and killed at least nine students, many of them women, at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon.

On another profile likely created by Mercer residing on the site Spiritual Passions, Mercer identified his ethnicity as “mixed race,” his interests as “internet, killing zombies, movies, music, reading,” and his political affiliation as “conservative Republican.” He also noted that he lived with his parents and never wanted children. His music interests were listed as “Industrial, Punk, Rock.”

One family member told the Daily Beast that Mercer’s father is white and his mother is black, but when he “came into the world, his birth father was not in the picture.”

On his apparent Spiritual Passions account, he also apparently reveals his distaste for religion. Not only does this page say he is “not religious” — but is “spiritual”– it also lays claim to the “Left-Hand Path” as a group that interested him.

The Left-Hand Path is an idea often equated with the occult and is said to manifest itself in “malicious Black magic.”

Local news quotes eyewitnesses as saying that Mercer ordered victims to identify their religion before firing; one Twitter user claiming to be a witness said that if students identified themselves as Christians, he shot them in the head.

Several reports identify the READ ENTIRETY

+++

Father of Umpqua college shooting victim: Gunman singled out Christians

By Ed Payne, Sara Sidner and Kyung Lah, CNN

Updated 10:05 AM ET, Fri October 2, 2015

CNN

Roseburg, Oregon (CNN) The gunman who opened fire at Oregon’s Umpqua Community College singled out Christians, according to the father of a wounded student.

Before going into spinal surgery, Anastasia Boylan told her father the gunman entered her classroom firing.

“I’ve been waiting to do this for years,” the gunman told the professor teaching the class. He shot him point blank, Boylan recounted.

“He was a little odd, like sensitive to things,” said Rebecca Miles, who took a theater class with Mercer.

Throughout Thursday night, investigators talked to the gunman’s family and neighbors to try to piece together the puzzle.

Another neighbor, Steven Fisher, described him as “skittish.”

“His demeanor, the way he moved, always looking around,” Fisher said. “I got a bad vibe from him.”

Roseburg has about 22,000 residents, and Umpqua isn’t a traditional college. The average age of its 13,600 students was 38 during the 2013-2014 school year.

READ ENTIRETY [The article is written to lead to support gun control. I included because I read some personal accounts that I didn’t see at other places. On a personal level I have jokingly referred to CNN as the Communist News Network]

__________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Anything enclosed by brackets are likely by the Editor.

Ferguson – Lamestream Media, Race Baiters and a Closer Truth


Darren Wilson - Receiving Commendation

Officer Darren Wilson Receiving Commendation

 

 

John R. Houk

© August 24, 2014

 

It is becoming increasingly clear the racism that currently exists in Ferguson Missouri is not so much from White policemen but from a crime infested element of Ferguson’s Black community. Oh yeah, I think it is more politically correct to say ‘African-American,’ sorry about that pc police.

 

Anyway, the Lamestream Media went directly to the so-called eyewitnesses for an account because the local police was erring on the side of caution due to the racial volatility of which they were already aware. On the other hand the Ferguson Police has a crummy civil rights record. Other than the demise of Michael Brown a fairly recent incident involving an arrest of Henry Davis occurred. The problem: the Ferguson Police arrested the wrong Henry Davis. Here is a description of what happened to the wrong Henry Davis:

 

The short version: the police beat up Davis, concussing him and causing him to bleed. A lot. Although they had to admit he wasn’t the man named in the warrant — the only reason he was picked up in the first place — he was criminally charged for . . . wait for it . . . getting blood on their uniforms. You ought to read Daly’s piece to get the full flavor of the case. (A Little Ferguson History; By Michael Lumer; Fourth and Fourteenth; 8/16/14)

 

And the perspective local justice corruption gets worse in the case of Henry Davis:

 

A quick check on Pacer reveals that Davis filed a civil lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri in August 2010. During the case, according to Daly, the officers, who deny the excessive force, actually denied that they were bled on, even after being confronted with the signed criminal complaint. It also appears that the district judge found this perjury too minor for a due process violation, which is bizarre. If the officers lied to prosecutors about the damage to their uniforms in order to initiate and maintain the prosecution, Davis ought to be able to proceed to trial on a fabricated evidence/due process claim. The court also decided that the concussion was not a severe enough injury to merit a trial, which is another facially ridiculous ruling. (Ibid.)

