Posts Tagged ‘gun control’

After Sutherland Springs Massacre, Dems Call for “Gun Control”…Again

November 7, 2017

Sutherland-600-CI

You won’t get gun control by disarming law-abiding citizens. There’s only one way to get real gun control: Disarm the thugs and the criminals, lock them up and if you don’t actually throw away the key, at least lose it for a long time… It’s a nasty truth, but those who seek to inflict harm are not fazed by gun controllers. I happen to know this from personal experience. – Ronald Reagan

Whenever there is a mass homicide in America, Democratic Politicians, in some sort of obscene genetic pavlovian response, begin calling for honest Americans guns to be taken away.

For example…

The Washington Post reports that

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) has been a leading voice for gun control after just about every recent mass shooting, ever since it was his state that was struck in 2012 by the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown.

But Murphy’s response to the latest tragedy — in Sutherland Springs, Tex. — is a little different even for him. It is a dark and ominous statement that at times feels somewhat resigned but also makes a point of arguing that we shouldn’t be resigned. In that way, it’s somewhat similar to how President Barack Obama spoke about mass shootings late in his term. Murphy, though, takes it even further, painting a vivid and stark picture of the “paralysis” we have faced after mass shootings and talking about “the blood that flows endlessly onto the floors” of the scenes of such attacks. And for all of it, he blames lawmakers who have sold out to the NRA.

Below is his full, four-paragraph statement, with some analysis interspersed:

“The paralysis you feel right now — the impotent helplessness that washes over you as news of another mass slaughter scrolls across the television screen — isn’t real. It’s a fiction created and methodically cultivated by the gun lobby, designed to assure that no laws are passed to make America safer, because those laws would cut into their profits. My heart sunk to the pit of my stomach, once again, when I heard of today’s shooting in Texas. My heart dropped further when I thought about the growing macabre club of families in Las Vegas and Orlando and Charleston and Newtown, who have to relive their own day of horror every time another mass killing occurs.

None of this is inevitable. I know this because no other country endures this pace of mass carnage like America. It is uniquely and tragically American. As long as our nation chooses to flood the county with dangerous weapons and consciously let those weapons fall into the hands of dangerous people, these killings will not abate.”

“These killings will not abate” and the “paralysis” lines both hark back to how Obama talked. After multiple failed efforts to persuade Congress to act on gun control, he and his White House admitted that the will simply wasn’t there.

After a 2015 shooting in Oregon, White House press secretary Joshua Earnest said the president was “quite realistic that we’ll need to see a fundamental change in terms of the way the American people communicate this priority to Congress before we’ll see a different outcome in the legislative process.”

Months earlier, after the mass shooting at a historically black church in South Carolina, Obama said: “At some point it’s going to be important for the American people to come to grips with it, and for us to be able to shift how we think about the issue of gun violence collectively.”

“As my colleagues go to sleep tonight, they need to think about whether the political support of the gun industry is worth the blood that flows endlessly onto the floors of American churches, elementary schools, movie theaters, and city streets. Ask yourself: How can you claim that you respect human life while choosing fealty to weapons-makers over support for measures favored by the vast majority of your constituents.”

Here, Murphy pins the “blood that flows endlessly onto the floors” directly on lawmakers who have opposed gun control. He suggests that those who claim to be “pro-life” aren’t following through on it on this particular issue.

“My heart breaks for Sutherland Springs. Just like it still does for Las Vegas. And Orlando. And Charleston. And Aurora. And Blacksburg. And Newtown. Just like it does every night for Chicago. And New Orleans. And Baltimore. And Bridgeport. The terrifying fact is that no one is safe so long as Congress chooses to do absolutely nothing in the face of this epidemic. The time is now for Congress to shed its cowardly cover and do something.”

The inclusion of Chicago here is noteworthy. Republicans have long held up the carnage in the Windy City as proof of Democrats’ selective outrage on gun violence, given the strict gun-control laws that exist there. Here, Murphy suggests it’s part of the epidemic of mass shootings — even as the shootings don’t claim as many victims all at once.

Murphy also calls for his colleagues to shed their “cowardly cover and do something.” It’s worth noting that it has been weeks since Las Vegas, after which there seemed to be bipartisan agreement — including from the NRA — about regulating bump stocks, which basically serve to turn a semiautomatic weapon into a fully automatic one. And the bill was only recently introduced.

Texas would seem less conducive to immediate gun-control legislation. The shooter, according to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R), had been denied a gun permit, for example, which suggests that this wasn’t a matter of a lack of background checks. The shooter was also stopped by an armed civilian — a fact gun-rights supporters will emphasize. The NRA often argues that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

In other words, it seems unlikely that Murphy’s plea and this particular incident will change much of anything. But Murphy also seems to know that.

Uh huh. That’s because he’s a Liberal Democrat and he just can’t help himself.

Speaking of Chicago…

The Chicago Tribune reports that

Chicago is close to recording its 600th homicide for the year, only the second time the city will have reached the grim milestone since 2003, according to data kept by the Tribune. After a weekend when 30 were people shot, five of them fatally, the number of homicides stands at 593 this year, according to the Tribune’s database. 

That’s below the 681 homicides this time last year but substantially above other recent years.

Last year saw gun violence at levels not recorded since the late 1990s.  This year has not been as bad, but the last time the city hit 600 homicides was 2003, and that was for the entire year, according to statistics kept by the Chicago Police Department.

The Chicago Police Department’s count of homicides this year is 581 because, unlike the Tribune, it does not count homicides on expressways as well as fatal shootings by police officers and homicides considered justified.

Shootings have shown the same trend:  This year trails last year but not other recent years.  Nearly 3,200 people have been shot so far in 2017, down from the roughly 3,800 shot this time last year.   That’s compared to 2,609 at this time in 2015, 2,208 in 2014, 1,923 in 2013 and 2.162 in 2012, according to Tribune data.

Among those shot over this past weekend was a 14-year-old boy, who was grazed in the right foot and leg on Saturday afternoon. He and a 22-year-old man were fired at from a black sedan in the 2200 block of South Oakley Avenue in the West Side’s Heart of Italy neighborhood.

In another double shooting late Saturday night, a 37-year-old woman was killed while attending a party to celebrate what would have been the birthday of a man killed in August as he left the Cook County criminal courthouse.  A 25-year-old man was also shot and injured.

Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country.

And yet, people are still shooting and killing one another.

Which proves the old saying,

If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

Have you ever watched a mother, when their toddler bumps their head on a table, attempt to distract their child, by pretending to spank the table, while saying, “Bad Table”?

That, in a nutshell, is what Former President Barack Hussein Obama attempted to do by writing Executive Orders and what current Congressional Democrats are calling for, in an attempt to limit the Constitutional Right of American Citizens to own guns.

By creating new restrictions, instead of enforcing gun laws which are already in place, these clueless Democratic Politicians are shifting the blame from those who operate outside of the law to America and her citizens.

The Democrats’ quest for “Gun Control”, if successful, would only succeed in controlling law-abiding American Citizens, instead of punishing those who operate outside of our laws, such as the thugs who have turned Former President Obama’s “hometown” of Chicago and my hometown of Memphis into their own personal “Killing Fields”.

If the Democrats had their way, we would live in a country under the oppression of restrictive gun laws, which would be modeled after those in Europe. And, as past events have plainly shown, those restrictive gun laws have allowed Islamic Terrorists and other murderous nut jobs to kill innocent people unchallenged, because none of those innocent people were allowed to carry a weapon with which to defend themselves.

In fact, in some cases, even the police officers, who first arrived on the scene, were unarmed, and had to call for additional forces, thus giving the perpetrators more time to murder and maim the innocent.

One of our Founding Fathers, Dr. Benjamin Franklin, once wrote,

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

Like Dr. Franklin and the rest of those who have fought for our freedom, average Americans realize what Democrats do not.

The problem in cities like Chicago and Memphis is not that there are not enough gun laws. The problem is the gun laws on the books are not properly enforced.

The dissolution of the Black Family Unit, the revolving door state of our Municipal Justice Systems, and, in the case of the Sutherland Springs Massacre, the lack of recognition and treatment of the mentally ill, have a lot to do with the rise of homicides in those Metropolitan areas, as well.

What Liberals have never understood, in their continuous quest to take away the Second Amendment rights of average Americans is that we will never surrender our Constitutional Right to defend ourselves and our families from enemies foreign and domestic.

What part of the words quote “shall not be infringed” do you Liberals not understand?

Passing more restrictive gun laws is not the answer.

Criminals are called “outlaws” for a reason.

They will find a way to get guns. They do now.

This is a people problem. Not a gun problem.

After all, have you ever seen a gun pull its own trigger?

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Advertisements

The Las Vegas Massacre: Another Horrific Tragedy, Another Opportunity For the Dems to Push For Gun Control. – A KJ Op Ed

October 5, 2017

House-Democrats-pushing-gun-control-after-Las-Vegas-mass-shooting (2)

You won’t get gun control by disarming law-abiding citizens. There’s only one way to get real gun control: Disarm the thugs and the criminals, lock them up and if you don’t actually throw away the key, at least lose it for a long time… It’s a nasty truth, but those who seek to inflict harm are not fazed by gun controllers. I happen to know this from personal experience. – President Ronald Reagan

Per CNN.com (so, take it with a grain of salt)…

The massacre in Las Vegas was at once a national tragedy and a family one. When Stephen Paddock opened fire on the Route 91 Harvest Festival, he committed the largest mass shooting in America’s history and struck at the heart of country music and its fans — a community that often describes itself as family.

