Border-related media hyperventilation (or not)


First, the events the media is hyperventilating over

U.S. closes Mexican border crossing, repels some migrants with tear gas

Reuters slanted the reporting of an illegal alien attack on Border agents so that the aggressors seemed to become the victims.

U.S. authorities shut the country’s busiest border crossing and fired tear gas into Mexico on Sunday to repel Central American migrants approaching the border after U.S. President Donald Trump vowed the asylum-seekers would not easily enter the country.

The Mexican government said it had retaken control of the border crossing after nearly 500 migrants tried to cross the U.S. border “in a violent manner,” and vowed to immediately deport Central Americans who attempt to enter the United States illegally.

(Read more at Reuters)

As someone who has seen the commerce that crosses the border both ways continuously, I don’t welcome the shutdown of the border. However, in a nation of laws (that is, in a nation that doesn’t let one class break the law while holding other classes accountable) we need to stick to the law.

The problem is that, from Johnson to George W. Bush, the topic of illegal immigration took a back seat in most political action. Obama (rather than keeping with the law he claimed 22 times not to be able to change), he used memos to establish his DAPA and DACA programs. Now that a Texas lawsuit has paved the way to the end of DAPA, hopefully, a similar fate will meet the other example of presidential fiat. Still, when the dust (or tear gas) settles, will Congress do something? Will they build a wall (other than the walls that surround their gated communities)?

 

12-2obama-tear-gas-migrants-once-month-80-times

The border rushing and tear gas happened in the Obama administration — just not the media hype

Tear gas used once a month at border under Obama

The Washington Times explores in a 26 November 2018 article how the border patrol regularly used tear gas.

The same tear-gas agent that the Trump administration is taking heat for deploying against a border mob this weekend is actually used fairly frequently — including more than once a month during the later years of President Barack Obama’s administration, according to Homeland Security data.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection has used 2-chlorobenzylidene malononitrile, or CS, since 2010, and deployed it 26 times in fiscal 2012 and 27 times in 2013. The use dropped after that, but was still deployed three times in 2016, Mr. Obama’s final full year in office.

Use of CS rose again in fiscal 2017, which was split between Mr. Obama and Mr. Trump, and reached 29 deployments in fiscal 2018, which ended two months ago, according to CBP data seen by The Washington Times.

Border authorities also use another agent, pepper spray, frequently — including a decade-high record of 151 instances in 2013, also under Mr. Obama. Pepper spray, officially known as Pava Capsaicin, was used 43 times in fiscal year 2018, according to the CBP numbers.

The data poses a challenge to the current anger over the Border Patrol’s use of tear gas Sunday to prevent a mob from busting through sections of old border fence in California.

(Read more at The Washington Times)

In addition to the fact that the Obama administration either directed or allowed its border agents to use tear gas as a means of crowd control, there are certain alternative media outlets that have suggested that the tear gas scenes have been staged (refer to the video in the tweet below).

 

If these “tear gas” scenes are nothing but the fabrications of liberal activists, I hope that the alternative media has strong connections with the people.

12-2sandiego

2013: Border Patrol: crowd confronts agents

A 25 November 2013 San Diego Union Tribune article describes a confrontation between border agents and illegal aliens during the Obama administration.

A group of about 100 people trying to illegally cross the border Sunday near the San Ysidro port of entry threw rocks and bottles at U.S. Border Patrol agents, who responded by using pepper spray and other means to force the crowd back into Mexico, federal officials said.

The incident has raised concerns among advocates on both sides of the immigration debate, as well as Border Patrol representatives.

Immigrant-rights groups in San Diego said they didn’t know beforehand about the plan to rush the border, and they worry that desperation is driving homeless deportees to make a bold bid to rejoin their families in the United States.

Border-security groups see this situation as evidence that the border remains unsecured, something they said should be fixed before Congress considers proposals to grant legal status to unauthorized immigrants.

And Border Patrol representatives worry that Sunday’s confrontation could be a political protest, which they said agents want to avoid — especially when it involves the potential for loss of life.

The incident occurred about a quarter-mile west of the San Ysidro border crossing in the Tijuana River channel. No one was seriously injured, no shots were fired and no arrests were made, said Mary Beth Caston, a Border Patrol spokeswoman.
The group first approached a lone agent stationed about 1/8 of a mile north of the border. They ignored his commands to stop, so he fired pepper balls to try to stop them and protect himself, Caston said.

As the crowd kept advancing and throwing rocks and bottles, she said, more agents came to the scene and used other “intermediate use-of-force devices” to push back the group. The agents also contacted Mexican law enforcement.

(Read more at The Washington Times)

 

For the liberals who won’t believe the totals by the Washington Times, please refer to your own San Diego Union Tribune and the PBS in San Diego.

12-2obama-tear-gas-migrants-once-month-80-times

Obama used tear gas at the border, too

A 27 November 2018 National Review article brings up some good points regarding crowd control over the last decade or so.

Making the click-through worthwhile: the Obama administration’s history of using tear gas on the border; the ugly decade for General Motors takes another unexpected turn; the question of whether American voters punish politicians who solve problems instead of rewarding them; and another case of progressive activists focusing on the convenient targets instead of the responsible ones.