 

O yeah, I forgot to mention that Davis was Black. Thus it is quite evident the Black citizens of the city of Ferguson have little to zero faith in the local justice system.

 

And yet again, on the other hand, the conflicting accounts on just how Michael Brown was shot by police and the evidence pointing out the kid was an 18 year old thug, meant he should have been arrested. The Leftist retort that small time robbery (cigars from convenience store) is never an excuse for fatally shooting anyone let alone a person as young as 18 year old Michael Brown although he legally was an adult.

 

According to the 2010 U.S. Census, America’s total population is 299,736,465 (via InfoPlease). In this population breakdown 223,553,265 (72.4% of total) are White and 38,929,319 are Black (12.6% of total).

 

According to FBI 2011 homicide statistics there were 3172 White homicide victims by White perpetrators. Of those 3172 there were 2630 White perpetrators against White victims (or 1.76% of White population). But the ratio between perpetrator and victim among Whites is much larger, viz. 83%.

 

Black perpetrator homicides against White victims are in the numbers (448 – Black) and of course the total victims of Whites which again is 3172. This percentile ratio is 14%. It is my opinion the disparity is made vis-à-vis the high Black crime rate and the greater population among the White majority. The thing that seals this disparity is the Black on Black murder rate. The total number of Black victims of homicide was 2695 back in 2011. The number of perpetrators of Black committed homicides is 2,447. The Black on Black percentage is 91% according to the numbers supplied by the FBI.

 

When a small town policed department with a significant Black population looks at the statistics of the volatility of Black crime, police officers don’t really care on social explanations from either the Left or Right on how Black-American and crime seem to coexist in an alarming manner. AND when the police department is made up of largely White police officers that either show a propensity to use racist attitudes to dispense law enforcement among Black Communities there will be mutual distrust in the motives behind actions observed by White officers and Black residents.

 

It could be some time until the public receives the details that led to Darren Wilson shooting Michael Brown. Nonetheless the Lamestream Media were in unison to place on blame of police brutality straight on Officer Darren Wilson. Why? The reason is because Lamestream reporters descended on Ferguson to find some eyewitnesses because the Ferguson Police Department refused to release details while an ongoing investigation was occurring. Of the course the Black Community interpreted that standard procedure as a cover-up for yet another incident of police brutality that resulted in the death of a Black 18 year old recent High School graduate.

 

The so-called witnesses probably filled more with rumor and innuendo from cop-hating Black companions of Michael Brown either stretched the truth of what they allegedly saw or simply downright lied. After Zimmerman was found not guilty of a racist inspired murder of Trayvon Martin, the Press was more than willing to receive so-called eyewitness accounts that placed Wilson in a negative light and Brown in a positive angelic light. I suspect the Press assumption that Zimmerman was found not guilty back of the lack of actual eyewitnesses other than reviewers of 911 calls and the perceptions of people behind closed doors. Basically Zimmerman’s jury had to sift through Prosecutor and Defense mutual character assassinations to come to a verdict was either guilty or guilty without any reason of doubt. Regardless of the Lamestream Media convicting Zimmerman with words before a jury verdict, it was quite inevitable for a not guilty verdict under the rules of innocent or conviction according to the U.S. Constitution.

 

So when stories began to emerge that conflicted the Brown-murder eyewitnesses’ claim he was shot fleeing with his hands up in the air. The other chain of events reported is that Michael Brown was belligerently walking down the middle of the street refusing Wilson’s order to go to the curb which led to Wilson exiting his car to arrest Brown. As Wilson attempted to place Brown in the squad car Brown began to defiantly beat Wilson in the face after being pulled himself into car by Brown. The police account is Brown acted as if he was reaching for Wilson’s gun but Wilson manages to remove himself from Brown beating his face in. At which time Wilson upholstered his gun telling Brown to surrender. Rather than submitting Brown charged the already face beaten Wilson resulting in the gun being shot six times into the six-foot four-inches of Michael Brown’s body. Depending who read the fatal shot being in Brown’s neck or head.

