Tag Archives: public safety

Save America: Public Safety

Posted on by

Author:  R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D.  

This is the latest article of a series on issues critical to the survival of our nation as we have known it  as we celebrate America’s 250th Anniversary. The topic of public safety is of concern to all Americans and especially to me, since I spent my career as a psychologist in the North Carolina Department of Correction. One of the requirements of correctional psychologists is to assist in determining which inmates are reasonable risks for release back into society and which should stay in prison. This article summarizes some of the essential facts that effect crime and that decision process.

Like many essential things in our country’s history, it is important to look back and see what has worked and what hasn’t. As most people realize, the crime in Democrat run cities and states exceeds that in most more conservatively run places. Let’s examine why. First, it is important to realize that a very high percentage of crimes are committed by a very small percentage of the population.  For example, about 1% of the population commits about 65% of all crimes. Violent crimes are committed by 3% to 5% of the population. Second, 3% to 5% of specific neighborhoods account for over 50% of all crimes of violence. Clearly places you want to avoid if you can. Third, offenders commit many more crimes than those for which they are arrested. Active criminals commit an average of 9 to 17 offenses per year when free in society. Very rarely is a criminal arrested the first time he commits a crime. Think of it as a profession or career, because that’s what it is to the typical criminal. Going to prison is seen by most criminals as a price they have to pay occasionally so they can return to their profession. Fourth, criminal continuity is very common, with most delinquent criminals going on to become adult criminals, while non-delinquent juveniles remain noncriminal all of their lives. Fifth, most criminals when released from prison go on to commit more crimes. For example, 68% of released prisoners are rearrested within 3 years of release, and 82% within 5 years of release. Not very encouraging. You may recall that Governor Cooper released 3500 prisoners before their sentences were completed ostensibly due to the COVID virus. Based on the data above showing an average of 9 to 17 offenses committed each year, the Governor’s ill- advised release accounted for approximately 31,000 to 60,000 crimes. So much for concern about public safety Governor! Sixth, criminals are most likely to commit crimes at the highest rate in early adulthood; and Seventh, the individuals committing the most crimes are those who are members of criminal gangs.

OK, so what do we do about it? It would be great if we could ensure that all children are raised by two parents who instill a conscience that respects right from wrong, and good from evil. Obviously, this is not happening to those who become criminals. Since we cannot control conscience development, the best option is swift arrest, conviction and incarceration. Incarceration not to rehabilitate, which is rare, but rather to remove from society as long as the law allows. The idea of not prosecuting (like in California), suspended sentences and early parole are all threats to public safety. Sentences should increase as the criminal shows a pattern of continued criminal activity. Remember, for every arrest that results in a sentence, the criminal is committing many more that go undetected. It should also be remembered that the dichotomy of property versus violent offenders is not supported by the facts. Many property offenders also commit many acts of personal violence since both types of crime reflect the lack of a moral conscience and no sense of empathy for others.

Instead of reducing sentences, we should go back to the 1980s where sentences were longer and more certain. Incarceration during the young adult ages of criminals has the greatest impact on improving public safety. So, the next time you hear a district attorney, judge or politician talk about reducing what they consider the high incarceration rate in this country, you will know what to do and how to vote. The safety of the citizens should take precedence over sympathy for the criminal.

Law Enforcement Makes A Difference

Posted on by

Chicago is one of America’s great cities. It has wonderful museums, restaurants, and a beautiful lakefront. However, it also has one of the highest murder rates in the country. Lately, there have been some positive changes.

On Monday, The Post Millennial posted an article about some recent changes in Chicago. The article reports:

Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson pushed back on President Donald Trump’s claims that federal actions made the city safer, but acknowledged that there has been a significant reduction in homicides.

Johnson made the remarks during an appearance on MSNOW’s “The Weekend,” where he was asked whether Trump was correct in saying his actions improved public safety in Chicago. 

“He is not,” Johnson replied, accusing Trump of increasing “instability” in the country.

“Where ICE and federal agents were present, we actually saw an increase in violence. In other words, the tension and the chaos that federal agents bring to cities in America, it actually is counter-productive,” he claimed.

What about the chaos that criminals that are here illegally bring?

The article continues:

However, Johnson then acknowledged a sharp decline in violent crime. “Yes, we saw a 30 percent reduction in homicides, shooting, shooting victims, all down,” he said.

Johnson also accused Trump of escalating tensions with local governments, claiming the president has “literally declared war on American cities.” Johnson pointed to executive orders he signed in response that were aimed at limiting federal immigration enforcement, including efforts to create ICE-free zones in cities.

A thirty percent reduction is pretty significant. I suspect the mayor would be shouting that reduction from the rooftops if he were not afraid that President Trump would get the credit for it!

The article concludes with the following statement by President Trump:

“We could straighten out the crime in Chicago. We’ve already brought it down 25 percent just by being there. We could have Chicago be a safe city just like D.C. is a safe city. Just like all of these places that we’ve gone to. And I look forward — you know, I didn’t campaign on that. I campaigned on law and order, but I didn’t think I’d be going into individual cities and making ‘em safe.”

I wonder if the residents of these cities would like them to be safe.

We Can Predict The Future Based On The Past

Posted on by

On Saturday, The American Thinker posted an article pointing out the differences between the Trump administration and the Biden administration in the area of law and order. The contrast is stark. Logically, whichever administration is elected in November will implement policies similar to those they have espoused in the past.

The article reports:

As the November election approaches, the choice between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris could not be clearer, especially for working-class Americans and business owners alike.