From the coverage of the Customs and Border Patrol using tear gas, one could easily be led to believe that this was an unprecedented escalation in tactics from the Trump administration.

Nope

The same tear-gas agent that the Trump administration is taking heat for deploying against a border mob this weekend is actually used fairly frequently — including more than once a month during the later years of President Barack Obama’s administration, according to Homeland Security data.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection has used 2-chlorobenzylidene malononitrile, or CS, since 2010, and deployed it 26 times in fiscal 2012 and 27 times in 2013. The use dropped after that, but was still deployed three times in 2016, Mr. Obama’s final full year in office.

Use of CS rose again in fiscal 2017, which was split between Mr. Obama and Mr. Trump, and reached 29 deployments in fiscal 2018, which ended two months ago, according to CBP data seen by The Washington Times.

Border authorities also use another agent, pepper spray, frequently — including a decade-high record of 151 instances in 2013, also under Mr. Obama. Pepper spray, officially known as Pava Capsaicin, was used 43 times in fiscal year 2018, according to the CBP numbers.

A recent Washington Post article about the use of tear gas by the Border Patrol talks a lot about the Chemical Weapons Convention, the use of poison gas in World War I, and Saddam Hussein’s use of chemical weapons — as if any of that is comparable to the use of tear gas. The Chemical Weapons Convention explicitly says, “Riot control agents may not be used as a method of warfare but may be used for certain law enforcement purposes including riot control.”

As Mr. Geraghty points out in this National Review piece, this is all about seeing that the crowds of “migrants” do not get stopped by anything as inconsequential as a border.

For information on the group supporting the invasion, I suggest reading The people behind the Mexican “caravan” by Bunkerville.

12-2cartel

Things the media should just discuss – violence South of the border

2018: Mexican cartels viscously attack the weak

Audio: Mexican Cartel Gunmen Execute Passengers After Car Chase

When Nancy Pelosi asks what we could fear about illegal immigrants, we might want to refer her to a 21 November 2018 Breitbart article covering the cartel’s murder of the passengers of a truck they had chased. Except for the fact that the cartels play a large part in bringing illegals to America — something that won’t change no matter how lax the Democrats make our laws — this shouldn’t matter to Americans. However, since not enforcing our border (the way the Democrats want) invites them in, they and the following story should be on our minds.

Therefore, consider this story as it was related by Breitbart

A group of cartel gunmen in the Mexican border state of Sonora opened fire on a truck they were pursuing, causing a crash. The attackers rushed to the scene to finish off the passengers on Sunday.

A group of gunmen opened fire during a high-speed chase of another vehicle in Cajeme, causing the truck to lose control and flip over, according to local reports. The gunmen then approached the vehicle and opened fire on the defenseless occupants–killing two and wounding two others, according to eyewitnesses. An audio recording of a call to authorities was on Facebook.

(Read more at Breitbart)

Most would think that the media would inform us of an impending danger on our Southern border. However, it does not fit their narrative of compassion for certain poorly-defined groups (which I could fall into due to my olive-colored skin).

Still, since we live in a world where the media sacrifices safety to their god of social justice and political correctness, we can only take note and hope for an eventual reaction in the populace.

12-2kill3

Things the media should just discuss – imported murderers

Illegal immigrant killed 3 after ‘sactuary’ release from custody

A 11 November 2018 Fox News article details a murder of three that did not have to happen except for the Democrat concept of “sanctuary” cities.

An illegal immigrant accused of a triple murder in Missouri was previously jailed and released in New Jersey on domestic violence charges, authorities said, putting the spotlight on the conflict between local and immigration authorities nationwide.

Luis Rodrigo Perez, 23, a native of Mexico, is charged with fatally shooting two men and wounding two others on Nov. 1 and fatally shooting a woman the next day.

He was being held on domestic violence charges at the Middlesex County Jail in New Jersey in December 2017 and was released in February, NJ.com reported.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials said they placed a detainer on Perez while he was in custody, but the request was not honored nor was the agency notified when he was let go, said Corey Price, acting executive director of ICE.

(Read more at Fox News)

Although most of us would like to pretend that this happens rarely, truth tells us that MS 13 has been among us from Houston to Boston for years — while more try to stream in among the invaders of the “caravan”.

12-2horrific

Illegal kills man in ‘horrific’ hit and run

As recorded by a 2 September 2018 Breitbart article, one illegal alien killed a North Carolina man in a hit-and-run accident.

Neri Damian Cruz-Carmona, a 26-year-old illegal alien, allegedly left Jamar Rashaun Beach dead on a Raleigh, North Carolina street after he hit the man and fled the scene of the accident, according to police.

Cruz-Carmona turned left in his Honda car and failed to yield the right of way, hitting Beach on his motorcycle and killing him, police say. Following the crash, the illegal alien fled the scene, according to police, leaving Beach dead.

(Read more at Breitbart)

As mentioned in previous posts, I have noted that Christians have a duty to protect the weak (Psalm 82:3; Proverbs 31:8-9; Isaiah 1:17; and other verses — such as those listed at this post’s end) and encourage people to obey the law (Romans 13:1-5; Titus 3:1; 1 Peter 2:13-17; and many other verses).