 

Somebody is lying – either Brown fled arms raised as the Lamestream Media initially reported or Brown charged Wilson in defiance with the Officer’s gun being shot six times of an extremely violent (NOT GENTLE) giant who acted in a homicidal manner. Whichever story is correct convicts or exonerates Wilson no matter the Officer’s racial prejudice – if any.

 

It seems a Left-Right media fracas is emerging along the lines of whose story is the truth about how much physical harm that Darren Wilson received from Brown leading to Wilson shooting Brown.

 

Some initial digging by the Blogger Gateway Pundit reported that Wilson’s orbital (eye) socket was broken by Brown. CNN investigative reporting dismissed the Gateway Pundit story as false. Since the Ferguson incident has become international news British news sources have gotten involved in the investigative reporting for their readers. So it is ironic that the British Daily Mail makes an effort to summarize the Gateway Pundit vs. CNN reporting:

 

·         Officer Darren Wilson did not suffer a broken eye socket as a result of his deadly confrontation, according to latest reports

 

·         On Tuesday it was reported that he had suffered an ‘orbital blowout fracture’

 

·         The officer was taken to a hospital with a badly swollen face following the shooting on August 9, but x-rays came back negative for any serious injury

 

·         Earlier reports had claimed that the officer was almost knocked unconscious by Brown’s blows

 

·         Only six arrests were logged overnight in Ferguson on Thursday as the town witnessed a more peaceful night

 

Officer Darren Wilson did not suffer a broken eye socket as a result of his deadly confrontation with unarmed Ferguson, Missouri, teenager Michael Brown, according to latest reports.

 

In recent days, reports had emerged stating that Wilson, 28, was badly beaten and left with serious facial injuries following the fatal shooting in the St Louis suburb, including an eye socket fracture.

 

On Tuesday, The Gateway Pundit reported that the officer had suffered an ‘orbital blowout fracture’.


But CNN reported on Thursday that although the officer was taken to a hospital with a badly swollen face following the shooting on August 9, x-rays came back negative for any serious injury.

 

Earlier reports had claimed that the officer was almost knocked unconscious by Brown’s blows, according to the source.


A police source told Fox: ‘The Assistant (Police) Chief took him to the hospital, his face all swollen on one side. He was beaten very severely.’

 

The source continued: ‘They ignored him [Wilson] and the officer started to get out of the car to tell them to move. They shoved him right back in, that’s when Michael Brown leans in and starts beating Officer Wilson in the head and the face.’


A police source has confirmed to MailOnline that Wilson was taken to hospital and treated for facial injuries sustained during the Brown incident but would not elaborate on the severity or nature of those injuries.

 

Last week, Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson said Wilson had suffered swelling to the side of his face but gave few details of the injuries.

 

Wilson, a six-year veteran of the Ferguson force with a clean record, has not been arrested or charged with any crime.

 

He is on paid leave pending the outcome of the investigation and is under 24-hour guard after death threats were aimed at him.

 

Wilson is ‘traumatized, scared for his life and his family’ along with being deeply concerned that a grand jury, which met for the first time on Wednesday, will make an example out of him, the source told Fox.


Daily Mail has more including photos and videos in this story (Police officer who shot Michael Brown did NOT suffer a broken eye socket but he did go to hospital with a swollen face after deadly altercation; By DAVID MCCORMACK; Mail Online; 9/21/14 17:26 EST – Updated 9/22/14 1:02 EST)

 

Gateway Pundit is sticking with their original story:

 

On Tuesday The Gateway Pundit reported from two local St. Louis sources that police Officer Darren Wilson suffered facial fractures during his confrontation with deceased 18 year-old Michael Brown. Officer Wilson clearly feared for his life during the incident that led to the shooting death of Brown. This was after Michael Brown and his accomplice Dorian Johnson robbed a local Ferguson convenience store.