After four tumultuous years under Joe Biden’s and Kamala Harris’s administration, where economic policies have faltered and crime rates have surged, Trump’s track record provides a compelling case for his return to the White House.

His administration’s unparalleled support for law enforcement and focus on economic prosperity stand in stark contrast to the failures of the current administration, promising a restoration of safety and stability that America desperately needs.

Under Trump’s leadership, the nation saw a significant decline in violent crime, a trend that reversed under Biden. By 2019, violent crime had fallen for the third consecutive year, with a decrease of over 5 percent since 2016 and a reduction in the murder rate by over 7 percent. This progress was not accidental but the result of deliberate, effective policies.

Trump’s administration launched Operation Legend to combat rising violence in cities, leading to more than 5,500 arrests and demonstrating a robust response to escalating crime.

…Contrast this with the Biden-Harris approach. Under their tenure, the FBI reported a rise in violent crime, exacerbating the struggles of American communities. Their administration’s reluctance to fully back law enforcement agencies has led to weakened public safety and heightened fears among citizens. The surge in violent crime under Biden’s watch starkly contrasts with the progress made during Trump’s presidency.

The article notes:

As we approach the November 2024 election, the choice is clear. Donald Trump’s track record of supporting law enforcement and fostering economic stability stands in stark contrast to Joe Biden and Kamala Harris’s failed policies. Trump’s administration demonstrated a commitment to restoring safety and order, which directly contributed to economic growth and stability. His policies not only addressed crime effectively but also ensured that businesses and communities could thrive.

Biden-Harris’s administration, with its record of rising violent crime and economic instability, has proven that his approach is not effective. Kamala Harris, as Biden’s successor, promises to continue these failed policies, further undermining public safety and economic prosperity.

For working-class Americans and business owners alike, supporting Donald Trump this November represents a vote for a proven leader who understands the critical link between law enforcement and economic stability. Trump’s track record of reducing violent crime, supporting law enforcement, and fostering a conducive environment for business growth underscores his capability to lead the nation towards a safer and more prosperous future.

This November, you are not only making decisions that will impact your pocketbook, your vote will impact your family’s safety and the safety of your community.

 

The Good Guys Have Recognized The Bad Guys

Posted on by

On Tuesday (updated Wednesday) The New York Post posted an article illustrating how few Americans and how few law enforcement officers trust the FBI.

The article reports:

As FBI Director Chris Wray performed his usual smarmy stonewalling in Congress Wednesday, a damning report on his $10 billion agency’s “cult of narcissism” was delivered to the House Judiciary Committee by an alliance of retired and active-duty agents and analysts. 

The same group gave us the scathing DEI report last year about the FBI’s degraded recruitment standards and coddling of physically unfit, mentally ill, drug-taking or generally useless agents to satisfy diversity requirements at the expense of merit and experience. 

This time they have assessed the entire bureau and drawn several worrying conclusions, including that local law enforcement partners have developed a “disturbing loss of trust in the FBI” and are therefore reluctant to share information, with alarming consequences for national security and public safety.

“Police officers and sheriff’s deputies on patrol and detectives investigating illegal activity in their jurisdictions have unparalleled visibility into street-level crime. … When this information is not immediately shared with the FBI, the FBI is left to address complex, evolving threats facing the United States with an unacceptably vast and debilitating ‘blind spot’ because [it] does not have enough personnel and resources to see into every corner of the country.”

…The picture that emerges of the FBI is of an incompetent, arrogant, bloated bureaucracy that includes a new generation of DEI hires described as “completely worthless” and “the worst batch of people.”

The report’s final damning indictment is reserved for the FBI Academy for New Agent Training in Quantico, Va., which “promotes a cult of narcissism by imbuing a false sense of superiority over all local, state and federal law enforcement.”

Taxpayer resources have been lavished on a new “wellness center” for yoga and meditation at the academy instead of teaching trainee agents the value of “humility and a higher sense of service and professionalism” when working with local law enforcement.

The article concludes:

Ultimately the whistleblower group says the only way to restore the FBI’s reputation and repair the damage is to force the resignation of Wray as “an extreme measure of last resort.

“… At stake are no less than the public’s safety and America’s national security.”

Judging by the sycophantic questioning of Wray by Democrats, we will have to wait for a Republican administration to clean house.

It is going to take a strong President and a strong Congress to clean up this mess!

Public Safety vs. Green Energy

Posted on by

On Sunday, The New York Post posted an article about the number of fires caused by lithium-ion batteries from e-bikes in the last two months.

The article reports:

FDNY Chief Fire Marshal Daniel Flynn told The Post that fires related to lithium-ion batteries have gone up nearly nine-fold since the pandemic, with more blazes related to the batteries happening in the last two months than in all of 2019.

“It’s the prevalence of these e-devices on our streets, there’s way more of them now than ever before,” Flynn said.

The fire chief attributed the popularity of the e-bikes and scooters to the “gig economy” boom in 2020, which saw people purchase the devices on the cheap-side in droves to do delivery jobs.

He added that the vehicles have also become popular among commuters.

“People bought these devices some three years ago, and now they’re aging,” he said, noting that many don’t know the dangers caused by the wear-and-tear on the batteries’ energy cells.

“We’ve seen people try to fix it or modify it themselves, go to shops from unauthorized vendors or take it on themselves to replace the old batteries,” he added. “We tell people not to go with the cheapest option and seek out the manufacturer directly.”

It’s this improper maintenance and defects from older models that have caused a number of blazes related to lithium-ion batteries to soar, according to the FDNY.

While there were only 30 fires related to the batteries in 2019, the number more than tripled by 2021, with 104 fires reported. That year also saw four fatalities, while no one was reported to have died from the blazes in 2019 or 2020.

