More Gun Laws Won’t Help

Yesterday The Gateway Pundit posted an article about the person who killed seven people in Odessa, Texas. The shooter had previously failed a background check to purchase a gun and had not gone through a background check for the gun he used. The article does not specifically say that he purchased the gun illegally–just that it was illegal for him to have the gun. So more gun laws would not have helped–he was a person with a criminal record who managed to get hold of a gun even though he could not pass a background check.

So what can we learn from this? Criminals don’t follow laws. The best defense against a mass shooter who does not have a legal right to own a gun is to arm the civilian population so that the shooter can be dealt with quickly. Unfortunately we will always have people among us with little or no respect for the law and little or no respect for the lives of their fellow citizens. The only way to deal with this is for more people to take personal responsibility for their own safety.

It Is Becoming Very Obvious That Common Sense And Government Just Don’t Mix

Yesterday The Washington Examiner reported that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has allowed migrants released from the custody of other Homeland Security agencies to board flights to other parts of the country despite the passengers lacking any of the 15 documents it states are the only acceptable forms of identification. This has been going on for six months. Didn’t we learn our lesson on September 11th?

The article reports:

A TSA spokesperson initially told the Washington Examiner migrants were allowed to board flights if they could present the document they are given when they apply for asylum. The Notice To Appear, known by DHS as Form I-862, is a paper that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will give to a person who has passed a credible fear screening and will have his or her asylum case decided by a federal judge as many as five years down the road.

TSA said the court order served as the individual’s identification because that person had already gone through a background check while in custody of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, ICE, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

However, a USCIS official said TSA’s knowledge of protocol was wrong and that the latter agency would not provide any type of travel authorization document to a person who has passed a credible fear screening. The official said the NTA has one purpose and that was to tell recipients when to show up for court.

With the pushback from USCIS, TSA said another possible document that might be used would be the USCIS employment card.

However, asylum seekers who have been released from custody cannot attain that paper until 180 days after a credible fear claim has been approved.

In its initial statement to the Washington Examiner on its own policy violation, the agency said “TSA accepts identification documentation issued by other government agencies, which is validated through the issuing agency. All passengers are then subject to appropriate screening measures.”

TSA then referred the Washington Examiner to a webpage, which still states, “You will not be allowed to enter the security checkpoint if your identity cannot be confirmed, you chose to not provide proper identification or you decline to cooperate with the identity verification process.”

So I guess it is easier to get on a plane as an illegal alien than as an American citizen. What a mess. It would be considerably easier just to get control of our southern border.

Ignoring The Obvious

Yesterday The Daily Caller posted an article about some of the irregularities surrounding the hiring and work of the Pakistani Information Technology aids who worked for forty-four House Democrats.

The article reports:

Every one of the 44 House Democrats who hired Pakistan-born IT aides who later allegedly made “unauthorized access” to congressional data appears to have chosen to exempt them from background checks, according to congressional documents.

All of them appear to have waived background checks on Imran Awan and his family members, even though the family of server administrators could collectively read all the emails and files of 1 in 5 House Democrats, and despite background checks being recommended for such positions, according to an inspector general’s report. The House security policy requires offices to fill out a form attesting that they’ve initiated background checks, but it also includes a loophole allowing them to simply say that another member vouched for them.

This is amazing to me–these IT aides were not even American-born, yet members of Congress chose not to investigate them for security clearances.

The article explains why background checks would have avoided what happened later:

Among the red flags in Abid’s background were a $1.1 million bankruptcy; six lawsuits against him or a company he owned; and at least three misdemeanor convictions including for DUI and driving on a suspended license, according to Virginia court records. Public court records show that Imran and Abid operated a car dealership referred to as CIA that took $100,000 from an Iraqi government official who is a fugitive from U.S. authorities. Numerous members of the family were tied to cryptic LLCs such as New Dawn 2001, operated out of Imran’s residence, Virginia corporation records show. Imran was the subject of repeated calls to police by multiple women and had multiple misdemeanor convictions for driving offenses, according to court records.

If a screening had caught those, what officials say happened next might have been averted. The House inspector general reported on Sept. 20, 2016, that shortly before the election members of the group were logging into servers of members they didn’t work for, logging in using congressmen’s personal usernames, uploading data off the House network, and behaving in ways that suggested “nefarious purposes” and that “steps are being taken to conceal their activity.”

One of the ironies mentioned in the article:

Among the 44 employers, the primary advocate for the suspects has been Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, who introduced a bill Monday that would require background checks on Americans purchasing ammunition. “Without bullets a gun is just a hunk of useless metal,” she said, calling ammunition the “loophole” in gun control policy.

Okay. Background checks for American citizens purchasing ammunition, but no background checks for foreigners having access to sensitive Congressional information. Makes perfect sense!