 

Local St. Louis sources said Wilson suffered an “orbital blowout fracture to the eye socket.” This comes from a source within the Prosecuting Attorney’s office and confirmed by the St. Louis County Police.

 

 

Now this…
The Gateway Pundit confirmed from a third local source close to Wilson that Officer Darren Wilson did indeed suffer a broken eye socket.

 

 

This morning [i.e. 9/22/14] The Washington Post also reported that Officer Wilson suffered a fractured eye socket–

 

CNN really needs to be more responsible with such sensitive information. READ ENTIRETY (NOW THERE ARE FOUR SOURCES: Officer Darren Wilson Suffered Fractured Eye Socket; By Jim Hoft; Gateway Pundit; 9/22/14 9:17 AM)

 

And finally I am excerpting a One Citizen Speaking post that fairly well expresses my opinion on the shooting … so far. I say so far because like I said public data will not occur until the Ferguson Police or whoever ends up in charge of the investigation releases them. That might not happen until after a murder trial is imposed on Darren Wilson because after all – the Lamestream Media, professional race baiters and much of the Black Community are still calling for Darren Wilson blood.

 

Enough is enough!

 

I am tired of seeing the mainstream media feature black racists, agitators, communists, and self-serving race-baiters like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson spouting nonsense that defies common sense and offends the sensibilities.

 

One, Michael Brown’s death was self-inflicted the moment he decided to challenge authority and present his 6’4” 292-pound body as an existential, in-your-face, threat to Officer Darren Wilson. There appears to be no intent on the part of the police officer to do anything except get two idiots who were walking down the middle of a street back on the curb.

 

Two, the outrage over the release of convenience store crime photos showing someone appearing to be Michael Brown in a strong-arm burglary of a convenience store in the proximity of the fatal encounter. Various sources have confirmed that it was Brown and his companion that took a box of cigars out of the convenience store without payment – and it became strong-arm burglary (rather than shoplifting) the minute he attempted to intimidate the clerk with his physical presence and put his hands on the clerk. This is relevant because the first things defense attorneys will demand is the police officer’s record including any use of force complaints – no matter how old. This is to establish a pattern and practice of using unjustified force.

 

Three, the police officer may not have known about the theft from the convenience store, so he was just hassling someone for “walking while black.” Not only were the two suspects walking down the middle of the street (an infraction), but they also refused the lawful orders of a police officer to “get out of the street.” But why this is a bogus issue is common sense. While the police officer may have not known – or possibly suspected — that a more serious crime had been committed, Michael Brown certainly was aware of his criminal acts, and that may have been motivation for his assault on the officer. Yes, there is little or no doubt – including medical treatment records – that the officer was injured during the altercation.

 

Four, the idea that “unarmed” equals innocent, defenseless, or incapable of causing great bodily injury, is an outright lie. Here is a recent case in Los Angeles when an “unarmed” domestic violence suspect assaulted an officer that resulted in grave bodily injury …

 

 

Five, that the mainstream media took the word of an unfiltered, unvetted thug who was there in the convenience store at the time of the strong-arm robbery over the presumption of innocence of a police officer until he was proven guilty or facts to the contrary surfaced was disgusting and un-American. This thug’s narrative that Michael Brown was shot in the back while trying to surrender appears to be suspect by the preliminary autopsy notes of noted forensic pathologist Michael Baden who noted that all of the shots appeared to come from the front.

 

 

Six, that Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder would attempt to enter a local police matter and spin the story for political advantage – places the officer at much greater risk of over-zealous prosecution and the conjuring-up of evidence that doesn’t exist or that may have alternative explanation. We have seen a number of Obamacons openly thumb their nose at the American justice system to gin-up a media-worthy event or political result. I do not believe Attorney General Eric Holder is honest and ethical – or can be trusted with this inquiry.