Part of the problem is the use of improper replacement batteries:

FDNY Commissioner Laura Kavanagh vowed in February to continue cracking down on businesses that offer to replace individual battery cells from old ones, a fire code violation that creates what she called “Frankenstein batteries.”

“They kill people, they have killed people and they will kill more people if businesses continue to operate in this manner,” Kavanagh said.

But while New York has pushed businesses and consumers to follow new UL standards for the batteries, Flynn noted that there was little the city could do about older units coming in from other states that do not require such regulations.

I think the technology needs some work.

This Might Explain Some Of The Problems In Chicago

Posted on by

Yesterday Breitbart posted an article about Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx.

The article reports:

Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx has dropped over 25,000 felony cases, including charges of murder and the alleged hate crime hoax from former Empire star Jussie Smollett, according to an analysis released by the Chicago Tribune on Monday.

The article quotes the Chicago Tribune:

During Foxx’s first three years as the county’s top prosecutor, her office dropped all charges against 29.9% of felony defendants, a dramatic increase over her predecessor, the Tribune found. For the last three years of Anita Alvarez’s tenure, the rate was 19.4%.

In all, a total of 25,183 people had their felony cases dismissed under Foxx through November 2019, up from 18,694 for a similar period under Alvarez.

[…]

For the three-year period analyzed, Foxx’s office dropped 8.1% of homicide cases, compared with 5.3% under Alvarez, the Tribune found. Under Foxx, the office dropped 9.5% of felony sex crime cases; the rate was 6.5% for Alvarez.

The article at Breitbart continues:

In a statement to the Tribune, Foxx, who is up for reelection in November, said of the figures: “It is always eye-opening to be able to look at our own data and compare it to my predecessor’s past. I can’t reconcile what her decision-making was, and how they chose to (dismiss) cases in the past. But I will say that this administration has been clear that our focus would be on violent crime and making sure that our resources and attention would go to addressing violent crime.”

If you are trying to make sense out of this, you might want to look at one of the contributors to Foxx’s reelection campaign.

In February 2020, The Chicago Sun Times reported:

A political action committee founded by liberal billionaire philanthropist — and Donald Trump nemesis — George Soros kicked $2 million to a committee supporting Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx in her re-election bid against three Democratic primary challengers.

A mega donor to Democrats and liberal causes, the hedge fund operator’s Democracy PAC transferred $2 million into the Illinois Justice and Public Safety PAC on Wednesday.

The justice and public safety PAC has so far spent $571,359.30 on mail, media and website production costs opposing Bill Conway, one of Foxx’s primary challengers.

George Soros is on a mission to undermine to government of America in order to further plans for a one-world government. He has funded the campaigns of a number of District Attorneys and State Attorneys General in order to do that. His campaign contributions were a major part of the Democrats’ takeover of the Virginia government in the last election. That takeover has brought restrictive gun laws and other problems. George Soros is an American citizen and can legally donate to campaigns both as an individual and through Political Actions Committees (PACs). I have no doubt he will continue to do so until Americans get wise to what he is attempting to do.

Some Of Our Elected Leaders Need Lessons In Logic

Posted on by

Yesterday PJ Media reported the following:

Days after antifa rioters terrorized Seattle, driving a van full of weapons and explosives with the mob in order to set fires and attempt to blow up police departments, Mayor Jenny Durkan focused her attention squarely on President Donald Trump, accusing him of running a “dress rehearsal for martial law.” She claimed that Trump’s efforts to bolster local law enforcement to combat a rising tide of crime and violence have “decreased public safety.” In a press conference addressing the antifa riots, Durkan claimed “the president wants” the violence.

So the President’s bringing in law enforcement to fight crime that the city was not able to stop is decreasing public safety? Wow. It seems to me that the Mayor, who refused to confront those rioting and breaking the law, wanted the violence.

The article further notes:

The riots on Saturday followed a protest in support of the antifa rioters in Portland, who have attempted to burn down the federal courthouse and Justice Center in nearly two straight months of violent riots. Seattle rioters used a van packed with fireworks, smoke bombs, stun guns, bear and pepper spray, gas masks, and more. At one point, rioters set off an explosive that blew an 8-inch hole through a wall of the Police Department’s East Precinct, the Seattle Times reported. Rioters injured 59 police officers.

Durkan focused her ire on Trump.

“I hate to say it, but it looks like this president is doing a dress rehearsal for martial law, sending in federal forces to take over police duties in city after city for political purposes,” the mayor told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on Monday. “It is frightening and it’s making things worse. It has not improved public safety, it has decreased public safety.”

The article concludes:

During the previous weekend, antifa rioters tore a devastating path through Seattle, smashing windows at the municipal courthouse and at various businesses — including storefronts for Amazon Go, Starbucks, and Walgreens — they targeted both the West Precinct Police Station and the East Precinct Police Station (the site of the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone Occupied Protest last month). They fired mortar-style fireworks at both stations, causing a fire in the East Precinct station.

It seems Durkan agrees with the leftist worldview behind the rioters, but that doesn’t mean she has to focus her energy on demonizing the president. How does her fearmongering about Trump supposedly planning “martial law” concretely protect any of the citizens of Seattle?

She was elected by the people of Seattle. Theoretically she represents them. I wonder how they feel about their city being destroyed. Are their taxes going to increase dramatically to pay for the damage that has been done? I wonder if the Mayor or the residents have thought through the consequences of the lawlessness they are permitting.

Some Common Sense From The Minneapolis City Council

Posted on by

Yesterday Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article about a recent decision by the Minneapolis City Council.