But in the wake of the tragedy in Las Vegas, some members of the country family are reflecting on the gun culture long associated with the music.

Plenty of debate

Since Sunday’s massacre, debate has taken place on the airwaves at country music radio stations, around dinner tables and on social media over gun control.

Caleb Keeter is a guitarist for the Josh Abbott Band, which performed at the 91 Harvest Music Festival.

In a social media post on Monday, Keeter wrote that the tragedy had changed his views on guns.

“I’ve been a proponent of the 2nd Amendment my entire life,” he wrote. “Until the event of last night. I cannot express how wrong I was.”

Crew members on Keeter’s bus had weapons and licenses to carry them, he said, but those “were useless” during the Vegas shooting for fear police would confuse them for the gunman raining bullets on the crowd.

“These rounds were powerful enough that my crew guys just standing in a close proximity of a victim shot by this f***ing coward received shrapnel wounds,” Keeter wrote. “We need gun control RIGHT.NOW.”

The late Johnny Cash was such a firearm aficionado that the National Rifle Association (NRA) shared the story of a Colt Model 1860 Army Revolver he is said to have given his friend, Gene Ferguson, on its site.

But Cash’s daughter, singer Rosanne Cash, has been an advocate for increased gun control measures for 20 years. She called on more people in the country music community to join her in a New York Times column published Tuesday.

“I encourage more artists in country and American roots music to end your silence,” Cash wrote. “It is no longer enough to separate yourself quietly. The laws the N.R.A. would pass are a threat to you, your fans, and to the concerts and festivals we enjoy.”

Close ties to the NRA

As evidenced by Tennessee Ernie Ford’s “The Shotgun Boogie,” Justin Moore’s “This Is NRA Country,” or Hank Williams Jr.’s 2016 single “God and Guns,” country music, in countless songs, has showcased support for the Second Amendment.

And the NRA has worked to cultivate that.

The gun lobbying organization’s NRA Country campaign features a roster of country music brand ambassadors, including Florida Georgia Line, Trace Adkins and Luke Combs.

“I kind see the similarities that run between what you guys do and what I do,” Combs said in a video posted on the NRA Country site when he was selected to join the campaign last year. “I enjoy going outdoors, shooting my guns, and stuff like that stuff.”

Combs, who performed at the festival in Las Vegas, announced he will play a song in honor of the shooting victims on an upcoming “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” show.

“Music is a healer,” Combs tweeted. “In this overwhelming darkness, I believe we will find hope when we rise together.”

Take a good look

The country music fanbase is not a monolithic group of gun-toting advocates.

Greg Bieck lives in Nashville and has worked as a country and pop music producer for almost 25 years.

He told CNN he would like to see the government step up and do more to curb mass shootings.

“It’s not the wild West anymore,” Bieck said. “People have a lot of money tied up in these weapons, and I think it’s worth it for the government to offer a buyback program for them. That would make everyone feel safe and be a win for both sides.”

Katie Toupal, a country music DJ in Minnesota, was present in Las Vegas during the shooting.

She told CNN’s Brooke Baldwin Wednesday that she believes the tragedy will have an effect on attitudes in the country music family.

“I do think some people will take a second look at it [gun control], especially after so many tragedies and the biggest one we’ve seen in our time happening on Sunday night,” Toupal said.

Dave Mann is a 31-year-old minister in Bellingham, Washington and a country music follower who considers himself to be a moderate when it comes to gun control.

He told CNN that while he doesn’t expect fans or the country music industry to become anti-gun after the Las Vegas tragedy, he believes reflection is in order.

“I think we need to take a good look at ourselves in the mirror and ask if we want to be so strongly aligned with the gun industry,” he said. “Is this the kind of world we want to live in?”

Bellingham, Washington? Seriously? Yeah, I’ll bet they listen to a lot of “Country Music” up in that Blue State. Their idea of Country Music is probably “The Dixie Chicks.”

Why didn’t they interview a Southern Baptist Preacher in Horn Lake, Mississippi?

I knew, as soon as I started watching the coverage on Fox News that fateful Monday Morning, that the Liberals would be all over this horrific massacre of innocent Americans like Rosie O’ Donnell on a donut, pushing for Gun Control.

David Mamet, in an  article for The Daily Beast, published on January 25, 2013, wrote the following:

…where in the Constitution is it written that the Government is in charge of determining “needs”? And note that the president did not say “I have more money than I need,” but “You and I have more than we need.” Who elected him to speak for another citizen?

It is not the constitutional prerogative of the Government to determine needs. One person may need (or want) more leisure, another more work; one more adventure, another more security, and so on. It is this diversity that makes a country, indeed a state, a city, a church, or a family, healthy. “One-size-fits-all,” and that size determined by the State has a name, and that name is “slavery.”

The Founding Fathers, far from being ideologues, were not even politicians. They were an assortment of businessmen, writers, teachers, planters; men, in short, who knew something of the world, which is to say, of Human Nature. Their struggle to draft a set of rules acceptable to each other was based on the assumption that we human beings, in the mass, are no damned good—that we are biddable, easily confused, and that we may easily be motivated by a Politician, which is to say, a huckster, mounting a soapbox and inflaming our passions.

The Constitution’s drafters did not require a wag to teach them that power corrupts: they had experienced it in the person of King George. The American secession was announced by reference to his abuses of power: “He has obstructed the administration of Justice … he has made Judges dependent on his will alone … He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws … He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass out people and to eat out their substance … imposed taxes upon us without our consent… [He has] fundamentally altered the forms of our government.”

…The police do not exist to protect the individual. They exist to cordon off the crime scene and attempt to apprehend the criminal. We individuals are guaranteed by the Constitution the right to self-defense. This right is not the Government’s to “award” us. They have never been granted it.

…Will increased cosmetic measures make anyone safer? They, like all efforts at disarmament, will put the citizenry more at risk. Disarmament rests on the assumption that all people are good, and, basically, want the same things.

But if all people were basically good, why would we, increasingly, pass more and more elaborate laws?

The individual is not only best qualified to provide his own personal defense, he is the only one qualified to do so: and his right to do so is guaranteed by the Constitution.

Way back in February of 2013, I had a fascinating conversation with a quite Liberal young lady.

I had posted the following Tweet under the hashtag: #LiberalTips2AvoidRape

Move on down to Dixie, where everyone, Southern Belles or Southern Gentlemen, open or concealed carries.

The young lady replied to my Tweet:

therefore, according to your “logic”, there are no rapes down in ‘ole Dixie?

I, then replied:

I did not say that. However, statistics do prove that a well-placed bullet does prevent an attempted rape 10 out of 10 times.

Here is the rest of the discussion:

Her: If you want to use a statistic then give me a site to back it up.

Me: Ummm…how would a perpetrator rape someone if he was incompacitated?  Duuuh. Courtesy of the Kingsjester Institute of the Obvious.

Her: Suppose the rapist doesn’t want to wait ’til you draw your gun, aim and shoot?Or he comes from behind w/a knife to your neck?

Me: Shoot him in the foot.

Her: ok, but I think you’d have to walk around with your hand on your gun for that to work. Rapists are the worst kind of predators.

Me: You can shoot through a purse or a holster. So, are you saying that you want to comply with what the Dem in CO wants you to do?

Her: I was trying to point out that a gun won’t stop a rapist unless you walk around with your hand on the trigger at all times.

Me: You have no reflexes? Are you unaware of your surroundings? Are you a victim?Are you a fatalist? Would you not fight back?
It was then that she left the conversation.
A couple of things in closing:
Where you have the most armed citizens in America, you have the lowest violent crime rate. Where you have the worst gun control, you have the highest crime rate. – Ted Nugent
Why are they trying to take away the guns from law-abiding citizens, when it is the criminals who use their guns to kill, rape, and rob?
You know, it is almost as if the Far Left Liberals in the Democratic Party want the American Citizenry to be defenseless.
Why would they ever want that?
Because…
One man with a gun can control one hundred without one. – Vladimir Lenin
Until He Comes,
KJ

 

 

Chicago Gangs Now Have “Cop Killer” Bullets. Chicago’s Strict Gun Control Laws Prove Ineffective…Again.

May 9, 2017

1337256000000.cached

“I support gun control. But speaking honestly about the combustible mix of race and guns may be more important to stopping the slaughter in minority communities than any new gun-control laws.” – Juan Williams, Fox News

The Wall Street Journal reported the following

CHICAGO—This city’s police officers have been warned of the increasing use by gang members of rifles able to pierce police body armor, after a spate of shootings with assault-style weapons.

On Sunday, two men armed with assault-style rifles shot 10 people, police said. The victims, two of whom died, were attending a memorial for a person shot and killed that day in the Brighton Park neighborhood on the southwest side.

“Two subjects came out of an alley, and opened fire with rifles,” Chicago Police Deputy Superintendent Kevin Navarro said at a press conference on Sunday. The victims were standing at the spot where the person was killed, marked by candles and balloons.

Mr. Navarro called it “another brazen act of gang violence” on Chicago’s streets.

On Monday, officers were issued a safety bulletin warning them to expect a higher presence of gang members with assault-style rifles in that neighborhood. Additional tactical and gang-response units have been deployed to the area to quell possible violence.

Chicago police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said the safety alerts are “routine communications to advise field personnel about incidents.”

“This bulletin was issued out of an abundance of caution,” he said. “There is no specific threat against Chicago police officers.”