The article includes information on some of the strange happenings during the investigation of this matter and lists sources for further details of the story. I strongly suggest that you follow the link above and read the entire article. There was a serious security breach here, and somehow the mainstream media has chosen to ignore it.

Are They Following Any Rules?

Today’s Daily Caller is reporting that because they did not follow their own rules and policies, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has put American taxpayers at risk of fraud and identity theft.

The article reports:

If one needs further evidence that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has veered out of control, look no further than last week’s Treasury Inspector General’s report that found serial failures on the part of the agency to conduct basic background checks on contractors used to handle sensitive taxpayer information. In just one instance, a computer disk with 1.4 million American names, addresses and even Social Security numbers was handled by contractors without background checks, putting taxpayers at unnecessary risk for fraud and identity theft.

What makes this even more outlandish is that this is not just a breach of common sense; it is a violation of IRS policy.

It seems that the IRS is lax about following their own regulations in a number of areas.

The article further reports:

Furthermore, other investigations have brought to light accounts of money wasted by the IRS on lavish agency conferences while the rest of the country struggled in a deep financial recession. Spoof training videos were produced by the IRS while other government agencies were furloughing employees. And to top it off, from 2011-2012 alone, more than $1 million in bonuses were paid to IRS employees who were delinquent on their own federal taxes!

…The IRS is out of control, and if Commissioner Koskinen wants to return some faith to the agency he leads, he can start by holding his people responsible for the IRS’s outrageous behavior.

Will the Obama Administration hold the IRS accountable for its behavior? If not, it is time to consider an alternate tax policy that would abolish the IRS.

A New Low In Political Theater

Breitbart.com posted an article today about an aspect of the gun-control debate that seems to have been missed in the news coverage.

It seems that the families who had lost loved ones in the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, were not initially informed as to the reason for their Air Force One trip to Washington.

The article quotes a Maureen Dowd article in the New York Times:

Murphy said it was hard, flying down on Air Force One with the trepidatious Sandy Hook families, to explain that they would be lobbying to get a vote on a vote. “They thought they were coming down here to argue for a ban on high-capacity magazines and universal background checks, and we told them that they were coming to argue to avert a filibuster and allow us to debate,” he said. “And that was really heartbreaking and deflating for some of them. But they rose to the occasion, and it was wonderful to see them at the end of the trip feeling like they had made a difference.”

So let me get this straight. The families thought they were going to Washington to argue for specific changes to gun laws. Once aboard Air Force One they were told something entirely different. Then the article says it’s all okay because they left feeling good.  I realize that I don’t always understand what goes on politically, but I think this is a new low in American politics and in media exploitation of people who have just suffered a tragedy.

If the gun control people had to lie to get these people to go to Washington, what else are they lying about?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Common Sense Has Left The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Yesterday the Wall Street Journal (no link–the article is subscribers only) published a story on its opinion page stating that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is filing lawsuits against employers for doing criminal background checks on potential employees. The EEOC is calling the background checks for criminal activity racist because blacks have higher conviction rates than whiles, and therefore criminal checks discriminate against blacks. Therefore, as an employer, you no longer have the right to screen for honest employees.

Criminal background checks are legal and have been a part of the hiring process for years–just as checking the references given by a job applicant is both legal and a good idea.

The article states:

The EEOC suit is part of the Administration’s larger effort to redefine racism in America by using statistics, rather than individual intent or evidence. The Justice and Housing Departments have rewritten their rules and punished banks and counties like Westchester, N.Y., based on disparate statistical measures of lending and zoning. The EEOC signaled its plans in April last year when ti rewrote its enforcement strategy, declaring that “an employer’s evidence of a racially balanced workforce will not be enough to disprove disparate impact.”

There is one thing we need to remember here. No amount of reverse racism can ever make up for the racism that has happened in the past. All this racism that is statistically established will only create more divides and separations between people. Martin Luther King, Jr., had it right when he called for a ‘color blind’ society. That is the only real answer to discrimination.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Second Amendment Is In Danger

How many times have the proponents of limited access to guns told us that they weren’t going to confiscate guns–they just wanted to make sure that guns sold were sold to people who had undergone thorough background checks. Well, it doesn’t always work out that way.

The Blaze report today that a California man had his guns confiscated (he had three) because his wife had been in the hospital voluntarily for mental illness last year. Evidently his wife reacted negatively to some medication she was taking and checked herself into the hospital to have it taken care of. However, the guns were not hers–they were legally owned by her husband.

The article reports:

Just last week, the California Senate approved a $24 million funding bill to expedite the process of collecting guns from owners in the state who legally acquired them but have since become disqualified due to felony convictions or mental illness.

That sounds like confiscating guns to  me. The problem here is defining mental illness. Who is the judge of that? How many witnesses?

 

Enhanced by Zemanta