The article reports:

Give credit where due for thinking outside of the box, I guess, although this idea belongs in a box … buried under the St. Anthony Falls. In the Minneapolis city council’s haste to prove it doesn’t need a professional and trained police force to keep the peace, they nearly decided to pay ad hoc bands of armed citizens to patrol the streets. Only late inquiries about this proposal from city residents and local media managed to change their minds:

The Minneapolis City Council briefly considered diverting money from police to citizen patrols, with the council’s public safety chairwoman suggesting an armed group as one that could potentially benefit.

During a budget meeting last week, Council Member Alondra Cano proposed cutting $500,000 from the Minneapolis Police Department for the citizen groups.

She described it as an effort to “respond to the hundreds of people who have formed their own community safety patrol systems to keep their blocks and their neighborhoods safe in this time of deep transition.”

She and nine of her colleagues voted in favor of adding the provision to the 2020 budget. On Wednesday, after residents and reporters contacted city officials seeking details about the proposal, the council walked it back.

Common sense made a brief appearance in the Minneapolis City Council.

The article concludes:

The Star Tribune notes that the city council seems to be out of rational ideas about how to make their no-policy fantasy into reality, which is how vigilantism nearly got a $500,000 grant and endorsement:

The change reveals how the City Council is struggling to come up with alternatives to the Minneapolis Police Department, even as a majority has vowed to end it. Council members and city staffers have, at times, found themselves unclear about what various proposals mean, even after they have voted on them.

In other words, the city council is completely incompetent, and now obviously so. This would qualify as satire if not for the lives that have already been lost and the lives that will be lost in the near future due to their failures to perform their basic duties as public officials. The city council is responsible for the police department and its performance, but they do not want Minneapolis residents to realize that. Instead, they want to pretend that a modern city of 425,000-plus residents don’t need law enforcement, mainly because they want to abdicate their own responsibilities for managing it.

Minneapolis is a home-rule charter city, so the state doesn’t have too many options in dealing with this disaster. The city’s voters will have to act to put an end to the circus they elected. In the meantime, the cities around them will have to deal with the fallout — and business owners will start looking elsewhere for better environments in which to operate.

This is the reason voting matters. The only way to improve the government of Minneapolis is to vote for people who actually understand how to make things better. The current city council obviously does not.

Over The Edge

Posted on by

Every now and again someone on CNN asks a really intelligent question. That doesn’t mean that they get an intelligent answer, but they do occasionally ask an intelligent question. Yesterday The Gateway Pundit posted an article which provides an example of an intelligent question and a not-so-intelligent answer.

The article reports the exchange:

After nearly two weeks of violence, mayhem, and rioting in Minneapolis, the City Council on Sunday voted on their intent to disband the police department.

The wild proposal would invest in “community-led public safety” instead of police officers.

“We are here today because George Floyd was killed by the Minneapolis Police Department. We are also here because, here in Minneapolis and in cities across the United States, it is clear that our existing system of policing and public safety isn’t working for so many of our neighbors,” Minneapolis City Council President Lisa Bender said in a written statement Sunday, obtained by the Appeal. “Our efforts at incremental reform have failed.”

I understand the frustration, but I doubt that the suggested cure of disbanding the police force will work.

The article continues:

On Monday Council President Lisa Bender joined Alisyn Camerota on CNN to discuss the plan.

When asked about who people will call if their home is broken into, who to call, Lisa Bender said this:

Lisa Bender: “Yes, I mean, and I hear that loud and clear from several of my neighbors, and I know, and myself too, and I know that comes from a place of privilege.”

So expecting law and order in your community is a ‘place of privilege.” Wow. I have an idea. If you live in a neighborhood where law and order is not the norm, why don’t the people of the neighborhood begin to take action to make it the norm. I realize that some people are corrupt, but I believe that the majority of people want to be law-abiding citizens who live in peace. That is not a ‘place of privilege,’ that is the normal situation in a well-governed city, state, or country. I am not sure what reality Ms. Bender is living in, but it is a place I would not choose to live.

Putting The Safety Of Convicted Criminals Above The Safety Of Innocent American Citizens

Posted on by

Yesterday The Gateway Pundit posted an article that illustrates the folly of letting convicted prisoners out of jail to protect them from the coronavirus. First of all, the original idea is shaky. In order for a prison to have an outbreak of the coronavirus, the virus would have to enter the prison with someone. Prisons have the potential of being the ultimate ‘shelter in place’ example. If you control the people coming in–limit visitors until the virus is not active in the area of the prison and test your prison guards regularly (take their temperatures in a non-intrusive way), theoretically that would not allow the virus to enter the prison. You can also quarantine anyone with the virus. There is no reason to free convicted prisoners and endanger the lives and property of everyday Americans. Meanwhile, some states are doing really dumb things.

The article reports:

A Florida inmate released on March 19 to ‘slow the spread of the Coronavirus’ was arrested on a murder charge just one day after he got out of jail.

State officials are releasing hundreds of inmates into society over Coronavirus fears while they threaten and arrest law-abiding citizens for violating ‘social distancing’ orders.

What could possibly go wrong?

Tampa deputies say 26-year-old Joseph Edwards Williams committed second-degree murder just one day after he was released from jail.

…“There is no question Joseph Williams took advantage of this health emergency to commit crimes while he was out of jail awaiting resolution of a low-level, non-violent offense,” Sheriff Chad Chronister said. “As a result, I call on the State Attorney to prosecute this defendant to the fullest extent of the law.”