Sunday’s bloodshed comes days after a van pulled alongside plainclothes police officers in an unmarked surveillance vehicle and opened fire with similar military-style rifles, injuring both officers. One was shot in the hip and arm, and the other was shot in the back.

Police believe the officers weren’t targeted because of their profession, and say it is likely the shooters thought they were shooting at rival gang members. The officers have since been discharged from the hospital and are in stable condition.

Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson, who described the rifle used as a “weapon of war,” said police in that neighborhood have seen “quite a few” shootings with high-powered rifles. Police dogs recovered a .223 caliber rifle buried in the woods near the site of the shooting.

One suspect, 18-year-old Angel Gomez, has been arrested after the shooting of the officers, suspected of being the driver of the vehicle that shot at the police van. He has been charged with two counts of attempted murder against a police officer and two counts of battery with a firearm, and is being held without bail.

The proliferation of these weapons, which police say are being used by specific Hispanic gangs in those neighborhoods, are complicating Chicago’s efforts to fight violent crime in the city. Police have implemented strategies to bring down last year’s homicide total of 762 people, a number not seen since the mid-1990s. The moves include new predictive policing technologies that incorporate gunshot-detection software, and attempts at strengthening community ties.

Still, the capabilities of weapons on the streets have continued to increase.

“Years ago, you didn’t see people running around with assault weapons or 50-round clips,” said Kevin Johnson, commander of Chicago’s 11th police district, which includes the high-crime Englewood neighborhood. “Crime never stays static.”

Police Superintendent Johnson has for months been pushing legislation that would seek to impose longer sentences on repeat gun offenders, arguing that weak prosecution and low bail amounts are sending violent offenders back out into their neighborhoods too soon.

“Their thought process is not one that would say to them: Don’t pick up a gun and fire. That’s what we want to create,” said Mr. Johnson. “The only way we can do that is hold them accountable for it.”

The bill, which passed the Illinois state Senate, is being debated in the House.

The continuing and escalating violence in the Windy City reminds me of the exercise in futility that was the 8 year Presidency of Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm).

During those long 8 years, one of his pet projects was Gun Control.

Obama claimed that by making it harder for honest American Citizens to purchase firearms, it would curb the crime and violence in our major cities, like his hometown of Chicago, which already had in place some of the strictest gun laws in the nation.

Fat lot of good that’s done, huh?

Have you ever watched a mother, when their toddler bumps their head on a table, attempt to distract their child, by pretending to spank the table, while saying, “Bad Table”?

That, in a nutshell, is what Former President Barack Hussein Obama was attempting to do by writing Executive Orders, in an attempt to limit the Constitutional Right of American Citizens to own guns.

By creating new restrictions, instead of enforcing gun laws which were already in place, Obama shifted the blame from the Radical Islamic Terrorists and those who operate outside of the law, like the gangs in Chicago, to America and her citizens.

Obama tried to control law-abiding American Citizens, instead of punishing those who operate outside of our laws, such as the Muslim Terrorists who perpetrated the San Bernadino Massacre and the thugs who turned Obama’s “hometown” of Chicago into their own personal “Killing Fields”.

Gun Control has not stopped the criminals from getting Guns in the UK.

Why did Obama and his minions think that more regulations were going to accomplish what the UK has not?

Were they that full of themselves that they thought that, since they were the “smartest people in the room”, that failed methods would actually work simply because they were the ones attempting them?

Were they just doing something to be doing something, in order to save face with their Far Left supporters?

Or, was it something more malevolent than just everyday politics?

Here’s a quote from an organization which backed Obama all the way during his Gun Confiscation efforts…

…the right-wing extremists opposing all efforts to curb gun violence are the same forces that rallied behind Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, hoping to undermine every other democratic right as well as the living standards of workers and ordinary Americans. It is for that reason, as well as the need to protect public safety, that the same coalition of labor and its allies that worked so hard and effectively to re-elect President Barack Obama must now go all-out to back his common sense proposals for gun law reform.

As Obama has charged, the extremists recklessly “gin up fear” that the government is coming to take away hunting rifles and personal weapons owned for legitimate self-defense. Led by the hate-mongering leadership of the National Rifle Association, they use a totally fraudulent and only very recent interpretation of the Second Amendment which they falsely claim as necessary for protecting every other freedom contained in the Bill of Rights.

One of their unhinged spokesmen, Texas talk show host Alex Jones, launched a national petition drive to deport CNN commentator Piers Morgan for questioning the Second Amendment. Jones said the amendment “isn’t there for duck hunting. It’s there to protect us from tyrannical government and street thugs,” and then went on to threaten insurrection “if you try to take our firearms.”

Actually, the Second Amendment wasn’t enacted with any of these things in mind. The amendment was adopted as a means to enable the new American republic, lacking a standing army or state national guards, to muster militia to put down domestic uprisings, including slave revolts, to repulse any attempted return by the British and to deal with clashes with Native Americans on the expanding frontier.

These issues vanished long ago. The Second Amendment is obsolete and now has been twisted to threaten the basic safety and security of all Americans. There is no basis for claiming this amendment was intended to permit unregulated personal acquisition of firearms, including amassing military weapons and private arsenals for “protection” from the government. No government, especially one that is new and fragile, has ever authorized citizens to arm themselves against it.

The preceding quote actually comes from peoplesworld.org, the website of Communist Party USA.

As I chronicled over the last seven years, Obama’s and the rest of the Far Left’s Gun Confiscation Movement came right out of  the playbook of Marx and Lenin.

There is one thing that Obama did not take into account, however…

Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today’s world do not have. – Ronald Reagan

And, that is why he failed.

Chicago gangs are committing more murder and mayhem on the blood-drenched streets of Chicago than ever before…and now, they have the fire power to eliminate Chicago’s “Thin Blue Line”, which is all that stands between law-abiding citizens and absolute anarchy.

If Obama and his minions had addressed the REAL problem of gang violence in Chicago, instead of trying to blame average American Gun Owners for the violent acts of criminals, Chicago and other major cities would be safer places to live in and visit today.

But, that would have made too much sense.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Chicago and Memphis Set New Homicide Records in 2016. What’s the Answer?

January 2, 2017

chicago-murder-rate

You won’t get gun control by disarming law-abiding citizens. There’s only one way to get real gun control: Disarm the thugs and the criminals, lock them up and if you don’t actually throw away the key, at least lose it for a long time… It’s a nasty truth, but those who seek to inflict harm are not fazed by gun controllers. I happen to know this from personal experience. – Ronald Reagan

Foxnews.com reports that

The city of Chicago recorded 762 homicides in 2016 — an average of two murders per day, the most killings in the city for two decades and more than New York and Los Angeles combined.

The nation’s third largest city also saw 1,100 more shooting incidents than it did in 2015, according to statistics released by the Chicago Police Department that underlined a story of bloodshed that has put Chicago at the center of a national dialogue about gun violence.

The numbers released Sunday are staggering, even for those following the steady news accounts of weekends ending with dozens of shootings and monthly death tolls that hadn’t been seen in years. The increase in 2016 homicides compared to 2015, when 485 were reported, is the largest spike in 60 years.

Police and city officials have lamented the flood of illegal guns into the city, and the crime statistics appeared to support their claims: Police recovered 8,300 illegal guns in 2015, a 20 percent from the previous year.

Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson said during a news conference Sunday that Chicago is among many U.S. cities that have seek a spike in violence, including in attacks on police. He said anger at police, including in the wake of video released that showed a white Chicago officer shooting a black teenager 16 times, has left criminals “emboldened” to violent crimes.

He also said it’s becoming clearer to criminals that they have little to fear from the criminal justice system.

“In Chicago, we just don’t have a deterrent to pick up a gun,” he said. “Any time a guy stealing a loaf of bread spends more time pre-trial in jail than a gun offender, something is wrong.”

The bulk of the deaths and shooting incidents, which jumped from 2,426 in 2015 to 3,550 last year, occurred in only five neighborhoods on the city’s South and West sides, all poor and predominantly black areas where gangs are most active. Police said the shootings in those areas generally wasn’t random, with more than 80 percent of the victims having previously been identified by police as more susceptible because of their gang ties or past arrests.

Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson was expected to discuss the newly released statistics Sunday afternoon.

The city has scrambled to address the violence. Mayor Rahm Emanuel announced last year that 1,000 officers would be added to the police department. At the same time, police officials have been trying to figure out why homicides and shootings — which began climbing the year before — suddenly surged.

Johnson has said several factors contributed to the increased violence. He noted 2016 was the first full year since the city was forced in November 2015 to release video of the fatal police shooting of 17-year-old Laquan McDonald, who was black and shot 16 times by a white police officer. The video cost former Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy his job, sparked major protests around the city, and led to federal and state investigations of the department.

It also left Johnson with the task of trying to restore public trust in what appeared to be a weakened police force, a perception that was only buttressed by a dramatic drop in the number of arrests in 2016.

While the police department has cited several factors for the declining numbers, including a concerted effort not to make minor drug arrests and focus on gun violence, Johnson acknowledged in a recent interview with The Associated Press that officers have become more cautious — in part out of fear of becoming the next “viral video.”

That, he said, has “emboldened” criminals.

“Criminals watch TV, pay attention to the media,” he said. “They see an opportunity to commit nefarious activity.”

Gee. Ya think?

Meanwhile, in my hometown, the Former “City of Good Abode”…

Memphis set a grim record with 228 homicides in 2016, eclipsing by 15 killings the previous record of 213 set in 1993.