 

Seven, that Kareem Abdul-Jabbar has somehow gained wisdom and enlightenment to put forth the following piece in Time Magazine is to demonstrate why progressive socialist democrats are bereft of common sense and are perhaps the most dangerous among us …

 

 

Atrocity? A thug apparently attacks a police officer after committing a criminal act and is shot dead – and that’s an atrocity? Just another act of systemic racism? An example of class warfare? In what alternative universe does a basketball player, albeit a champion basketball player, have access to all of the facts and comes to the conclusion we are viewing an atrocity, another act of systemic racism and class warfare? This is an example of the clear and present danger idiots who have gained some measure of celebrity pose to society when they opine on social events.

 

Eight, a peaceful protest ends being peaceful when Molotov cocktails are used or shots are fired. It doesn’t matter what group initiates the hostile action, the police cannot allow anyone, peaceful or not, to remain at risk in the area. To do so would be police malfeasance.

 

Nine, to allow looting, rioting, and the destruction of private property in order to prevent further rioting or to avoid appearing racist is wrong.

 

Ten, when you hear “no justice, no peace” who are hearing the words of racists, activists, and others who are willing to condemn and convict someone without knowing the facts. …

 

Eleven, and if you want to see a case of blatant self-promotion from the mother of another thug, you need go no farther than the liberal Time Magazine piece by Trayvon Martin’s mother.

 

 

I hate that you and your family must join this exclusive yet growing group of parents and relatives who have lost loved ones to senseless gun violence. Of particular concern is that so many of these gun violence cases involve children far too young. But Michael is much more than a police/gun violence case; Michael is your son. …

 

Further complicating the pain and loss in this tragedy is the fact that the killer of your son is alive, known, and currently free. In fact, he is on paid administrative leave. <Source>

 

Excuse me! Is this the mother who was looking for a big payday from the death of her son – even before Zimmerman was charged with a crime? Is this the innocent child that was visiting his father while serving a ten-day suspension from school? A man-child killed due to a self-initiated confrontation with a neighborhood watch captain that did everything right when he called the police and was then attacked by the physically imposing Trayvon Martin?

 

She didn’t lose her son to senseless gun violence, her son precipitated the confrontation by attacking George Zimmerman and forcing him to use lethal force to save his life.

 

Her statement that …

 

 

Bottom line …

The racists, race-baiters, race-hustlers, and agitators don’t give a damn about Michael Brown or those in the Ferguson community. They are there for self-promotion and possibly a payday. It pains me to see a community suddenly fall prey to these race-mongering bastards – and I include President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, Governor Jay Nixon, and the other political asswipes who are attempting to spin the story for political advantage. As for the communist rabble-rousers like the New Black Panther Party, one wonders why some in the black community – including law enforcement authorities – have not demanded that they be charged with a crime in rally a crowd to call for Officer Wilson’s death.

 

The progressive socialist democrats are continuing to divide America into … READ ENTIRETY (FERGUSON: POLICE OFFICER DARREN WILSON HOSED BY BLACK RACISTS, AGITATORS, AND PROGRESSIVE MEDIA? By Steve the One Citizen Speaking; 8/19/14 04:49 AM)

 

JRH 8/24/14 (Hat Tip: Noisy Room)

Please Support NCCR

________________________

Other Sources I examined:

 

Breitbart Big Government: ORIGINAL WITNESSES’ ‘HANDS UP’ BROWN STORIES FALLING APART

 

Gulag Bound: ‘There’s an Epidemic of Racial Violence in America, Alright;’ Bill Whittle on Black Racism

 

VIDEO – Truth Revolts Originals: BILL WHITTLE: FERGUSON AND THE REAL RACE WAR

 

 

The Raw Story: CNN source ‘unequivocally’ disputes report that Ferguson officer suffered broken bone

 

Hot Air: Fox News source: Wilson was “beaten very severely” before shooting Michael Brown

 

Lonely at the Top


UN-ASSEMBLY/

Ari Bussel focuses on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the weight on his shoulders as Israel’s very survival are the coming stakes. Adolf Hitler tried to wipe the Jews off the map of Europe with his Third Reich mentality of global conquest. In the days of the 1930s through to the end of WWII the Jewish hope was primarily those Western nations that opposed the designs of Hitler’s Third Reich. Prime Minister Chamberlain of Britain in 1938 decided to trust Hitler to work out a “peace in our time” deal of land for peace. SIX MILLION dead Jews later we know how that idiotic thinking turned out.