“Judges, prosecutors, and Sheriffs around the country are facing difficult decisions during this health crisis with respect to balancing public health and public safety. Sheriffs in Florida and throughout our country have released non-violent, low-level offenders to protect our deputies and the jail population from an outbreak. Our commitment as an agency is to keep this community safe and enforce the law.”

Letting prisoners out of jail before they have completed their sentences is not a way to keep our communities safe.

Remembering Our Roots

Posted on by

On Wednesday, The Washington Times posted an article about the Second Amendment. There has been a lot of talk lately about the Second Amendment, but very little talk about the relationship of the Second Amendment and the U.S. Constitution.

The article reminds us:

The U.S. Supreme Court has twice ruled in the past 11 years that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual pre-political liberty. That is the highest category of liberty recognized in the law. It is akin to the freedoms of thought, speech and personality. That means that the court has recognized that the framers did not bestow this right upon us. Rather, they recognized its pre-existence as an extension of our natural human right to self-defense and they forbade government — state and federal — from infringing upon it.

It would be exquisitely unfair, profoundly unconstitutional and historically un-American for the rights of law-abiding folks — “surrender that rifle you own legally and use safely because some other folks have used that same type of weapon criminally” — to be impaired in the name of public safety.

It would also be irrational. A person willing to kill innocents and be killed by the police while doing so surely would have no qualms about violating a state or federal law that prohibited the general ownership of the weapon he was about to use.

With all of this as background, and the country anguishing over the mass deaths of innocents, the feds and the states face a choice between a knee-jerk but popular restriction of some form of gun ownership, and the rational and sound realization that more guns in the hands of those properly trained means less crime and more safety.

Can the government constitutionally outlaw the types of rifles used by the El Paso and Dayton killers? In a word: No. We know that because in the first Supreme Court opinion upholding the individual right to keep and bear arms, the court addressed what kind of arms the Second Amendment protects. The court ruled that the Second Amendment protects individual ownership of weapons one can carry that are of the same degree of sophistication as the bad guys have — or the government has.

The government? Yes, the government. That’s so because the Second Amendment was not written to protect the right to shoot deer. It was written to protect the right to shoot at tyrants and their agents when they have stolen liberty or property from the people. If you don’t believe me on this, then read the Declaration of Independence. It justifies violence against the British government because of such thefts.

Governments are the greatest mass killers on the planet. Who can take without alarm any of their threats to emasculate our right to defend our personal liberties?

The Second Amendment is there to protect us from a tyrannical government. Does anyone believe that 90 percent of the people in government would not become tyrants if the population were not armed?

The article concludes:

The president also offered his support for “red flag” laws. These horrific statutes permit police or courts to seize guns from those deemed dangerous. Red flag laws are unconstitutional. The presumption of innocence and the due process requirement of demonstrable fault as a precondition to any punishment or sanction together prohibit the loss of liberty on the basis of what might happen in the future.

In America, we do not punish a person or deprive anyone of liberty on the basis of a fear of what the person might do. When the Soviets used psychiatric testimony to predict criminal behavior, President Ronald Reagan condemned it. Now, the president wants it here.

The United States is not New Zealand, where a national legislature, animated by fear and provoked by tragedy, can impair fundamental liberties by majority vote. In America, neither Congress nor the states can outlaw whatever handguns or rifles they want to outlaw or infringe upon the right to own them.

The government can no more interfere with Second Amendment rights than it can infringe upon any other rights. If this were not so, then no liberty — speech, press, religion, association, self-defense, privacy, travel, property ownership — would be safe from the reach of a fearful majority.

That’s why we have a Constitution.

A government that prefers an unarmed citizenry is not a government I want to support.

Why We Need To Keep Track Of Illegal Aliens Who Come To America And Commit Crimes

Posted on by

Yesterday The Gateway Pundit posted an article about Carlos Eduardo Arevalo from El Salvador, an illegal alien who brutally murdered a 59-year-old woman, Bambi Larson, in California.

The article reports:

Arevalo has a long criminal record of arrests for violent crimes, but the State of California refused to turn him over to ICE because California is a far-left “Sanctuary State” for criminal illegal aliens.

CBS Local reported:

“Carlos Eduardo Arevalo Carranza stalked this San Jose neighborhood and his victim,” said San Jose Police Chief Eddie Garcia. “He is a self-admitted gang member.”

Garcia then detailed his lengthy criminal record.

“His criminal history convictions consist of in Feb. 2013 he was detained by the Department of Homeland Security at the border near McAllen, Texas, and deported.”

“In 2015, he was arrested for drug paraphernalia. In 2015 he was convicted of burglary in San Jose. In 2016, battery of an officer, resisting arrest and entering a property. In 2016, he was arrested for battery in Los Angeles. In 2017, he was arrested and convicted of false imprisonment in San Jose. On April of 2018, arrested for paraphernalia again. In May, he was arrested for possession of methamphetamine.”

“In August of 2018, he was arrested for prowling. On October 2018, he was arrested for false identification and paraphernalia once again.”

Garcia said Carranza was currently on probation for the possession of methamphetamine, paraphernalia, false imprisonment and burglary.

“Unfortunately, ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) placed detainers on this individual six separate times. Two in the Los Angeles area and four in the County of Santa Clara,” he said.

…Mayor Sam Liccardo took aim at the Santa Clara County sanctuary policy in a statement following the police press conference:

“It is long overdue for the County to reconsider its current policy of ignoring ICE hold requests for predatory felons, which undermines the safety of the very immigrant communities we collectively seek to protect,” said Liccardo. “The County’s policy has nothing to do with the City’s decades-long policy of declining to have police engage in federal immigration enforcement, which was implemented to protect public safety. In contrast, the current County policy of ignoring detainer requests for individuals arrested for strike offenses and convicted of multiple felonies undermines public safety, and violates common sense. I hope we can restart this conversation to make progress where we all agree: we can both keep our City safe from violent criminals and protect our law-abiding immigrant community.”