The year began with the shooting death of 49-year-old Patrick Couch, who was killed in the driveway of a home on South Fourth Street just before 3 p.m. on New Year’s Day 2016. That was one of 10 murders in the first 13 days of the year, establishing the record-setting pace that just never let up.

The year ended with the shooting death of an unidentified man just before 11 a.m. Saturday at Saxon and Cummings in South Memphis. No arrests have been made, police said.

Memphis Police Director Michael Rallings was unavailable for comment Sunday, MPD spokesman Karen Rudolph said. Messages left for Mayor Jim Strickland were not returned. Strickland campaigned for mayor on the promise of crime reduction, but the city’s escalating homicide total has made that promise difficult to achieve.

“Our homicide rate has taken this tragic, shameful spike. It is the crime that the police are least able to control. It is on all of us, in our homes, our neighborhoods, and our churches, to do better,” Strickland said in a recent statement.

Throughout his Presidency, Barack Hussein Obama has issued Executive Orders aimed at limited the Second Amendment Rights of Americans Citizens, in an effort to “curb gun violence”

An Executive Order, sometimes known as a proclamation, is a directive handed down directly from the President of the United States without input from the legislative or judicial branches. Executive orders can only be given to federal or state agencies, not to citizens, even though we wind up bearing the brunt of them.

Executive Orders go all the way back to our first president, George Washington. Presidents have used them to lead the nation through times of war, to respond to natural disasters and economic crises, to encourage or to limit regulation by federal agencies, to promote civil rights, or in the case of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, to set up Japanese internment camps, in order to revoke Civil Rights.

The problem with Obama’s issuing Executive orders to “curb gun violence” is clearly demonstrated in the above article about the escalation of homicides in Chicago in 2016.

Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country.

And yet, people are still shooting one another.

Which proves the old saying,

If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

Have you ever watched a mother, when their toddler bumps their head on a table, attempt to distract their child, by pretending to spank the table, while saying, “Bad Table”?

That, in a nutshell, is what President Barack Hussein Obama has attempted to do by writing Executive Orders, in an attempt to limit the Constitutional Right of American Citizens to own guns.

By creating new restrictions, instead of enforcing gun laws which are already in place, Obama is shifting the blame from those who operate outside of the law to America and her citizens.

Obama is attempting to control law-abiding American Citizens, instead of punishing those who operate outside of our laws, such as the thugs who have turned Obama’s “hometown” of Chicago and my hometown of Memphis into their own personal “Killing Fields”.

If President Barack Hussein Obama had his way, we would live in a country comprised of restrictive gun laws, which would be modeled after those in Europe. And, as past  events have plainly shown, those restrictive gun laws have allowed Islamic Terrorists to kill innocent people unchallenged, because none of those innocent people were allowed to carry a weapon with which to defend themselves.

In fact, in some cases, even the police officers, who first arrived on the scene, were unarmed, and had to call for additional forces, thus giving the perpetrators more time to murder and maim the innocent.

One of our Founding Fathers, Dr. Benjamin Franklin, once wrote,

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

Like Dr. Franklin and the rest of those who have fought for our freedom, average Americans realize what the president does not.

The problem in cities like Chicago and Memphis is not that there are not enough gun laws. The problem is the gun laws on the books are not properly enforced.

The dissolution of the Black Family Unit and the revolving door state of our Municipal Justice Systems have a lot to do with the rise of homicides in those Metropolitan areas, as well.

But, that’s a subject for another post.

Passing more restrictive gun laws is not the answer.

After all, have you ever seen a gun pull its own trigger?

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Obama: Our “Open Gun Laws” Encourage Terrorism…Meanwhile, He Keeps Importing Syrian Muslim “Refugees”.

August 6, 2016

untitled (72)

Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.” – Nicholas Kristoff, “Obama: Man of the World”, The New York Times, March 6, 2007

CNS News reports that

“In terms of the threat that ISIL poses to the homeland, I think it is serious,” President Obama told a news conference on Thursday. “We take it seriously.”

The president pointed to a New York Times report on ISIS’ radicalization efforts to suggest that U.S. gun laws may encourage lone-wolf attacks here.

“[S]ome of you may have read the article in The New York Times today — I guess it came out last night online — about this individual in Germany who had confessed, and had given himself up, and then explained his knowledge of how ISIL’s networks worked,” Obama said.

“There was a paragraph in there that some may have caught, which we don’t know for a fact that this is true — but according to this reporting, the individual indicated that ISIL recognizes that it is harder to get its operatives into the United States.

“But the fact that we have what he referred to as ‘open gun laws’ meant that anybody, as long as they didn’t have a criminal record that could bar them from purchase, could go in and buy weapons. That has made the sort of homegrown extremists’ strategy more attractive to them. And those are the hardest to stop because by definition, if somebody doesn’t have a record, if it’s not triggering something, it means that anticipating their actions becomes that much more difficult.

“That’s why the military strategy we have in Syria and Iraq is necessary, but it is not sufficient. We have to a better job of disrupting networks, and those networks are more active in Europe than they are here, but we don’t know what we don’t know. And it’s conceivable there are some networks here that could be activated.”

Obama said the U.S. has to do a better job of disrupting the messages that are reaching “a troubled individual” over the Internet.

The August 3 New York Times report mentioned by Obama is titled, “How a Secretive Branch of ISIS Built a Global Network of Killers.”

Based on interviews with Harry Sarfo, a would-be foreign fighter now imprisoned in Germany, it explains how members of the Islamic State’s secret service, a group called Emni, no longer want Europeans to come to Syria. Instead, they are encouraging European radicals to stay home, “to help ccarry out the group’s plaln of waging terrorism across the globe.”

The portion of the article mentioned by Obama reads as follows:

“The intelligence documents and Mr. Sarfo agree that the Islamic State has made the most of its recruits’ nationalities by sending them back to plot attacks at home. Yet one important region where the Emni is not thought to have succeeded in sending trained attackers is North America, Mr. Sarfo said, recalling what the members of the branch told him.

Though dozens of Americans have become members of the Islamic State, and some have been recruited into the external operations wing, “they know it’s hard for them to get Americans into America” once they have traveled to Syria, he said.

“For America and Canada, it’s much easier for them to get them over the social network, because they say the Americans are dumb — they have open gun policies,” he said. “They say we can radicalize them easily, and if they have no prior record, they can buy guns, so we don’t need to have no contact man who has to provide guns for them.””

Per usual, with Obama, it is an inanimate object’s fault, not the fault of the ideologue carrying it…unless it happens to be someone that he falsely identifies as a “Conservative Christian”.

Because, according to Obama, there is no such thing as Radical Islam.

…And, he has a pet unicorn in the backyard of the White House.

The New York Times reports that

Administration officials said on Friday that 8,000 Syrian refugees had been allowed into the United States since October, putting them on pace to surpass the goal of 10,000.

Through partnerships with the State Department and the Department of Health and Human Services, all of them receive assistance from nonprofit organizations that connect them to a local support network to help them find housing, register for health care and food assistance and enroll their children in school. The International Rescue Committee is one of nine nonprofit organizations helping refugees relocate and integrate into their new communities.

The increase reflects a quiet but intense push by the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security, with substantial prodding from the White House, to radically speed up the pace at which Syrian refugees are placed in the United States. It appears likely to further inflame the political debate about refugees that has become a central theme of the presidential campaign. Mr. Trump has claimed that “thousands upon thousands” of Muslim refugees with a terrorist mind-set have been “pouring into our country” without proper security screening.

The administration was spurred to action by a refugee crisis whose dimensions were driven home to the public in September, when newspapers published a photograph of the drowned corpse of Alan Kurdi, a Syrian toddler whose body washed ashore in Turkey after he and his family were tossed from a raft while attempting to flee to Greece. 

“We had so much pressure to bring Syrians, that we hadn’t done enough for that crisis,” said Anne C. Richard, the assistant secretary of state for population, migration and refugees, who said she had initially questioned whether the target of accepting 10,000 Syrians — part of an overall goal of resettling 85,000 refugees in the United States this year — was feasible. 

The task involves a rigorous set of security screenings and other checks, and an increased effort by the nonprofit groups involved to find new homes for those who are accepted in the United States. 

“We have people and groups in the United States who want us to bring many, many more refugees from around the world, and then we have people who say, ‘Don’t you dare bring a terrorist in,’” Ms. Richard said in an interview. She added: “It takes people and resources. The biggest challenge is to move faster without cutting corners on security.” 

The Paris attacks in November intensified the scrutiny; one of the bombers was found to have had a Syrian passport. Governors in 31 states said they would not accept Syrian refugees, although in many cases they have not been able to bar them, and anti-refugee legislation was introduced in 19 states this year, according to the International Rescue Committee. 

“I’m dismayed that refugees have become a political issue this campaign season — I’m really shocked by it,” Ms. Richard said. “It is a departure from the past, and could potentially harm the program.”

For now, it has not hindered the administration’s efforts quickly integrate a large new stream of Syrians into American communities.

She’s “dismayed”?

Not half as much as the American People are.

Here’s a Million Drachma Question for the writer: Why are the other Middle Eastern Countries not taking them in?

What do they know that we and the Europeans don’t?

I can answer those questions in two little words: “hijrah” and “taqujiyya”.

“Hijrah” refers to the undertaking of a pilgrimage to spread Islam to the World, such as undertaken by Mohammed between Mecca and Medina in 62 A.D., which is referred to as “The Start of the Muslim Era”.