 

Bussel correctly ascertains that President Barack Hussein Obama is the Chamberlain of the 21st century. In giving a pass to Iran on its nuclear weapons program and the selling out of Israel will repeat Chamberlain’s error. PM Netanyahu may be the only hope for not only the survival of Israel but of Jews internationally as Antisemitism is growing again as it did in pre-WWII days. For dealing with Iranians Obama is the devil. Yes I know it sounds harsh coming from a Christian American nevertheless Obama’s actions are nefarious and will probably be complicit in another Holocaust unless Netanyahu of tiny Israel finds the divine wisdom to act even though their so-called allies are willing to deal with Jew-Hating and Christian-Hating Iran.

 

JRH 11/18/13

Please Support NCCR

******************************

Lonely at the Top

 

By Ari Bussel

Sent: 11/17/2013 7:48 PM

 

I remember the look of then Opposition Leader Benjamin Netanyahu at an underground command and control center in a city in Southern Israel crammed with foreign correspondents, when I introduced myself before asking my question, “Ari Bussel, Muslim World Today.”

 

For those who know me, I am White Caucasian, and I look very much Western (some would say slightly “Middle Eastern”), although the most notable character is likely my unidentifiable, thick accent.

 

But I definitely do not look like the representative of California-based Muslim World Today and Pakistan World Today.

The readers of Norma Zager’s and my Postcards series would burst out laughing and say:  He is the Propaganda Minister of the Zionist Entity, what is he doing writing for a Muslim paper?  We have also been compared to much worse, all as a compliment to our unapologetic stand for and on behalf of the Jewish People and the State of Israel.

 

I was one of three foreign correspondents at that gathering, during Operation Cast Lead some five years ago, who was pre-chosen to ask a question.  How did I earn that privilege, as MWT is neither on most peoples’ radar nor is it the same level as USA Today, CNN, CBS and other industry leaders, all respectably represented there that day?  That is a story for another day.

 

Netanyahu of course looked me straight in the eye, as only two Israelis can, those who feel, without the need to speak, they can count on each other (a camaraderie usually only found in the battle field), and knew he could trust me.

 

Since that time, Netanyahu became the prime minister, and he is now the longest serving PM in the history of the modern country.  For Israel this is an extraordinary achievement.  His detractors say he is a master maneuverer, holding his seat so tightly and doing nothing that might risk his hold.  But this, clearly, is not the case.  Netanyahu was entrusted, as the pages of history will show, to lead Israel at its most precarious time, a period of advancement and flourishing, a time when WWIII began.

 

Netanyahu does not need to hold anything anymore.  It is all of us who need to hold him, provide a solid base, as he is our leader for better and worse.  At this time, when our very existence is at stake, every decision he makes will either ensure our survival or hasten our demise.

 

For years we in the West have talked about Iran, while Iran has raced to become a global nuclear power, a position that will enable it to realize its expansionary goals for the Global Islamic Caliphate.  Once not too long ago another country had similar ideas, the establishment of a Thousand Year Reich, and humanity paid to the tune of tens of millions of people.  Once again such grandiose ideas are cultivated, and once again we behave as if there are no lessons in the past.

 

“Peace in our lifetime” announced British Prime Minister Chamberlain on the last day of September 1938.  Now 75 short years later, one can hear the chant in the corridors of the White House:  Peace with Iran is imminent.  The drumbeats become louder with each passing day:  The President has already received one Nobel Prize.  Another is forthcoming! 

 

The annals of history will have a different story to tell, a footnote forever to be remembered that it was yet another US President who changed the face of the world.  The first was Carter in 1978 with the Shah of Iran.  The second catastrophe was Obama in 2013 with the Mullahs of Iran.

 

The sanctions are being lifted.  Money frozen for decades is being thawed.  Obama and the Mullahs are becoming “buddy-buddies,” at least in the way the situation is being portrayed by the White House’s slick and sophisticated PR machine.