We need a wall, and we need to arrest and deport illegal aliens who break the law–the first time they break the law. If there is a wall, it will be more difficult for them to sneak back into the country.

Illegal Immigration Impacts All Communities

Posted on by

Yesterday The Charlotte Observer (Charlotte, North Carolina) posted an article about a recent City Council meeting in that city. The article illustrates how illegal immigration impacts the daily life of a city.

The article cites a few items from the City Council meeting:

The contentious national immigration debate pushed its way into Charlotte politics Monday night, as City Council voted to loosen the requirements for advisory boards and committees and allow people who aren’t registered voters to serve.

That would also potentially open up the 35 boards and commissions — which advise City Council on everything from zoning to transit to public art — to undocumented immigrants, as board members who opposed the change pointed out.

It was the second time in one meeting that immigration policy came up, as City Council members also debated whether the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department should be conducting DWI checkpoints in immigrant communities at a time of stepped-up ICE enforcement raids.

The article notes the vote on the idea of loosening the requirements for advisory boards:

City Council approved the change to the requirements for boards and commissions in an 8-2 vote, with Republicans Ed Driggs and Tariq Bokhari voting no.

The article notes that on the public safety issue of DWI checkpoints, common sense won the day:

City Council also voted unanimously to accept a grant allowing CMPD to continue DWI checkpoints, after a police official assured members that the checkpoints are planned based on traffic safety data and not in coordination with ICE.

Drunk driving is not an immigration issue–it is a public safety issue. As far as allowing illegal immigrants on advisory boards, do these people have a knowledge of the laws of America? Are they familiar with the U.S. Constitution? Do they sincerely have a stake in the welfare of the community?

 

I Think We Have Gone Over The Edge

Posted on by

The Daily Wire is reporting today that the TSA will be replacing many of its pointy-eared dogs at airports with floppy-eared dogs. It seems that children are less scared of the floppy-eared dogs. So this decision was made not on the basis of public safety, but on the basis of children who might be intimidated by dogs with pointy ears.

The article reports:

“We find the passenger acceptance of floppy ear dogs is just better. It presents just a little bit less of a concern,” Pekoske added. “Doesn’t scare children.”

My former Examiner colleague Anna Giaritelli reports that the TSA currently has 1,200 doggos across the country performing security checks, and about 80% have floppy ears (such as Labradors or Golden Retrievers). In order to phase out the remaining 20%, the TSA is replacing retiring pointed-ear dogs with their floppy-eared cousins. Further, the TSA is purchasing sporting or hunting breeds, since they are easier to find.

“TSA uses five types of sporting breeds: Labrador Retrievers, German Short-haired Pointers, Wirehaired Pointers, Vizslas, and Golden Retrievers,” Giaritelli wrote. “It also uses two types of pointy-ear, or working breed, dogs: the German Shepherd and Belgian Malinois.”

Christopher Shelton, branch manager of the San Antonio, TX, canine training center, told Giaritelli that the TSA wouldn’t rule out a pointy-eared pup just because of his or her ears. The dog’s health, willingness and ability to sniff out security risks and its disposition still matter more. Training these dogs costs between $26,000 and $42,000, so the agency can’t be too picky about looks.

I remember coming into Logan Airport in Boston many years ago from an overseas trip. I was surprised to see beagles running around the area where we picked up our luggage. Although it seemed a little odd, it made perfect sense–beagles have very good noses. The top three breeds considered to have the best sense of smell are the bloodhounds, the basset hounds, and the beagles. It’s just that the look of the German Shepherd and the Belgian Malinois seems much more appropriate for a dog involved in law enforcement.

At any rate, I wish the TSA luck with their new program. It’s nice to see some of the working breeds get the recognition they deserve.

A Guest Post From H.C. “Sparky” Bollinger, USMC (Ret)

Posted on by

I spent 22 ½ years in the Marine Corps. I have operated in around 30 countries, sat off shore of many more. Waiting for an order that often never came. When waiting off shore for an operation, or moving to a new Area of Operations, or even over time and different tours in Iraq, we would be given a Rules of Engagement brief (ROE) by a Lawyer from the Judge Advocate General’s office (JAG). This would spell out legally when we could and could not engage hostiles, or perceived hostiles. However, ever Marine Corps ROE brief ended the same way and on the same note. On the typed copy is was in bold, usually underlined print, often all capital letters, but always said the same thing, “THE RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE IS NEVER DENIED!”

A week ago a landmark court decision in Florida decided on December 12th, vindicates all arguments for the right to self defense and your right to bear arms. This court decision by a Federal Judge sets or affirms legal precedence that the Police have no constitutional duty to protect individuals from harm, even when they know harm will occur and that harm will most likely result in death. This legal precedence is not just for the state of Florida where the case was tried. This is a Federal court and has establish or affirmed legal precedence in all 50 states and US territories.

What does this mean for Joe Citizen? If this case is not overturned on appeal. It firmly establishes that the individual and only the individual is responsible for his or her safety. With this one court decision, that is likely if not surely to be upheld by higher courts up through the Supreme Court, the individual is firmly within his or her Constitutional right to defend themselves, and as stated in the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. This ruling gives substantial legal weight to the argument for Constitutional carry and the individuals inalienable right to save and preserve one’s own life.