“Taquiyya” is the Muslim Practice of purposeful lying to us “Infidels” in order to further the cause of Islam.

This situation, that Europe is still dealing with, and that we will be facing, with a possible Invasion Force, disguised as “Syrian Refugees”, can be traced back to Obama’s premature evacuation of Iraq.

It is no secret that Barack Hussein Obama is a vain and petulant man. It is also no secret that he was a Far Left Radical in his collegiate days and his early political career, only moving to the middle of the political spectrum while he was campaigning for the presidency.

Obama’s defense for America admitting undocumented and un-vetted Syrian “Refugees”, who have, literally, as documented, torn apart Europe, is the scolding comment, which he makes time and time again,

That’s not who we are.

“We” who, Mr. President?

Americans have been aware, for the last 7 years, that there is a great disconnect between the citizens of the United States and their president. It’s not just his stand-offish behavior. There’s something else going on.

He was not raised like the majority of Americans.

He didn’t have rubber dart gun wars in the neighborhood backyards. He didn’t play Nerf football in the front yards. He didn’t go to Vacation Bible School. I don’t know if he was ever told to stand with his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance.

It is this disconnect that is at the heart of the distrust that Americans have experienced and are experiencing, regarding the Presidency of Barack Hussein Obama.

Hope and Change have turned into despair and disbelief. Obama has never understood the shared values of average Americans, because the people who raised him did not share those values, either. It is the concern that we feel for one another, that shared American value system, that has caused a great awakening.

Allow me to tell you who “we”, the average Americans, who have been watching you tear OUR country apart for the last 7 years, are, Mr. President.

We are the men and women, who landed on the shores of an unknown, uncivilized land, in order to be free from a tyrant and, in order to be free to worship the God of Abraham as we pleased.

We are the people who defeated that same tyrant and began a nation that, despite growing pains, and a war which pitted brother against brother, became the Greatest Nation on the Face of God’s Green Earth.

We are that small band of Tennessee Volunteers, who, with Davy Crockett at the Alamo, though hopelessly outnumbered, gave their lives in defense of freedom.

We are the sons and grandsons of those brave men who landed on Normandy Beach, turning the tide of World War II.

We are the people who are the most charitable people on Earth, contributing millions upon millions of our hard-earned money to private and faith-based charities, and, who personally help our family friends, and neighbors out, when disaster strikes…OUT OF THE GOODNESS OF OUR HEARTS, NOT PRESIDENTIAL DECREE.
.
We have taken in millions of immigrants, who came here legally, to start a new life in this blessed land, eager to assimilate into the American Way of Life, where, by God’s Grace…and hard work, they , too, could achieve the American Dream.

America is a Nation of Laws, a Constitutional Republic forged from the sacrifices of men and women who loved Liberty and American Freedom more than life itself.

That’s who WE are, President Obama.

President Abraham Lincoln once said,

If once you forfeit the confidence of your fellow-citizens, you can never regain their respect and esteem.

That is the situation that you find yourself in today, Mr. President.

Judging by your past actions, including the clandestine dissemination of the “youths” from Central and South America, who arrived here, parentless, last year, throughout our country, we “average Americans”, do not trust you and your people, when you say that you will “vet” these Syrian “Refugees”.

Especially, since the overwhelming majority of them are well-fit young men with cell phones, who look like soldiers.

And, that is why we and our states’ Governors’ oppose your plans to disseminate these Syrian “Refugees” among us.

And why Americans support Donald J. Trump’s plan to put the breaks on your “Middle Eastern Muslim Relocation Program”.

You wonder why Americans are literally running to gun stores and buying every gun that they can get their hands on?

It’s a matter of SURVIVAL.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Obama: America’s Greatest Gun Salesman

June 27, 2016

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” – the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

The Washington Examiner reports that

Gun sales are on a pace to break last year’s record of more than 23 million, a boon to the U.S. industry and gun stores thanks to election-year worries about gun control and recent terror attacks, according to government figures and experts.

Under Obama, background checks for guns reached 141.4 million through the end of May, amounting to sales of about 52,600 a day, according to the FBI. Last year, the FBI conducted more than 23 million background checks, which are generally used to figure sales of new and used weapons.

Domestically, manufacturers have reported producing about 21,000 guns a day, or more than 46 million in Obama’s first six years in office.

And should Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton continue to best Republican Donald Trump in the polls, sales could hit new highs, according to industry experts.

Joining men in buying guns have been women, youths and now members of the LGBT community, especially after the terrorist slaying of 49 at an Orlando, Fla., gay nightclub this month.

Justin Anderson, marketing director for Hyatt Guns in Charlotte, N.C., one of the nation’s biggest gun shops, said Obama has been great for sales.

“The recent surge in gun buying is based on two variables: fear of government intrusion on Second Amendment rights, and, more importantly, people interested in personal protection,” Anderson told Secrets.

“Our sales have doubled across the board, not just in AR-style rifles, but also in small frame handguns and home defense shotguns. We saw this just after the San Bernardino shooting, as well. More and more people are coming to realize that their personal safety is at risk and their government cannot protect them,” he said, adding:

“This is likely the beginning of a long rise in gun sales leading up the election. Should Hillary Clinton take a significant lead, it will only boost these sales.”

No Doubt.

That is what Liberals have never understood, in their continuous quest to take away the Second Amendment rights of average Americans.

Average Americans will never surrender our Constitutional Right to defend ourselves and our families from enemies foreign and domestic.

What part of the words quote “shall not be infringed” do you Liberals not understand?

Let’s have a “serious conversation” about the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, found in the section known as the “Bill of Rights”.

Why did our Founding Fathers, in all their wisdom, include this Amendment?

Dr. Nelson Lund, Patrick Henry Professor of Constitutional Law and the Second Amendment at George Mason University, wrote the following in an article posted at Heritage.org

The Founding generation mistrusted standing armies. Many Americans believed, on the basis of English history and their colonial experience, that central governments are prone to use armies to oppress the people. One way to reduce that danger would be to permit the government to raise armies (consisting of full-time paid troops) only when needed to fight foreign adversaries. For other purposes, such as responding to sudden invasions or similar emergencies, the government might be restricted to using a militia, consisting of ordinary civilians who supply their own weapons and receive a bit of part-time, unpaid military training.

…Thus, the choice was between a variety of militias controlled by the individual states, which would likely be too weak and divided to protect the nation, and a unified militia under federal control, which almost by definition could not be expected to prevent federal tyranny. This conundrum could not be solved, and the [Constitutional] Convention did not purport to solve it. Instead, the Convention presumed that a militia would exist, but it gave Congress almost unfettered authority to regulate that militia, just as it gave the new federal government almost unfettered authority over the army and navy.

This massive shift of power from the states to the federal government generated one of the chief objections to the proposed Constitution. Anti-Federalists argued that federal control over the militia would take away from the states their principal means of defense against federal oppression and usurpation, and that European history demonstrated how serious the danger was. James Madison, for one, responded that such fears of federal oppression were overblown, in part because the new federal government was structured differently from European governments. But he also pointed out a decisive difference between America and Europe: the American people were armed and would therefore be almost impossible to subdue through military force, even if one assumed that the federal government would try to use an army to do so. In The Federalist No. 46, he wrote:

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes.”

Implicit in the debate between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two shared assumptions: first, that the proposed new constitution gave the federal government almost total legal authority over the army and the militia; and second, that the federal government should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry. The disagreement between Federalists and Anti-Federalists was only over the narrower question of how effective an armed population could be in protecting liberty.

My purpose in reviewing history is quite simple:

Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it.

Make no mistake, if President Barack Hussein Obama had his way, we would live in a country comprised of restrictive gun laws, which would be modeled after those in Europe.

And, as recent events have plainly shown, those restrictive gun laws have allowed Islamic Terrorists to kill innocent people unchallenged, because none of those innocent people were allowed to carry a weapon with which to defend themselves.

In fact, in some cases, even the police officers, who first arrived on the scene, were unarmed, and had to call for additional forces, thus giving the perpetrators more time to murder and maim the innocent.

One of our Founding Fathers, Dr. Benjamin Franklin, once wrote,

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

Like Dr. Franklin and the rest of those who have fought for our freedom, average Americans realize what Modern American Liberals, including the President, do not.

Until He Comes,

KJ

“Sit-In For Gun Control”: House Democrats Throw a Temper Tantrum

June 23, 2016

13516569_10209863721412925_3388329507464984337_n

“There are those in America today who have come to depend absolutely on government for their security. And when government fails they seek to rectify that failure in the form of granting government more power. So, as government has failed to control crime and violence with the means given it by the Constitution, they seek to give it more power at the expense of the Constitution. But in doing so, in their willingness to give up their arms in the name of safety, they are really giving up their protection from what has always been the chief source of despotism — government.” – Ronald Wilson Reagan

The New York Times reports that

A Democratic protest demanding votes on gun-control legislation led to pandemonium in the House chamber that did not end until early Thursday, when Speaker Paul D. Ryan and his fellow Republicans reclaimed control long enough to force through a major spending bill. They then abruptly adjourned and left the Capitol.

Furious Democrats remained on the House floor, where they huddled around their leader, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, who praised their stand as a “discussion heard around the world.”

Ms. Pelosi expressed bewilderment at the Republican position. “What could they be thinking?” she asked. “Whatever it is, they don’t want to tell anybody about it. That’s why they left in the dead of night.”