To further these goals, we must support lawmakers (and laws) that first protect our poor and secondly reward the helping of the poor (wherever they find themselves). Finally, as a nation of laws, we must encourage obedience to the law (until that law can be fully demonstrated to contradict God’s law).

12-2bicyclistkiller

Illegal immigrant kills teen bicyclist in hit-and-run

An 18 June 2018 Daily Caller article reported on the senseless loss of a high school student at the hands of a drunk illegal.

An illegal immigrant was charged on Thursday after killing a high school teen in a hit-and-run in Michigan.

Miguel A. Ibarra Cerda, a 21-year-old Mexican national who was working at a Burrito King in the area, pleaded not guilty to reckless driving causing death and leaving the scene of a fatal accident.

Cerda, driving a Honda Odyssey minivan, struck 14-year-old Justin Lee as the teen was riding his bicycle. Credo was reportedly driving in excess of speed limits and was on the wrong side of the road when he hit Lee. Witnesses say he sped off immediately after the accident.

Police tracked down and arrested Cerda in Lansing, Michigan, and they believe he was trying to get back to Mexico.

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

Was this illegal alien only committing the crimes that Americans were unwilling to commit?

12-2fbi

Illegal immigrant kills FBI agent and fire marshall, gets only $280 fine, not required to show up in court

According to an 8 July 2018 BizPackReview article, an illegal killed an FBI agent and fire marshall and got away with a slap on the wrist.

An illegal immigrant from Guatemala avoided jail after being convicted of negligent driving for driving for hitting and killing an FBI agent and a fire marshal standing on the side of a highway.

Roberto Garza Palacios, 28, who overstayed his visa, was instead ordered to pay a $280 fine for killing Deputy Chief State Fire Marshal Sander Cohen and FBI Special Agent Carlos Wolff in December, the Washington Post reported.

(Read more at BizPackReview)

12-2teargas1

Bible verses mentioned

On protecting the weak

Vindicate the weak and fatherless; Do justice to the afflicted and destitute.
(Psalm 82:3 NASB)

Open your mouth for the mute,
For the rights of all the unfortunate.
Open your mouth, judge righteously,
And defend the rights of the afflicted and needy.
(Proverbs 31:8-9 NASB)

Learn to do good;
Seek justice,
Reprove the ruthless,
Defend the orphan,
Plead for the widow.
(Isaiah 1:17 NASB)

Honor widows who are widows indeed; (1 Timothy 5:3 NASB)

Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.(James 1:27 NASB)


On obeying the governing authorities

Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.  Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake.
(Romans 13:1-5 NASB)

Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good deed, (Titus 3:1 NASB)

Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men. Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God. Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king. (1 Peter 2:13-17 NASB)

Government control over your right (or your loved one’s right) to live


The Alfie Evans case shows how government should not control health decisions

The following timeline has been excerpted from a more detailed timeline provided by Sky News.

Date Event
9 May 2016 Alfie Evans is born.
14 December 2016 Alfie is admitted to Alder Hey Children’s Hospital for seizures.
1 February 2018 Alder Hey Children’s Hospital lawyers tell the High Court that further treatment of Alfie is unkind and inhumane.
16 April 2018 Alfie’s parents argue he is being wrongfully detained at Alder Hey. The courts rule against them.
18 April 2018 Alfie’s father flies to Rome, meets the Pope, and begs the Pope to intervene.
23 April 2018 Alfie is granted Italian citizenship.
24 April 2018 Doctors are surprised that Alfie continues to live 9 hours after life support is removed.
25 April 2018 Alfie loses his appeal in the High Court. He can be taken home, but not abroad.
28 April 2018 Alfie dies during the early morning hours.

In response to a review of these events, I have to ask:

  1. Who acts as the primary protector of the child:
    • The parents or the government (be they clothed in court robes) or the
    • The parents or the government (be they clothed in doctor’s coats)?
  2. Why is it the government’s interest where the parents and child go?
  3. If the hospital feared the public losing confidence in their care, why didn’t they:

    Rather, why did a hospital that feared losing public confidence:

Furthermore, in response to the reports:

  1. That our close ally in the fight for Democracy has started to act more like a protege of Stalin
    • Maybe America needs to remind Britain of the values of various freedoms mentioned by John Locke
  2. That supporters of Alfie had threatened the hospital staff with harm and death
    • Nobody can truly support life with threats of death.

      for the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God. (James 1:20 NASB)

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

George Pickering II protects George Pickering III from a premature organ donation

As reported by a Houston ABC article dated 16 April 2016, the persistence of a father helped his son from death.

A father claims he was trying to stop hospital staff from ending his son’s life when he caused a stand-off at Tomball Regional Hospital. On Friday, that father faces a judge for charges related to the January incident, but for the first time, he’s speaking publicly about his actions.

George Pickering called ABC-13, wanting to tell his side of the story. He insists he is just a grieving father who never planned to hurt anyone.

In January, Pickering pulled a gun on a nurse tending to his son inside Tomball Regional Hospital.

“I had no intentions of hurting anybody,” he said.

His son was in intensive care, he says, after suffering the latest in what he thought was a series of seizures. When he was told his son had been placed on life support and would soon be taken off, investigators say he became belligerent and ordered the nurse and everyone else out of the room.

“I brandished a pistol and I told them to get out of the room. I told them it was my time, my time to be with my son,” Pickering said.

