Actions Have Consequences

One American News posted an article today quoting a remark made by Senator Lindsey Graham during the Department of Justice Inspector General’s hearing today.

The article reports:

During the Department of Justice Inspector General’s hearing Wednesday, the senator said there needs to be more “checks and balances to make sure something like this never happens again.”

The Republican lawmaker also warned Inspector General Michael Horowitz against refusing to recommend charges against the bureau for mishandling the investigation.

Graham went on to say he has serious doubts the FISA court can continue working if nothing is done, adding that the court will “lose his support” if no corrective action is taken.

Meanwhile, Horowitz told senators the FBI maintained surveillance on Carter Page even when its investigation into him was winding down. While discussing his report Wednesday, Horowitz outlined 17 instances where the bureau intentionally “omitted or withheld” information in their application for FISA warrants.

People went to jail because of a third-rate burglary in the Watergate Building when they attempted to spy on an opposing political candidate. The FISA scandal involves using a government agency to accomplish what the Watergate burglars were attempting. Why is it being handled so differently by both the press and the political class? This entire situation shows the need for tighter controls on the government’s ability to spy on its citizens. There could easily come a time in the future when government surveillance is used against everyday Americans of a political party different than the one in power. That is the reason that the people who did the illegal spying need to face consequences.

Common Sense From The Detroit Police Chief

Breitbart posted an article today about a recent statement by the Detroit Police Chief.

The article states:

Detroit Police Chief James Craig suggested concealed carry by law-abiding citizens “is about staying alive” during an October 30, 2019, interview on Tucker Carlson Tonight.

Craig, a vocal advocate of concealed carry for self-defense, said, “There’s been research that shows criminals fear armed citizens more than they fear police.”

He explained police are not ever-present, thus they usually arrive after a crime not during one: “By the time we’re called it’s usually after the fact, so we’re reacting to the crime.” But armed, law-abiding citizens can be present to act as the crime is unfolding.

That makes sense. There is a lot of validity to the idea of every citizen learning to be responsible for their own safety. I personally think everyone should take a Concealed Carry class simply to understand their rights and responsibilities in regard to gun ownership.

The article concludes:

On January 2, 2014, Breitbart News reported Craig noting that “good community members who have concealed [licenses]” deter crime and save lives.

On December 1, 2015, Breitbart News reported Craig saying armed citizens also help fight the threat of terrorism. The  Detroit News quoted Craig saying, “A lot of Detroiters have CPLs, and the same rules apply to terrorists as they do to some gun-toting thug. If you’re a terrorist, or a carjacker, you want unarmed citizens.”

He suggested the knowledge that citizens  “would shoot back” probably makes “extremists…reluctant to target Detroit.”

Armed citizens are one of the best crime deterrents available. The idea of taking guns away from law-abiding citizens collapses when you realize that criminals will not surrender their guns–leaving the general public unarmed and vulnerable.

Rules For Radicals In Action

Rule number 13 of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals is, “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” That is currently what the mainstream media is doing to the students of Covington High School in Kentucky. The students are being targeted because they are pro-life, Catholic, go to private school, and support President Trump. A full viewing of the video shows that they were simply waiting for a bus while being harassed by a racist group and rudely treated by an elderly native American. I can pretty much guarantee that if Nathan Phillips had done what he did to the Covington High School students to a group of New York City students, the invasion of their personal space might have been handled very differently.

Yesterday Breitbart posted an article illustrating how this works.

The article cites the media’s bringing up a previous story that has already been proven false:

Nevertheless, the media jihad continues, and that includes NBC shamelessly running a debunked and deceptive smear story that had been reported on and debunked all the way back in May.

NBC’s deliberately misleading headline reads: “Gay valedictorian banned from speaking at Covington graduation ‘not surprised’ by D.C. controversy.” The story accuses “Covington” (I’ll explain the quote marks in a bit) of “banning” a speech that was to be given by an openly gay student.

The article then explains the problem with the story about the graduation speech:

  1. NBC News does not concede the fact that Bales submitted the speech late, instead framing it only as an allegation — an excuse from the diocese.
  2. Nowhere does NBC News reveal that Bales’ speech was a Parkland-inspired diatribe about gun control.
  3. Christian Bales was not a student at Covington High School.
  4. Christian Bales graduated from Holy Cross High School, a completely different high school.
  5. If his speech had been approved, he would have given it at Holy Cross High School, not at Covington High School.
  6. Holy Cross High is run by the same Catholic diocese as Covington High, but they are two completely different schools.
  7. NBC News bombards the story with more than a dozen references to “Covington” but goes out of its way to obscure the fact Bales attended a completely different school…

Since Covington High School is the target of the current media attack, the fact that the incident happened at a different high school is not relevant to the media. This is how fake news works, and this is how Rules for Radicals are implemented.

 

This Is What A College Is Teaching???

American laws are based on a Judeo-Christian ethic–the Ten Commandments form the basis for our legal standards. They are rather simple–don’t steal, don’t kill, honor your parents, etc. Admittedly they are old standards, but they have served humanity fairly well over the years. However, every now and then someone comes along who thinks they have a better idea. Generally they don’t, but they think they have.

Yesterday the Independent Journal Review posted an article about a statement made by Everett D. Mitchell, the Director of Community Relations at the Madison campus of the University of Wisconsin.

Mr. Mitchell stated:

“I just don’t think they should be prosecuting cases for people who steal from Wal-Mart. I don’t think that. I don’t think that Target, and all them other places – the big boxes that have insurance – they should be using the people that steal from there as justification to start engaging in aggressive police behavior.”

Let’s just stop a minute and take this statement to its logical conclusion. Such as, “I don’t think people who steal from houses in X neighborhood should be prosecuted. The people in those houses have insurance–there is no reason to aggressively pursue the people who steal things there.” Doesn’t that make you feel safe?

The article goes on to explain that there have been cases where shoplifters who fled have been pursued and the shoplifters have been injured by the police. Again, what responsibility does the shoplifter bear for their own injuries sustained while fleeing police?

Theft is theft. It really doesn’t matter what is stolen (other than the jail sentence will be decided based on the value of the item taken). If someone consistently is not prosecuted for shoplifting, what incentive do they have to stop stealing things? Will they graduate to bigger and better things? What about jewelry stores, banks, etc?

When he was mayor of New York City, Rudy Giuliani instituted what has been known as “Broken Window Theory.” The basic concept of the theory is that if you deal with the minor crimes, the major crimes will decrease. There is a whole lot more to the theory–if you deal with the minor crimes, people will care more about their community, they will be outside more, and the crime rate will go down. If you ignore the minor crimes, the criminals will continue to commit them, and crime will become a standard feature of the community.

I don’t like the idea of police shooting people for any reason, but all of us need to understand that if you don’t obey a police officer, you run the risk of having force used against you. Failing to prosecute shoplifters at Walmart or Target does not move society in a positive direction–it takes us many steps backwards.