What does this mean to gun control lobbyist, groups, and politicians? This ruling in Federal court obliterates all barriers imposed by “May Issue” concealed carry states and cities. States and cities will still have wiggle room to impose some sort of firearms safety course in the same legal spirit as a driver’s license, however legal bars outside criminal records, drug abuse, or mental health will loose all just standing under the law unless it is shot down on appeal. Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, Senator Feinstein, Michael Bloomberg’s arguments that individuals do not need firearms for self defense and that the police are responsible for public safety just had the rug yanked completely out from under them. Their argument was always on tentative ground at best, since when seconds count, the police are minutes away. The Department of Justice determined that the average police response time to a 911 call is over 4 minutes, the average interaction time between a criminal and his victim is 90 seconds. This is a not a dig at police officers, as a retired Marine who is currently employed as a tactical firearms and martial arts instructor, I am a staunch supporter of law enforcement, and many of my friends and coworkers are law enforcement or retired law enforcement. This is simply a matter of time, space, and logistics. Now, it is firmly established that even if the police respond to, or are in observance of a crime, they are not required to intervene, they can even refuse to intervene, and not be held accountable to the department, city, county, state, federal government, or even the Constitution of the United States.

Just as Smokey the Bear says, “only you can prevent forest fire,” you, and only you, are 100% responsible for your safety, only you are responsible to save your life. The 2nd Amendment was just reaffirmed as your legal means to do so.

Just my two cents,

H.C. “Sparky” Bollinger, USMC (Ret)

Thank you, Sparky. Below are my comments.

 

There are actually two decisions reported in The New York Times on December 18th:

The school district and sheriff’s office in the Florida county that is home to Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School had no constitutional duty to protect the students there during the deadly February massacre, a federal judge has said in a ruling.

The decision was made in a lawsuit filed by 15 students who said they suffered trauma during the Feb. 14 attack in Parkland, Fla. A total of 17 students and staff members lost their lives; 17 others were injured.

Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty for Nikolas Cruz, 20, the former Stoneman Douglas student who is accused of opening fire at the school on Valentine’s Day. He has pleaded not guilty, but his lawyers have said he would plead guilty in exchange for a life sentence.

The Dec. 12 ruling, by Judge Beth Bloom, came on the same day that a county judge, Patti Englander Henning, came to the opposite conclusion. Judge Henning found that Scot Peterson, the armed sheriff’s deputy who heard the gunfire but did not run in and try to stop the attack, did have an obligation to confront Mr. Cruz.

The article further states:

“Neither the Constitution, nor state law, impose a general duty upon police officers or other governmental officials to protect individual persons from harm — even when they know the harm will occur,” said Darren L. Hutchinson, a professor and associate dean at the University of Florida School of Law. “Police can watch someone attack you, refuse to intervene and not violate the Constitution.”

The message is clear–every American has to take responsibility for their own safety. If you are not comfortable with guns and want to feel safe at home, keep a can of wasp spray on your night stand. It won’t kill an intruder, but it might slow him down and give you a chance to escape. There are also other personal safety devices available. The right to bear arms should not be infringed. Our Founding Fathers placed it there so that we could defend ourselves in all situations–from criminals and from government tyranny. Giving up the right to bear arms would result in the end of America as we know it.

Things Haven’t Changed, But You Wouldn’t Know It If You Watch The Mainstream Media

Posted on by

This article is based on two articles, one from Breitbart posted today and one from The San Diego Union-Tribune, dated November 25, 2013. If you watch the mainstream media, recently you heard how inhumane it was to use tear gas on people trying to break through the southern border of America. No one mentioned that this was not the first time this approach was used, or that tear gas was probably the most harmless approach available to the border agents that were faced with people charging the border.

Breitbart reported today:

Five years almost to the day before President Donald Trump’s border officers blocked migrants with tear gas, authorities under President Barack Obama used identical tactics along the same stretch of border near the San Ysidro Port of Entry, according to 2013 press accounts.

From The San Diego Union-Tribune in 2013:

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.

…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.

Tijuana’s top police officer, Public Safety Secretary J. Alberto Capella, said “There is no information that we can provide.” He referred questions to the U.S. Border Patrol.

The spokesman for Tijuana police, Rafael Morales, said the agency’s officers did not intervene and had no knowledge of the incident.

Caston said several agents were struck in the arms and legs with rocks, and that one agent was hit in the head with a filled water bottle.

“While attacks on Border Patrol agents are not uncommon, the agents showed great restraint when faced with the dangers of this unusually large group, and fortunately no one was serious injured,” said Paul Beeson, San Diego sector chief for the Border Patrol.

The agency did not specify the time of Sunday’s incident.

This type of rush on the border has not been seen since the late 1980s and early ’90s, when groups of border-crossers would run into the U.S. while agents tried to apprehend as many people as possible. The practice mostly disappeared after Operation Gatekeeper began in 1994 and brought with it tall fences, walls and more agents.

How did the press treat President Obama during this incident versus how the press is treating President Trump during the recent incident? Double standard anyone?

When You Neglect The Obvious

Posted on by

The following is a December 2017 News Release from the U.S.D.A.:

VALLEJO, Calif., December 11, 2017 – The USDA Forest Service today announced that an additional 27 million trees, mostly conifers, died throughout California since November 2016, bringing the total number of trees that have died due to drought and bark beetles to an historic 129 million on 8.9 million acres. The dead trees continue to pose a hazard to people and critical infrastructure, mostly centered in the central and southern Sierra Nevada region of the state.