Pickering said he brought the gun because he was going to kill himself if his son was going to die.

Another of his son’s wrestled the gun away. But he claimed still to have another weapon. A SWAT team was called in and Pickering says he prayed with his son, still on life support.

“I ended up holding my son’s hand telling him to squeeze my hand. ‘Squeeze my hand son, squeeze my had,’ and he did that three to four times during the time,” Pickering said.

Finally after four hours, Pickering surrendered. But he says it bought enough time to prove his son should live.

Pickering says his son is alive today because of this, though he apparently has some cognitive issues.

Although George Pickering II was drunk and should not (from a legal standpoint) pulled that gun on nurses, his actions did prevent the plug from being pulled on his son. At that point, he was the only person standing up for his son. Had he not pulled the gun, life support would have been shut off, organs would have been harvested, and his son would not have recovered (as shown in the video below).

Michael Berry interview of George Pickering

For those who would like to listen rather than watch a video, here is an accounting of a father who stepped up when his son needed to be protected.

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fktrhnews%2Fposts%2F10156651487352345&width=500

Child abuse in American schools


Activist Mommy: Sex ed, LGBT groups ‘rape kids’ minds’

According to a 10 April 2018 OneNewsNow article, a grass-roots movement has set a date to stand against a consortium of sex-rights groups that have targeted our elementary schools:

Conservative activist Elizabeth Johnston, more widely known as the “Activist Mommy,” is waging a war against the graphic and comprehensive sex education taught in America’s schools – stressing that LGBT groups are partially responsible for the teaching that is perverting the minds of tens of millions of students.

With more than half a million Facebook fans, the concerned parent is looking to incite other parents and alarm citizens from coast to coast to join her campaign and help put an end to the over-sexualization of America’s youth.

“Johnston … is so irate over the notion that public schools could begin teaching what she considers reckless sexual behaviors and inclusive gender studies that she’s attempting to launch a nationwide protest – ‘Sex Ed Sit-Out’ – against the program to take place on April 23,” TheBlaze reported. “In a Facebook video that’s received more than 400,000 views, Johnston blasted LGBT groups, which she feels are partially responsible for advancing an anti-family agenda in public schools and corrupting the developing minds of young students.”

The conservative activist is flying the banner, “Hands off our kids!” over her campaign so that progressive instruction about “sexuality and sexual orientation” in schools will cease, and she goes on expose the perversions students are being subjected to in classrooms across America – mostly unbeknownst to their parents.

“Children are being taught how to have anal and oral sex, masturbate one another, and question their gender,” Johnston’s campaign warned, according to the United Kingdom’s Pink News. “Say NO to graphic, gender-bending, promiscuity-promoting sex education for our kids.”

(Read more at OneNewsNow)

Since we have some time to prepare for 23 April, this sounds like a chance to:

  1. Protect our kids from perversion
  2. Bond with them as we take the day off to sit out with them
  3. Stand for something that is right

Seven reasons to keep the second amendment


Nick Freitas

Reason #1: Liberals continually move the goal when talking about gun control

As marginally mentioned (and somewhat maligned) in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, on 2 March 2018, Virginia Delegate Nick Freitas delivered the following speech to the Virginia House of Delegates. Through this speech Delegate Freitas covers a number of the reasons that conservatives do not trust those who argue for gun control, despite their insistence that they will hold an “open and honest debate.”

So, over the last several days, Mr. Speaker, there’s been a lot of discussion about an “open and honest debate” with respect to school shootings, gun violence, gun control, etc. An open and honest debate, as I understand it, is one that would rely on data, facts, evidence, analysis, reason, logic, etc., etc. And I’m certainly willing to have that debate.

I think if we were going to look seriously at school shootings and gun control, we would analyze things like “why do all mass shootings seem to take place in gun-free zones?” Wouldn’t it be reasonable to test whether or not the efficacy of gun-free zones have actually achieved what their intended intent is.

We would start to look at most of these shooters coming from broken homes. What sort of government policies have actually encouraged broken homes? You can look at left-leaning think tanks like the Brookings Institute, that will actually say that some of it can be attributed to various cultural changes that happened in the sixties, to include the abortion industry. You can look at a more conservative-leaning organization that will say that the welfare state contributes significantly to dismantling the family, as families became more and more dependent upon the government than they were mothers and fathers in the home raising children.

We can look at various datas with those areas in the United States and around the world that have strict gun control measures, and what their crime rates look like, whether its Chicago, New York City, Washington DC, and others that have incredibly strict gun laws, and yet for some reason haven’t seemed to stop the gun violence in those particular areas.

We can look at the analysis out of FiveThirtyEight – which is considered more of a left-of-center data analysis think tank – where you have several analysts now who have confirmed through the data that they were looking at — not just the United States, but Canada, Great Britain, and Australia — they were shocked that the data did not support what they thought gun control measures would actually achieve.

We can look at the number of cases within the United States where a gun has been used for self-defense. Estimates range everywhere from 100,000 uses to close to 1,000,000 uses within the United States. Now some organizations and some reporters only want to report on the ones where a gun was used and it actually resulted in the death or maiming of the perpetrator. But if you look at the ones where the gun was used, and the mere presence of a firearm actually dissuaded a criminal from committing an act of violence, an act of rape, an act of murder, the number shoots up. It skyrockets.