The standoff, which began with a Democratic sit-in on the House floor just before noon on Wednesday, did not end until about 3 a.m. Thursday when Mr. Ryan — barreling over Democrats’ objections — took the rare and provocative step of calling a vote on a major appropriations bill in the wee hours and without any debate. He then adjourned the House, with no legislative votes scheduled until July 5.

The House approved the bill, which includes $1.1 billion in emergency financing to fight the mosquito-borne Zika virus — and more than $80 billion in other government spending — by a vote of 239 to 171 shortly after 3 a.m.

Republicans dashed from the chamber into the sticky heat gripping Washington and were met by protesters who jeered, with some shouting, “Do your job!”

Earlier, as Democrats fought for control of the floor, they pressed against the speaker’s dais, waving signs with the names of gun victims and chanting “No bill! No break!” as Mr. Ryan repeatedly banged his gavel in an attempt to restore order.

When Mr. Ryan left the speaker’s chair, Democrats shouted: “Shame! Shame! Shame!”

There were scenes of chaos across the floor as Republicans tried to resume regular business. At one point, Democrats began singing “We Shall Overcome” — altering the lyrics to say “We shall pass a bill some day” — as Republicans shouted in outrage.

And when Representative Don Young, Republican of Alaska, tried to confront the chanting Democrats, he was restrained by aides and colleagues.

The unusual events were set off with the sit-in before noon when Democrats insisted on taking votes on gun measures before Congress began its weeklong recess for the Fourth of July.

“We will not leave the floor of this House until this Congress takes action!” Representative Kathy D. Castor, Democrat of Florida, declared.

Democrats — who do not have enough strength in either the House or Senate to pass legislation on their own — have resorted to spectacle to highlight their anger over Congress not taking action to tighten the nation’s gun-control law.

Why are the House Democrats doing this?

Are they having some sort of LSD flashback to their Collegiate days, during which they barricaded the college Dean’s office and smoked dope?

Perhaps, they believe that if they sit long enough John Lennon and George Harrison will rise from their graves and the Beatles will show up and lead them in a rousing chorus of “All We Are Saying is Give Peace a Chance.”

More than likely, they believe that the spineless Republican Elite will cave in to their demands simply because they are throwing an adult temper tantrum.

As I have been reading on Facebook Political Pages, these Congressional Democrats , including their presumptive presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and those who have donned brown shirts and who are in lockstep with them, erroneously believe that Americans want their 2nd Amendment rights taken away from them or somehow modified, as a feel-good measure that will do nothing to prevent Radical Islamists from slaughtering us.

The Americans whom I see carrying their pistols strapped to their hip in Walmart down here in Mississippi, where Open Carry is legal, would fervently disagree with them.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution does not just apply to the Bodyguards of Modern American Liberals.

If some of those Americans in Orlando at that night club in which Omar Mateen murdered 49 of them and wounded 53 others, had been carrying, his planned slaughter would have been stopped very quickly.

Perhaps, even before it began.

This unseemly adult temper tantrum that the house Democrats are throwing is not one of sympathy for the American people. They could care less what we think.

These are the same people that smile like Chessshire Cats when they think about the yanking of over a million American babies a year out of their mothers wombs.

No, boys and girls, this is all about illusion and control.

Democrats know that Donald J. Trump is about to win the presidency in November in a political landslide.

This demonstration is an illusion created to attempt to convince the American people that the majority of us are for restricting our 2nd Amendment rights for the express purpose of eventually taking away our guns and our means to defend ourselves from enemies foreign and domestic.

Unfortunately, for these overage immature hippies in the House of Representatives, they are fooling no one.

The overwhelming majority Americans have no wish to be defenseless.

Those of us who have learned from history remember the words of Marxist Revolutionary Vladimir Lenin:

One man with a gun can control 100 without one.

We, like our Founding Fathers, have no wish to be “controlled”.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Hillary Slams Trump For Anti-Gun Control Stance Which “Threatens Children”. Lenin Smiles.

May 23, 2016

untitled (62)One man with a gun can control 100 without one. – Vladimir Lenin

The Washington Post reports that

A day after Donald Trump told people at the National Rifle Association that Hillary Clinton would strip away their right to bear arms, the Republican seemed to suggest on social media that his opponent, who he thinks totes a hard line on gun control, should disarm her Secret Service team.

“Crooked Hillary wants to get rid of all guns and yet she is surrounded by bodyguards who are fully armed,” Trump tweeted Saturday morning. “No more guns to protect Hillary!”

While accepting an NRA endorsement Friday at the group’s annual convention, Trump turned his attention to Clinton’s stance on guns, claiming that the Democratic front-runner wants to “abolish the Second Amendment.”

Trump went on to say that Clinton, if elected, would release violent criminals from prison into an unarmed and vulnerable society.

“Hillary wants to disarm vulnerable Americans in high-crime neighborhoods,” Trump said. “Whether it’s a young single mom in Florida or a grandmother in Ohio, Hillary wants them to be defenseless, wants to take away any chance they have of survival. … And that’s why we’re going to call her ‘Heartless Hillary.’ ”

Meanwhile,

Hillary Clinton accused Donald Trump of pandering to the gun lobby in a speech to a conference Saturday, organized by the Trayvon Martin Foundation to help families of gun violence victims, warning the audience about a Trump presidency that would put more children “at risk of violence and bigotry.”

Clinton spoke one day after presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said that she “wants to abolish the Second Amendment.”

Donald Trump’s gun policies are “not just way out there” but “dangerous” and would make America less safe, Hillary Clinton said Saturday.

“This is someone running to be president of the United States of America — a country facing a gun violence epidemic — and he’s talking about more guns in our schools, he’s talking about more hatred and division in our streets,” the likely Democratic presidential nominee said of her presumptive Republican rival. “That’s no way to keep us safe.”

…The conference was led by Sybrina Fulton, whose 17-year-old son, Trayvon Martin, was fatally shot by neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman in 2012. She has campaigned with Clinton during the Democratic presidential primaries.

Isn’t it amazing how Liberals leave out the fact that Zimmerman shot him as Trayvon was slamming his head into the sidewalk, attempting to kill him?

But, I digress…

So, what has Trump proposed that “threatens children”?

Just this:

The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period.

The Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right that belongs to all law-abiding Americans. The Constitution doesn’t create that right – it ensures that the government can’t take it away. Our Founding Fathers knew, and our Supreme Court has upheld, that the Second Amendment’s purpose is to guarantee our right to defend ourselves and our families. This is about self-defense, plain and simple.

It’s been said that the Second Amendment is America’s first freedom. That’s because the Right to Keep and Bear Arms protects all our other rights. We are the only country in the world that has a Second Amendment. Protecting that freedom is imperative.

The simple fact is, like Marxist Theory itself, Gun Control has never worked, wherever it has been tried.

Gun Control has not stopped the criminals from getting Guns in the UK. What makes Hillary think that more regulations are going to accomplish what the UK has not?

Are Liberals like Hillary so full of themselves that they think that, since they are the “smartest people in the room”, that failed methods will actually work this time?

Is she, like Obama before her, just saying something to be saying something, in order to save face with her Far Left supporters?

Or, is it something more malevolent than just everyday politics?

Here’s a quote From the 2012 Presidential Campaign, courtesy of an organization that, no doubt, backs Hillary all the way with her Gun Confiscation efforts…

…the right-wing extremists opposing all efforts to curb gun violence are the same forces that rallied behind Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, hoping to undermine every other democratic right as well as the living standards of workers and ordinary Americans. It is for that reason, as well as the need to protect public safety, that the same coalition of labor and its allies that worked so hard and effectively to re-elect President Barack Obama must now go all-out to back his common sense proposals for gun law reform.

As Obama has charged, the extremists recklessly “gin up fear” that the government is coming to take away hunting rifles and personal weapons owned for legitimate self-defense. Led by the hate-mongering leadership of the National Rifle Association, they use a totally fraudulent and only very recent interpretation of the Second Amendment which they falsely claim as necessary for protecting every other freedom contained in the Bill of Rights.

One of their unhinged spokesmen, Texas talk show host Alex Jones, launched a national petition drive to deport CNN commentator Piers Morgan for questioning the Second Amendment. Jones said the amendment “isn’t there for duck hunting. It’s there to protect us from tyrannical government and street thugs,” and then went on to threaten insurrection “if you try to take our firearms.”

Actually, the Second Amendment wasn’t enacted with any of these things in mind. The amendment was adopted as a means to enable the new American republic, lacking a standing army or state national guards, to muster militia to put down domestic uprisings, including slave revolts, to repulse any attempted return by the British and to deal with clashes with Native Americans on the expanding frontier.

These issues vanished long ago. The Second Amendment is obsolete and now has been twisted to threaten the basic safety and security of all Americans. There is no basis for claiming this amendment was intended to permit unregulated personal acquisition of firearms, including amassing military weapons and private arsenals for “protection” from the government. No government, especially one that is new and fragile, has ever authorized citizens to arm themselves against it.

The preceding quote actually comes from peoplesworld.org, the website of Communist Party USA.

As I have chronicled, over the last few years, this Gun Confiscation Movement, that Obama, and now Hilary, are so hell-bent on implementing comes right out of the playbook of Marx and Lenin.

There is one thing that Hillary, like Obama before her, is not taking into account, however…

Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today’s world do not have. – Ronald Reagan

And, that is why attempts by Liberals like Hillary Clinton, and Barack Hussein Obama before her, to control our freedoms, fail.