 

But the Iranians are in a race to achieve dominance and force it down the world’s throat.  There will be no escape, whether they use bombs or just utilize the threat of making them available. They are focused, determined, talented and capable; while we build castles in the sandbox.

 

The United States of America will do nothing, exactly as it has done nothing in Syria.  First, the President does not want to get involved, and he will draw a red line, then another, then change his mind and finally provide excuses and blame someone else.  He even actively ushered in the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.  Second, we do not have the will or resolve to go and fight yet again.  Iraq, Afghanistan, Al Qaeda – failure after failure.  We live the good life.  We are isolated.  We are indivisible, all-powerful.  We are Americans!  Why even bother?

 

So Israel is alone.  There are other members of the Coalition-of-the-Willing, including Saudi Arabia and some other Muslim Arab countries, but they alone cannot do a thing; Iran is too powerful and realistic a threat.

 

How many times can Israeli ingenuity work?  First there was the Stuxnet virus, but although it proved (and continues to be) most effective, Iran is now aware and has taken necessary steps to overcome and prevent similar occurrences from affecting its facilities and nuclear, satellite and other programs in the future.

 

As the game plays out, with Russia overseeing the action behind the scenes, the USA role of playing the superpower is no longer. Others are now analyzing their positions and realizing how little they can actually do and how they must not – and cannot – trust the US-of-A.  All rests on the shoulders of one person – Benjamin Netanyahu.

 

Netanyahu also has a country to run, and dealing with Jewish people is never easy.  Six point eight million of them, of which six point eight (less a handful) are generals, presidents and prime ministers.

 

Netanyahu has teams of very capable advisors, a whole security network – both visible and invisible – and even some other surprises up his sleeve.  But all in all, the decisions rest on his shoulders and on him alone.

 

He must be very lonely, surrounded with all the eitzes-gibbers (advice-givers) who know it all.  He must feel the enormity of the moment of history, when he, and he alone, will either raise his hand for war or a white flag in surrender, the latter signaling the cessation of the Zionist Dream, the end of the Jewish People on this earth.

 

Clearly, the choices are both frightening.  What’s worse, he has no time.  No one else will enter the fray; then one by one countries will fall, faster and faster like dominos, like offerings at an altar.

 

Wrong are Netanyahu’s detractors who say he is holding on to his seat for some momentary gratification.  He is holding on to life, with every ounce of energy, with all the will power he can master.  He must not let go, for if he does the fate of the entire world and humanity as we know it will suffer.

 

Netanyahu is the hope and future of the State of Israel and the Jewish People.  And since Israel is the last fort standing to obstruct the advancement of the Iranians toward global dominance, Netanyahu is responsible for the world.

 

Possibly this is why my Rabbi chooses every Shabbat to say an extra prayer for the Government, leaders and advisors of the State of Israel followed by an additional prayer for the soldiers of Israel, on the land, in the air and on the sea, who stand alert and ready on the walls of Zion Jerusalem to be victorious.

 

While I live my daily life, busy with the mundane, my Rabbi sees and understands something I cannot even begin to fathom.  He does not attempt to tell us the future, just to correctly read the present.

 

May wisdom guide Netanyahu’s every step, and may the light within radiating from Zion Jerusalem be his lighthouse as he tries to navigate Israel safely to shore and the world to a sane and bearable tomorrow.

______________________

Originally titled “Long Live the King,” here is our latest Postcard:  Lonely at the Top.

 

Ari Bussel and Norma Zager collaborate both in writing and on the air in a point-counter-point discussion of all things Israel-related.


Zager and Bussel are based in Los Angeles. Zager is an award winning investigative journalist, journalism professor and author.  Bussel is a foreign correspondent in Israel.

 

Together, they have dedicated the past decade to promoting Israel.

 

© Israel Monitor, November 2013

 

First Published November 15, 2013

 

Blog Editor: I have volumes of Bussel and Zager essays at SlantRight.com archive site. Simply go to the archive site and in the search box to the right type in Ari Bussel and/or Norma Zager and years of Postcard series will show up.