So when people on this side talk about the importance of the Second Amendment, please understand it’s not just some base philosophical conviction that we all have. It is rooted in the idea that, while we may be a post-enlightenment society, the vast majority of horrible atrocities that we’ve seen have happened in those post-enlightenment societies. They’ve happened as a result of governments systematically disarming citizens and claiming themselves to be the sole responsible party for their security, and then turning on those same citizens and punishing them. That’s the most egregious cases, but in the individual cases of self-defense, that’s why the people on this side of the aisle hold the Second Amendment in such high esteem. Because we honestly believe that you have an inherent right to defend yourself, and your ability to defend yourself should not be exclusive to your size. Firearms provide someone that is weaker and not as fast the ability to actually to defend themselves from a stronger attacker.

Some of the other things that the would look at, and certainly I would hope we would have bipartisan support for, all of us agree that we need to make sure that our students are better protected when they go to school. One of the things that we would look at is arming certain teachers. Not every teacher. But a teacher that is comfortable with it, is former law-enforcement, is former military, that is now in the classroom. Delegate Plum said yesterday that, that was ridiculous to consider. Why? Is it because the other side of this debate will only accept one “solution” to this problem, and that is tearing apart or gutting the Second Amendment?

And I understand. We’re gonna mention just a couple of the bills that were done this year, right? Background checks, getting rid of bump-stocks? If you’re wanting the other reason why we can’t have an honest debate over this one, it’s because quite frankly, I don’t think any of us on this side of the aisle believe you when you say that’s all you want to do. It’ll be bump-stocks and it’ll be background checks. Then it’ll be different kinds of background checks that register the guns. Then after that it’ll be “we need to ban assault weapons.” What’s an assault weapon? Something that looks scary. Then after that, it’ll be semi-automatic rifles. After that, it’ll be semi-automatic handguns. Then it’ll be revolvers, shotguns. Because when the policies fail to produce the results you are promising to your constituents, you’ll be back with more reasons why we’ve got to infringe on Second Amendment rights.

The other reason why it’s really difficult to have an honest and open debate about this is because of members of this body comparing members on this side of the aisle to Nazis. Members on the other side of the aisle saying that when a 24 year old teacher gets up that the whole debate is between the Second Amendment or her life. That’s a false dilemma.

And quite frankly, one of the ones that I found the most offensive (along with being compared to Nazis) was being compared to segregationists. I just want to remind everyone of something very quickly. It was not our party that supported slavery, that fought women’s suffrage, that rounded up tens of thousands of Asian-Americans and put them in concentration camps, that supported Jim Crow, that supported segregation, or supported mass resistance. That wasn’t our party. That was the Democrat party.

Now I’m thrilled that Democrats no longer believe that. And I don’t believe that a single current member of this body who is a Democrat ever believed those things. But I would really appreciate it if, every time you want to make a powerful point, you don’t project the sins, the atrocities, and the injustices that the Democratic party perpetrated on others, onto us.

So if we want to have an open and honest debate, I am all for that. Let’s do that. But it does start with a certain degree of mutual respect. It starts with a certain degree of not assuming that “the only reason why we believe in the Second Amendment is because the NRA paid us off.” Well if that’s the sort of logic you want to use, why don’t you go take a look at how much money the NRA spends and how much money Planned Parenthood spends. Because when I get up here and I talk about abortion, I don’t assume that you’re all bought and paid for by Planned Parenthood. I don’t assume you’re horrible people because I disagree with you on a policy position. I assume that you have deep convictions and that we can have an argument and a debate about it. But if you’re not willing to reciprocate that level of respect, well don’t be surprised when it becomes more difficult to talk about these things.

Because there is a lot that we can do, and there is a lot that we need to do to ensure the security of our children and our citizens. But yes, we are going to have a problem with so-called “solutions” which infringe on people’s liberty under the promise the government will provide for their security. Because ultimately, in this last school shooting, we had a perfect example of government being engaged over thirty times and still failing to provide security for those students.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As for myself, I was busy with papers when CNN held their dog-and-pony show where Sheriff Israel praised himself and teenaged victims of the Parkland school shooting demonized politicians. However, I did turn to the transcripts and recordings of the meeting until I saw that the show was staged against those who were demonized as the “gun lobby.”

Like many other instances of “debate” over gun rights, this one-sided diatribe against those who use guns (even the majority of us who protect ourselves legally) works to undermine any true debate. Therefore, it stands against reason for us to lay down our second amendment rights just to silence some poorly-thought-out polemics against gun ownership.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Reason #2: “Law enforcement officials” don’t enforce the law

FrontPageMag tells how leftist school policies aided the classroom-to-grave pipeline of Nikolas Cruz

In a 27 February 2018 FrontPageMag article, the link between Obama’s PROMISE program and the Valentine’s Day school shooting are exposed. (The emphasis in bold is mine.)

If the FBI and local law enforcement had followed established policy, the Valentine’s Day murder of 17 high-school students by Nikolas Cruz could very well have been stopped. Gaining less media attention, on the other hand, is the role of educational policies in the total failure to protect the students from a known threat.