It is also why her bid to become President of the United States of America is being rejected by the American Public.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Obama’s DOJ Suing City of Ferguson on Behalf of the Rioters. Welcome to Bizarro World.

February 11, 2016

untitled (28)The longer the reign of King Barack the First drags on, the more I become convinced that we are living in an old Superman Comic Book, stuck in Bizarro World.

USA Today reports that

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department is suing the city of Ferguson in an attempt to forcibly overhaul the city’s troubled police and court operations, Attorney General Loretta Lynch said Wednesday.

The decision comes hours after city leaders sought to revise a long- negotiated settlement, citing prohibitive costs of executing such a deal.

“There is no cost for constitutional policing,” Lynch said late Wednesday.

“Painstaking negotiations lasted more than 26 weeks as we sought to remedy literally years of systematic deficiencies,” she said of the government’s action, which followed a public announcement last month of a tentative agreement that the attorney general described as “both fair and cost-effective . . . Last night, the City Council rejected the consent decree approved by their own negotiators; their decision leaves us no further choice.”

Lynch said the residents of Ferguson have been waiting “decades for justice,” having endured civil rights breaches that established a pattern and practice of racially biased policing .

“I think the city of Ferguson had a real opportunity to step forward here,” a visibly disappointed attorney general said. “Instead, they have chosen to step in the past.”

Earlier Wednesday,  Ferguson Mayor James Knowles signaled that the city was ready to take on the Justice Department in federal court. He defended Ferguson’s unanimous decision to revise the agreement by removing language from the agreement, which local leaders asserted, mandated big raises for police officers.

Local leaders also sought to free the city from its obligations under the agreement should Ferguson seek to shutter the police department altogether and enlist another agency to provide public safety services.

“The ball is in their court,” Knowles said at a hastily called news conference in Ferguson. “We’re sitting and waiting to talk. If they want to threaten legal action, then that’s what they’re threatening.”

The threat became reality within hours of the mayor’s appearance when the Justice lawsuit was filed in a Missouri federal court, alleging local law enforcement conduct routinely violated the Constitution.

“The residents of Ferguson have waited nearly a year for their city to adopt an agreement that would protect their rights and keep them safe,” Lynch said. “They have waited nearly a year for their police department to accept rules that would ensure their constitutional rights and that thousands of other police departments follow every day.”

“I don’t know if I’d characterize it as an absolute agreement in principle,” Knowles said. “Also an agreement in principle doesn’t allow you to assign a numerical value of every piece of the agreement.”

The push to amend the deal comes after Knowles and council members raised concerns it could cost nearly $10 million over the next three years to implement.

The city of 21,000 has a budget of about $14 million and is facing about $2.8 million in debt after the August 2014 police shooting death of an unarmed black teenager, Michael Brown, sparked weeks of sustained and often violent protests. Much of the debt accrued from police overtime during the unrest following Brown’s death and lost tax revenue from businesses destroyed or badly damaged in rioting.

A St. Louis County grand jury declined to indict Darren Wilson, the officer involved in the incident, and the Justice Department said it would not pursue federal civil rights charges against him. But the incident and subsequent protests led Justice to launch a wide-ranging investigation, concluding nearly a year ago that the city’s police and municipal court unfairly targeted African-American residents, who make up about 70% of the population.

Ferguson’s troubles and similar problems in cities across the country prompted a national discussion on police tactics and the appointment of a special White House panel, which in part urged the adoption of new strategies to rebuild a broken trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve.

In Ferguson, city leaders hosted a series of emotionally-charged hearings this month on whether it should ratify the tentative Justice settlement. Some residents urged the City Council to reject the deal and take their chances in court. Others favored the agreement as a way for the city to regain the trust of a wary African-American community.

Wesley Bell, a Ferguson council member, said members of the council felt it was important present their concerns about the costs of implementing the deal. He said the amendments to the agreement were not meant to be a “take it or leave it” offer.

“We hope the Justice Department is willing to sit down and talk to us and continue negotiations,” Bell said. “If this case goes to court, it will not be because of the city of Ferguson.”

Proponents of Justice agreement noted that fighting a legal battle would be costly and could prove more expensive in the long-term than settling now. Knowles disputed that notion Wednesday, saying the city’s analysis shows “the agreement, as it currently stands, will cost more to implement than it would be to fight a lawsuit.”

“Substantially more,” Knowles added.

Meanwhile, in my Hometown of Memphis, TN, 4 Black Americans died yesterday, killed by other Black Americans.

And, this past month, in the Windy City of Chicago, which has some of the strictest Gun Control Laws in the nation, newsmax.com reports that

Chicago’s homicide rate jumped to a 15-year high in January after authorities recorded 51 murders in the first month of the year.

The homicide increase was a sharp rise from the 29 murders reported in January 2015, and 20 in 2013, according to USA Today. Overall, there were 241 shooting incidents in  January, an increase from 119 such incidents last year.

The “unacceptable increase in violence was driven primarily by gang conflicts and retaliatory violence,” said Chicago’s interim police superintendent, John Escalante, according to the Chicago Sun-Times. 

Well, I realize that I’m just an ig’nant old cracka’, living down here in the Bible Belt, but, it occurs to me that if the Ferguson, New York City., and Baltimore Rioters, murders, and other assorted lawbreakers  (paid and unpaid…thank you, George Soros) had jobs, they would not have been “so mistreated ” at the hands of those mean ol’ Police Officers (White, Black, Asian, and Hispanic).

So, perhaps the President of the United States should focus his attention to giving “his people” (who are actually supposed to be all of us) educational training and the cultural impetus to exercise personal responsibility, in order to gain employment, be men and women, support their families, and thrive as Americans.

A few years ago, I worked at our county’s State Employment Center Office.

While at the Employment Office, I was able to observe Americans, both Black and White, down on their luck, struggling to find work and survive in this economy. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of “unemployed ” who came to this particular office were Black.

I saw Black American Families whose existence living on the Government Dole, had become generational.

It is these people whom Obama and the Democrats have hypnotized into believing that Uncle Sugar loves them, and is their only solution to surviving a stifling existence.

They are so, so wrong.

The strength and vitality of America does not come from the benevolence of a Nanny-state Federal Government.

As the greatest American President of my lifetime, Ronald Reagan said:

The nine words you never want to hear are: I’m from the Government and I’m here to help.

Being enslaved to the Government Dole steals one’s ambition. It takes away any impetus or desire to create a better life for yourself and your family, to challenge yourself to pick yourself up by your bootstraps and pursue the American Dream. It makes you reliant on a politically motivated spider’s web full of government bureaucrats who view you and your family as job security.

I watched American citizens trapped in this web of government bureaucracy, so numbed of any initiative that they once had, that they seemed offended that they actually had to prove that they inquired about three jobs that week in order to keep their “benefits”. Others seemed puzzled that they had to search through the state data base and pick out a job that they wanted to talk to an interviewer about receiving a referral to, and weren’t just simply handed a job when they walked through the door.

Instead of moving forward, by exercising the self-reliance that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. preached so well, these people I saw, were content on being “taken care of” by Uncle Sugar, as if being held down by their own poor, miserable circumstance, was a good thing.

Dr. King, I am sorry to tell you that racism and injustice is still going on in America. Unfortunately, it will not end any time soon, There are two many race-baiters profiting off of it.

Including, the President of the United States.

The part of your magnificent speech about “the content of their character” has been purposefully ignored by the professional race-baiters and assorted politicians (but, I repeat myself) for the entire 7 years that the “Firt Post-Racial President” has been in office.

Dr. King, your call for self-reliance took a back seat to the self-serving agenda of Professional Race-Baiters, such as “Community Organizers” and Politicians, a long time ago.

And, those who sacrifice themselves, while serving and protecting us on the streets of America everyday, make convenient scapegoats, for the Political Failure of the Great Society.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Little White Lies, Bald-Faced Lies, and Hillary: “I’m For Huge Campaign-Finance Reform”…Except in the Clinton Foundation

January 18, 2016

untitled (19)There is a very logical reason that the Main Stream Media, in cooperation with the Democrat Party, is scheduling the Democrat President Primary Candidate Debates late on Weekend Nights:

Familiarity breeds contempt.

Late last night, hidden in the abyss of Sunday Television Programming at 9:00 p.m. Center, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Bernie Sanders, And Martin O’Malley (Who!), , took the stage in South Carolina for another Democrat Presidential Democrat Candidate Debate.

…which, once again, ended early.

Even politicians can blatantly lie for just so long, I suppose.

For example…

SANDERS: “We need someone with the guts to stand up the private insurance companies and all of their money, and the pharmaceutical industry. That’s what this debate should be about.” 

CLINTON: “Well, as someone who, as someone who has a little bit of experience standing up to the health-insurance industry, that spent — you know, many, many millions of dollars attacking me and probably will so again because of what I believe we can do, building on the Affordable Care Act — I think it’s important to point out that there are a lot of reasons we have the health-care system we have today. I know how much money influences the political decision-making. That’s why I’m for huge campaign-finance reform. However, we started a system that had private health insurance. And even during the Affordable Care Act debate, there was an opportunity to vote for what was called the public option. In other words, people could buy-in to Medicare, and when the Democrats were in charge of the Congress, we couldn’t get the votes for that. So, what I’m saying is really simple, this has been the fight of the Democratic Party for decades. We have the Affordable Care Act. Let’s make it work. Let’s take the models that states are doing. We now have driven costs down to the lowest they’ve been in 50 years. Now we’ve got to get individual costs down. That’s what I’m planning to do.”