As the Sun-Sentinel of Florida’s Broward County reports, Nikolas Cruz “kicked doors, cursed at teachers, fought with and threatened classmates and brought a backpack with bullets to school.” In 2014, administrators transferred Cruz to an alternative school for students with “emotional and behavioral disabilities” but two years later changed course and retuned Cruz to Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. Cruz was banished for disciplinary violations but “never expelled from Broward schools. Legally, he couldn’t be.”

Under federal law, the U.S. Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Nikolas Cruz had a right to a “free and appropriate” education at a public school. As special education lawyer Stephanie Langer told the Sun-Sentinel, “You can’t just kick kids out of the public schools because you are afraid of them, or because they are hard to educate.” In Parkland, Florida, that notion overrode the right of other students to an education free from fear, and as it turned out, deprived them of their right to life as well.

Broward County Schools superintendent Robert Runcie refused to reveal Nikolas Cruz’s school records and told reporters he had no “knowledge” of Cruz’s threats while a student.  As Runcie told the American Prospect in 2013, he sought to close the “racial achievement” gap and noticed a “huge differential in minority students, black male students in particular, in terms of suspensions and arrests.”

Runcie fought against “zero tolerance” policies and implemented a code that “prohibited arrests in some circumstances, and developed alternatives to suspension.” Instead of suspensions, students are referred to the PROMISE program, in which they receive counseling then return to school.

Like other programs aimed at shutting down the “school-to-prison” pipeline, PROMISE aims to help “students of color,” and this opened the door for Nikolas de Jesus Cruz. Under the regime of political correctness, “Latinos” and/or “Hispanics” qualify as people of color, regardless of national origin or skin shade. So Cruz fit the “metrics” of the program and was not arrested.

In his interview with Broward County sheriff Scott Israel, Jake Tapper of CNN noted that in 2013 the local school board opted to pursue the “least punitive means of discipline” instead of arresting students for crimes.

(Read more at FrontPageMag)

So, this Obama-instituted program (PROMISE – Preventing Recidivism through Opportunities, Mentoring, Interventions, Supports & Education) allowed school administrators to decide which crimes got reported. In an effort to slow the school-to-prison pipeline observed by many on the liberal side, they seem to have allowed one bully to open a school-to-grave pipeline for 17 innocent victims. Wouldn’t it have been better to enforce the law against Nikolas Cruz those 45 times he had the police called on him?

Naturally, since the PROMISE program came as part of Obama’s vaunted Race to the Top initiative, it is completely wrapped in rainbows and good intentions, but is it worth another 17 lives? I say “No” and add that this underscores a need for self-protection as guaranteed by the second amendment.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Reason #3: When seconds count, the police are minutes away

And the Ferguson Effect makes it worse

In a 14 February 2018 article at City Journal, the links between inner city violence, recriminations against police, and slow police response time come to the forefront.

New Yorker writer Adam Gopnik purports to care about black lives—except when doing so would violate liberal nostrums. In an essay on the nation’s 20-year crime drop, inspired by New York University sociologist Patrick Sharkey’s new book, Uneasy Peace, Gopnik declares that the “urban crime wave is over.” Anyone who has recently raised an alarum about crime—that would be Donald Trump, of course—is appealing to “preexisting bigotry.” Trump campaigned “against crime and carnage where it scarcely exists,” Gopnik writes, in order to exploit the “fetishistic role” of crime in the racist American imagination.

Let’s look at what Gopnik calls crime that “scarcely exists.” In 2016, candidate Trump spoke repeatedly about the rising bloodshed in inner cities. That year was the second in a two-year, 20-percent increase in the nation’s homicide rate, the largest in nearly half a century. Violent crime overall rose nearly 7 percent in 2015 and 2016—the largest consecutive one-year increases in a quarter-century. Up until 2015, crime had been steadily dropping across the country, thanks to the spread of data-driven, proactive policing and the use of determinate sentencing to lock away violent criminals. But as 2014 drew to a close, that 20-year crime drop stalled and then reversed itself.

The victims of the 2015 and 2016 homicide increase were overwhelmingly black. In 2014, there were 6,095 black homicide victims, according to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports. In 2015, there were 7,039 black homicide victims; in 2016, there were 7,881 black homicide victims. Those 7,881 dead black bodies in 2016 comprised more than half the total homicide victims that year, though blacks are only 13 percent of the population. An additional 2,731 blacks were killed over the course of 2015 and 2016 compared with 2014. To Gopnik, that loss of an additional 2,731 black lives is not worth paying attention to—it “scarcely exists.”

Trump regularly referred to Chicago’s crime increase during the presidential campaign. In 2016, 4,300 people were shot in Chicago—one person every two hours. The victims were overwhelmingly black. Two dozen children under the age of 12 were shot in Chicago in 2016, among them a three-year-old boy mowed down on Father’s Day 2016 who is now paralyzed for life, and a ten-year-old boy shot in August whose pancreas, intestines, kidney, and spleen were torn apart. Those child victims were also overwhelmingly black. Trump called those Chicago shootings and others like them in Baltimore and St. Louis “carnage.” What does Gopnik call them? A mere “bump or burp in the numbers.” If 4,300 white people had been shot in any city of the country, there would be a revolution. But because the victims were black, it would be dog-whistle racism to call attention to them. Racism once consisted of ignoring black-on-black violence as a fact of nature that was beneath concern. It is a bizarre twist in contemporary liberalism that drawing attention to the black victims of street crime is now the racist position. This deflection has come about in order to avoid acknowledging that the perpetrators of this crime are black, too. So it is better to look away entirely.

The 2015 and 2016 crime increases were the result of what I have called the Ferguson Effect—the combined phenomenon of depolicing and the resulting emboldening of criminals. (The FBI has not released full data for the year 2017 yet. In the first half of 2017, homicides rose “only” 1.5 percent over their elevated 2016 level.) At the end of 2014, the Black Lives Matter narrative about lethally racist cops kicked into high gear. Told relentlessly by the media and by politicians that proactive policing was oppressive and bigoted, cops started doing less of it in minority neighborhoods. Gopnik and other liberal commentators cannot acknowledge the resulting crime rise because it would mean acknowledging the consequences of depolicing for black lives. To be sure, crime remains far below its early 1990s levels. A two-year crime increase would have to be cataclysmic to wipe out 20 years of steady decline. But if black lives matter, a 20-percent homicide increase is indisputably a cause for concern, and Trump was right to call attention to it.

Gopnik’ s portrayal of the policing revolution responsible for the 20-year crime drop is profoundly ignorant. The idea, he says, was that “if enough policemen frisked enough young minority kids, they would find enough weed and weaponry to send them away.” This is ludicrous. No one was or is being sent to prison for possessing a joint; the small percentage of prisoners sentenced for drug possession (four percent in state prisons, one percent in federal prison) overwhelmingly have bargained down their charge from trafficking. Prison remains a lifetime-achievement award for persistence in criminal offending; to end up in state or federal prison, you either have a long criminal record or have committed a serious crime.

(Read more at City Journal)

In the best of situations, nobody would need protection from bad people. However, since that fantasy only exists in the imaginations of liberals, one might hope for the fiction that appears in our crime-sleuth serials (where the police appear seconds after the victim calls out).

Truth is that the best (top 50%) of police response times can put the police there in about 10 minutes. Conversely, when the local police have reason to feel that they can do nothing right in the eyes of the public, response time can suffer considerably (refer to “the Ferguson Effect” and note that it most often comes to light in liberal meccas like New York).

Again, this underscores the need for citizens to exercise the right to bear arms.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Reason #4: Department policy may prevent police from protecting you

Scot Peterson says why he didn’t go inside Stoneman Douglas during shooting

A 26 February 2018 Miami Sun-Sentinel article explores Scot Peterson’s explanation for not entering the school as it was under attack.

The school deputy who drew national condemnation for failing to confront the Stoneman Douglas shooter fought back Monday, arguing that his decision to not enter the building was made not out of cowardice but from his best assessment of the situation.

Deputy Scot Peterson, the school resource officer, had been accused of allowing students and teachers to face gunman Nikolas Cruz in a school building, while he remained sheltered outside. Broward Sheriff Scott Israel said Peterson should have “went in. Addressed the killer. Killed the killer.” President Trump called Peterson a coward in the aftermath. After being suspended without pay last week, Peterson, 54, resigned.

“What I saw was a deputy arrive … take up a position and he never went in,” the sheriff said at a news conference.

But Peterson’s lawyer, Joseph DiRuzzo, called that account a “gross oversimplification.”
“Let there be no mistake, Mr. Peterson wishes that he could have prevented the untimely passing of the 17 victims on that day, and his heart goes out to the families of the victims in their time of need,” he said “However, the allegations that Mr. Peterson was a coward and that his performance, under the circumstances, failed to meet the standards of police officers are patently untrue.”

Peterson said the initial report was of firecrackers, not gunshots, in the 1200 building, where the killer was shooting his victims. When he reached the building, he heard gunshots, but “believed that those gunshots were originating from outside of any of the buildings on the school campus,” the statement said, in a quotation attributed to Peterson.

In the event of outdoor gunshots, sheriff’s office training calls for deputies to “seek cover and assess the situation in order to communicate what one observes to other law enforcement,” the statement said.

“Consistent with his training, Mr. Peterson ‘took up a tactical position between the 700-800 buildings corridor/corner,” the statement said. Radio reports of a victim on the football field reinforced his belief that the shooter was outside, according to the statement.

(Read more at the Miami Sun-Sentinel)

This, if nothing else, must be seen as a call to arms to those of us who would protect the weak among us.

What seems odd (in this litigious society) is that nobody has sued to regain the protections lost when they declared schools to be “gun-free zones.” How can it be that teachers, principals, janitors, and other public servants lost their second amendment rights to the Gun-Free School Zones Act? For what reason did they give them up? How many mass shootings have occurred in these zones?

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Reason #5: None of the police may want to buck department policy

Three more deputies stayed outside the school

The 2 March 2018 edition of the Chicago Tribune explores the excuses proffered for three other Broward county sheriff’s department personnel. Emphasis (in the form of bold text) is mine.

A sheriff’s office captain told deputies to form a perimeter instead of rushing into the Florida high school where 17 people were killed in a mass shooting, according to documents obtained by the Miami Herald.

The newspaper reported late Thursday that it had obtained a partial Broward Sheriff’s Office dispatch log, which showed that Capt. Jan Jordan gave the order for deputies to establish a perimeter.