Liar, liar…pantsuit on fire!

On April 18, 2015, The Wall Street Journal reported that

The board of the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation has decided to continue accepting donations from foreign governments, primarily from six countries, even though Hillary Clinton is running for president, a summary of the new policy to be released Thursday shows.

The rules would permit donations from Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and the U.K.—countries that support or have supported Clinton Foundation programs on health, poverty and climate change, according to the summary.

That means other nations would be prohibited from making large donations to the foundation. But those governments would be allowed to participate in the Clinton Global Initiative, a subsidiary of the foundation where companies, nonprofit groups and government officials work on solutions to global problems.

Ministers from any government would be allowed to attend meetings and appear on panels at the group’s meetings and their governments would be allowed to pay attendance fees of $20,000.

The new policy, which was designed to address growing concern that the donations would present a conflict of interest for a Hillary Clinton presidency, all but ensures that Mrs. Clinton’s links to the charity will be a feature of the emerging presidential campaign.

Just how dishonest is Hillary Rodham Clinton? She wouldn’t lie about her own family would she?

…I mean, besides Bubba.

Is Michael Moore barred from all buffets in the Continental United States?

On April 23, 2015, I wrote a blog titled, “Foundationgate: There’s Little White Liars, Bold-Faced Lars, Statistical Liars, and Then, There’s the Clintons”.

Here is some pertinent information contained in that blog

NYMag.com reports that

The qualities of an effective presidency do not seem to transfer onto a post-presidency. Jimmy Carter was an ineffective president who became an exemplary post-president. Bill Clinton appears to be the reverse. All sorts of unproven worst-case-scenario questions float around the web of connections between Bill’s private work, Hillary Clinton’s public role as secretary of State, the Clintons’ quasi-public charity, and Hillary’s noncompliant email system. But the best-case scenario is bad enough: The Clintons have been disorganized and greedy.

The news today about the Clintons all fleshes out, in one way or another, their lack of interest in policing serious conflict-of-interest problems that arise in their overlapping roles:

The New York Times has a report about the State Department’s decision to approve the sale of Uranium mines to a Russian company that donated $2.35 million to the Clinton Global Initiative, and that a Russian investment bank promoting the deal paid Bill $500,000 for a speech in Moscow.The Washington Post reports that Bill Clinton has received $26 million in speaking fees from entities that also donated to the Clinton Global Initiative.The Washington Examiner reports, “Twenty-two of the 37 corporations nominated for a prestigious State Department award — and six of the eight ultimate winners — while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State were also donors to the Clinton family foundation.”And Reuters reports, “Hillary Clinton’s family’s charities are refiling at least five annual tax returns after a Reuters review found errors in how they reported donations from governments, and said they may audit other Clinton Foundation returns in case of other errors.”

The Clinton campaign is batting down the darkest and most conspiratorial interpretation of these stories, and where this all leads remains to be seen. But the most positive interpretation is not exactly good.

When you are a power couple consisting of a former president and a current secretary of State and likely presidential candidate, you have the ability to raise a lot of money for charitable purposes that can do a lot of good. But some of the potential sources of donations will be looking to get something in return for their money other than moral satisfaction or the chance to hobnob with celebrities. Some of them want preferential treatment from the State Department, and others want access to a potential future Clinton administration. To run a private operation where Bill Clinton will deliver a speech for a (huge) fee and a charity that raises money from some of the same clients is a difficult situation to navigate. To overlay that fraught situation onto Hillary’s ongoing and likely future government service makes it all much harder.

And yet the Clintons paid little to no attention to this problem. Nicholas Confessore described their operation as “a sprawling concern, supervised by a rotating board of old Clinton hands, vulnerable to distraction and threatened by conflicts of interest. It ran multimillion-dollar deficits for several years, despite vast amounts of money flowing in.” Indeed, as Ryan Lizzareported in 2012, Bill Clinton seemed to see the nexus between his role and his wife’s as a positive rather than a negative:

Regardless of Bill Clinton’s personal feelings about Obama, it didn’t take him long to see the advantages of an Obama Presidency. More than anyone, he pushed Hillary to take the job of Secretary of State. “President Clinton was a big supporter of the idea,” an intimate of the Clintons told me. “He advocated very strongly for it and arguably was the tie-breaking reason she took the job.” For one thing, having his spouse in that position didn’t hurt his work at the Clinton Global Initiative. He invites foreign leaders to the initiative’s annual meeting, and her prominence in the Administration can be an asset in attracting foreign donors. “Bill Clinton’s been able to continue to be the Bill Clinton we know, in large part because of his relationship with the White House and because his wife is the Secretary of State,” the Clinton associate continued. “It worked out very well for him. That may be a very cynical way to look at it, but that’s a fact. A lot of the stuff he’s doing internationally is aided by his level of access.”

The Obama administration wanted Hillary Clinton to use official government email. She didn’t. The Obama administration alsodemanded that the Clinton Foundation disclose all its donors while she served as Secretary of State. It didn’t comply with that request, either.

The Clintons’ charitable initiatives were a kind of quasi-government run by themselves, which was staffed by their own loyalists and made up the rules as it went along. Their experience running the actual government, with its formal accountability and disclosure, went reasonably well. Their experience running their own privatized mini-state has been a fiasco.

On Jan. 8, 1996, in a still-relevant commentary titled “Blizzard of Lies,” New York Times columnist William Safire described Hillary Clinton as “a congenital liar.”

Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady — a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation — is a congenital liar. Drip by drip, like Whitewater torture, the case is being made that she is compelled to mislead, and to ensnare her subordinates and friends in a web of deceit.

1. Remember the story she told about studying The Wall Street Journal to explain her 10,000 percent profit in 1979 commodity trading? We now know that was a lie told to turn aside accusations that as the Governor’s wife she profited corruptly, her account being run by a lawyer for state poultry interests through a disreputable broker.

She lied for good reason: To admit otherwise would be to confess taking, and paying taxes on, what some think amounted to a $100,000 bribe.

2. The abuse of Presidential power known as Travelgate elicited another series of lies. She induced a White House lawyer to assert flatly to investigators that Mrs. Clinton did not order the firing of White House travel aides, who were then harassed by the F.B.I. and Justice Department to justify patronage replacement by Mrs. Clinton’s cronies.

Now we know, from a memo long concealed from investigators, that there would be “hell to pay” if the furious First Lady’s desires were scorned. The career of the lawyer who transmitted Hillary’s lie to authorities is now in jeopardy. Again, she lied with good reason: to avoid being identified as a vindictive political power player who used the F.B.I. to ruin the lives of people standing in the way of juicy patronage.

3. In the aftermath of the apparent suicide of her former partner and closest confidant, White House Deputy Counsel Vincent Foster, she ordered the overturn of an agreement to allow the Justice Department to examine the files in the dead man’s office. Her closest friends and aides, under oath, have been blatantly disremembering this likely obstruction of justice, and may have to pay for supporting Hillary’s lie with jail terms.

Again, the lying was not irrational. Investigators believe that damning records from the Rose Law Firm, wrongfully kept in Vincent Foster’s White House office, were spirited out in the dead of night and hidden from the law for two years — in Hillary’s closet, in Web Hubbell’s basement before his felony conviction, in the President’s secretary’s personal files — before some were forced out last week.

Why the White House concealment? For good reason: The records show Hillary Clinton was lying when she denied actively representing a criminal enterprise known as the Madison S.& L., and indicate she may have conspired with Web Hubbell’s father-in-law to make a sham land deal that cost taxpayers $3 million.

Why the belated release of some of the incriminating evidence? Not because it mysteriously turned up in offices previously searched. Certainly not because Hillary Clinton and her new hang-tough White House counsel want to respond fully to lawful subpoenas.

One reason for the Friday-night dribble of evidence from the White House is the discovery by the F.B.I. of copies of some of those records elsewhere. When Clinton witnesses are asked about specific items in “lost” records — which investigators have — the White House “finds” its copy and releases it. By concealing the Madison billing records two days beyond the statute of limitations, Hillary evaded a civil suit by bamboozled bank regulators.

Another reason for recent revelations is the imminent turning of former aides and partners of Hillary against her; they were willing to cover her lying when it advanced their careers, but are inclined to listen to their own lawyers when faced with perjury indictments.

Therefore, ask not “Why didn’t she just come clean at the beginning?” She had good reasons to lie; she is in the longtime habit of lying; and she has never been called to account for lying herself or in suborning lying in her aides and friends.

No wonder the President is fearful of holding a prime-time press conference. Having been separately deposed by the independent counsel at least twice, the President and First Lady would be well advised to retain separate defense counsel.

The late, great William Safire was a prophet.

The revelation contained in today’s blog should come as no surprise to anyone who has been paying attention.

Lying comes as naturally to The Former First Lady as breathing in and out.

As I have written, from the time she was fired from the Watergate Investigative Committee to wiping her private e-mail server, Hillary Rodham Clinton has been as crooked as a dog’s hind leg.

Machiavellian in political ambition and armed with a vocabulary that would make the legendary Gong Show Judge, Jaye P. Morgan, blush (look her up, kids), “the Hildebeast” has cut a wide swatch in her path to Political Power.

It should be obvious to Americans by now, that she believes that morality and ethics are for “the little people” (i.e., you and me).

We already have a congenital liar in the White House.

We certainly do not need another one.

Oh…and Ambassador Christopher Stevens remains unavailable for comment.

Until He Comes,

KJ