An earlier report on the call logs published by Fox News showed that the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School would have been over by the time Jordan gave her order.

However, the log may raise fresh questions about the department’s handling of the mass shooting on Feb. 14, including whether police could have gone in sooner to help the wounded.

“If detectives had answers to all of the questions, then there would be no need for an investigation,” sheriff’s office spokeswoman Veda Coleman-Wright wrote in an email to the Herald late Thursday.

Sheriff Scott Israel has said his office’s training and nationwide active-shooter procedure call for armed law enforcement officers to confront shooters immediately rather than secure a scene. He has blasted Deputy Scot Peterson, the school’s resource officer, for not entering the school building while 19-year-old former student Nikolas Cruz was shooting.

(Read more at the Chicago Tribune)

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Reason #6: Both you and your family may belong to an unpopular group

Condoleezza Rice tells a story from her childhood in support of the 2nd Amendment

As shared through a 1 March 2018 Daily Caller article, Condoleezza Rice told the panelists on the View of the story backing her support for the Second Amendment.

Former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice explained on “The View” Thursday that she supports the Second Amendment because her father used guns to protect her neighborhood from the KKK.

Rice explained that she grew up in Birmingham, Alabama during the civil rights movement and that her family could not count on protection from the police.

“So when White Knight Riders would come through our neighborhood, my father and his friends would take their guns and they’d go to the head of the neighborhood, it’s a little cul-de-sac and they would fire in the air, if anybody came through,” Rice argued.

“I don’t think they actually ever hit anybody. But they protected the neighborhood. And I’m sure if Bull Connor had known where those guns were he would have rounded them up,” she continued. “And so, I don’t favor some things like gun registration.”

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

At this point, I would like to praise Ms. Rice’s gun-toting father. In the face of “law enforcement” who would not protect him and KKK members who would do him and his family harm, he protected his family. I support that.

Reason #7: The reason for school shootings isn’t due to more guns, it is due to more decay in society

So many times, I have written about the need of Christians to protect the weak and defenseless among us. Specifically, I have called on verses that require us to protect widows and orphans. That is:

You shall not afflict any widow or orphan. If you afflict him at all, and if he does cry out to Me, I will surely hear his cry; (Exodus 22:22-23 NASB)

Learn to do good; Seek justice, Reprove the ruthless, Defend the orphan, Plead for the widow. (Isaiah 1:17-19)

These verses show God’s concern for the weak. Therefore, we should also do what we can to protect the defenseless. That would include protecting our young students from predators exposed through the next few linked articles.

Sean Lora

A middle-school teacher stands accused of sexually assaulting several students

According to a 8 March 2018 story posted by a New Jersey ABC affiliate, a middle school teacher has been accused of sexual assault of several students.

A middle school teacher is accused of sexually assaulting students in the classroom at Franklin L. Williams Middle School in Jersey City, according to the Hudson County Prosecutor’s Office.

The alleged incident occurred in a classroom when a total of seven students were inside.

Upon further investigation, detectives said additional victims alleged similar past incidents. Officials are unsure of the total number of incidents but said Lora allegedly assaulted three students.

(Read more at ABC)

School lets Planned Parenthood promote anti-life values with middle-school students without telling their parents

According to an article in the 16 November 2017 edition of the Schenectady Daily Gazette, the lack of respect for life may have sources that the liberal left will never consider. It seem that an on-campus Planned Parenthood clinic was dispensing life-ending advice and more without the consent of parents.

Schenectady High School should have notified parents about a Planned Parenthood-supported program for freshmen, Superintendent Larry Spring said after a parent complained to the school board Wednesday night.

Vivian Parsons, who grew up in Schenectady, told the school board she felt her rights as a parent were ignored when the district failed to notify her about a teen pregnancy prevention assembly held the previous Thursday that involved Planned Parenthood educators. She said she should have been given a chance to keep her daughter out of the program. Parsons said she learned about the assembly from her daughter last week.

“I have a right to know if this kind of stuff will be presented to my daughter,” Parsons told the school board. “Not every parent is OK with an association with Planned Parenthood, irregardless of content.”

Parsons said she recognized the school is working to address “an epidemic of babies having babies,” but she felt strongly she didn’t want her daughter participating in an event involving Planned Parenthood – a position she connected with her own experience as a teenage mother.

Spring, after the school board meeting, said he “was under the impression” that parents were to be notified of the event and given a chance to opt-out for their kids, similar to how the district handles certain aspects of sex education taught during health classes.

“(In health classes), parents are aware that is going on, and they can say, ‘Hey, wait a minute, I want to handle that differently for my child,’” Spring said after the meeting.

In a written statement Thursday, however, district spokeswoman Karen Corona said parents weren’t notified of the event, “because the content or material within the presentation is not considered inappropriate” for high school freshman. She added that district and school officials would review and discuss “what should be communicated in the future.”

(Read more at the Schenectady Daily Gazette)

Alexandria Vera

The Zimbo list of 50 most infamous female teacher sex scandals

One list provides an accounting of 50 female teachers who went rogue and hooked up with a male student.

One bad part of this list is that there are 50 reproductive-age women who threw away their college educations for the sake of having sex with a boy. Another bad part is that the list is nowhere near comprehensive.