“The number of dead and dying trees has co ntinued to rise, along with the risks to communities and firefighters if a wildfire breaks out in these areas,” said Randy Moore, Regional Forester of the USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. “It is apparent from our survey flights this year that California’s trees have not yet recovered from the drought, and remain vulnerable to beetle attacks and increased wildfire threat. The USDA Forest Service will continue to focus on mitigating hazard trees and thinning overly dense forests so they are heal thier and better able to survive stressors like this in the future.”

Moore continued, “To increase the pace and scale of this important work, we need to fix how fire suppression is funded. Last year fire management alone consumed 56 percent of the USDA For est Service’s national budget. As fire suppression costs continue to grow as a percentage of the USDA Forest Service’s budget, funding is shrinking for non- fire programs that protect watersheds and restore forests, making them more resilient to wildfire an d drought.”

Though California received record -breaking rains in the winter of 2016-2017, the effects of five consecutive years of severe drought in California, a dramatic rise in bark beetle infestation and rising temperatures have led to historic levels of tree die-off. The Tree Mortality Task Force (TMTF), with support from the Governor’s office and comprised of more than 80 local, state and federal agencies and private utility companies, continues to remove hazardous dead trees. To date, the TMTF members have collectively felled or removed over 1 million dead trees; this includes over 480,000 dead trees felled or removed by the USDA Forest Service.

The TMTF members are using a triage approach to this tree mortality crisis, first focusing on public safety by removing dead and dying trees in high hazard areas. To further improve forest health, the USDA Forest Service and CAL FIRE have increased their pace and scale of prescribed fire. The USDA Forest Service has treated over 55,000 acres and CAL FIRE has com pleted over 33,000 acres in fuel treatment projects. By combining tree removal with prescribed fire, crews will be able to decrease overly dense stands of trees, reduce greenhouse gases, and protect communities across the state.

“Tree mortality at this magnitude takes on- going cooperation between public, non- profit and private entities,” said Chief Ken Pimlott, CAL FIRE director and California’s state forester. “California’s forests are a critical part of the State’s strategy to address climate change. By working together and using all the resources at our disposal we will be able to make more progress towards our common goal of healthier, more resilient forests that benefit all Californians.”

With record breaking levels of tree die-off, the TMTF has used t his event as an opportunity to collaborate on several fronts: from public workshops about reforestation, public outreach in urban and rural areas, and awarding over $21 million in grants aimed to protect watersheds, remove dead trees and restore our forest s. The TMTF continues to collaborate on the efficient use of resources to protect public safety and build consensus around long -term management strategies for California’s forest lands.

“The Tree Mortality Task force has provided an essential venue for co ordination of response efforts, exchange of ideas, reporting, and accountability for the ongoing statewide response to this incident,” said Supervisor Nathan Magsig of Fresno County. “Leadership from the Governor’s Office, CAL FIRE and Office of Emergency Services has helped to ensure county issues are heard and addressed. Monthly coordination of the 10 most impacted counties has resulted in a more effective use of resources and has allowed counties to share ideas and successes.”

With a staggering 129 mil lion dead trees in the state, the work of the task force is far from over. The strong foundation built will continue to be an advantage as the TMTF continues to address tree mortality and its impacts.

Learn more about tree mortality and the work to restore our forests in California at the USDA Forest Service ‘s web page Our Changing Forests . To learn about how to be prepared and protect your home against wildfire and your trees against bark beetle attacks visit CAL FIRE’s web page Ready for Wildfire.

###

Media Notes:

Tree Mortality Website
2017 Tree Mortality Aerial Detection Survey Results
Tree Mortality Combined Map, 2014- 2017
Tree Mortality Progression Map, 2014- 2017
Animated Tree Mortality Progression Map, 2014- 2017
Tree Mortality Project Pictures
CAL FIRE Prescribed Fire Video B -Roll
CAL FIRE Tree Removal Video B-Roll

If you follow the link to the original article, there are multiple links in the Press Release.

Cleaning up the forests is one way to help control forest fires which can begin for a number of reasons. Some are man-made and some are the result of lightning strikes. Even in drought conditions, if the forest has been properly cleared of dead wood and potential fuel, a fire will be much more easily contained. The fires in California are tragic and the loss of property is enormous, but some of this disaster could have been avoided had the State of California cleaned some of the forests during the winter months.

This was an avoidable disaster.

When You Don’t Understand The Problem, You Won’t Find The Right Solution

Posted on by

Breitbart posted a story today about high knife crime rates in Britain.

The article reports:

Trauma surgeons have warned that Britain’s knife crime “epidemic” is putting the National Health Service (NHS) under strain, as figures revealed the number of incidents reached a record high of more than 40,000 last year.

The Daily Telegraph reported the 40,147 knife offences recorded in England and Wales — the highest figure since records began in 2011 — marked a 57 per cent increase from the figure for 2014.

Knife crime has risen for four consecutive years since 2014, when then Home Secretary Theresa May curbed the use of stop and search — a policing tactic officers insist saves lives but which is branded “racist” by campaigns that globalist financier George Soros’s international grantmaking organisation Open Society Foundations has bragged about funding.

…”It’s across our urban centres, not just London. It’s a disease we need to work closely together to try to control as best we can,” said Adam Brooks, a consultant surgeon based in Nottingham, where the audience heard his major trauma centre had treated as many young knife crime victims aged 15-25 in the past five months as it had in the whole of 2017.

Generally speaking, British citizens do not own guns. Generally speaking, British policemen do not carry guns. Because guns are scarce in Britain, criminals have used knives. The problem is obviously not the weapon–it is the criminal intent on committing a crime. Banning guns has not helped to protect citizens, it has simply limited their ability to defend themselves.

It should also be noted that the change in the law had a negative impact on public safety. Calling people ‘racist’ to intimidate them might get results, but the results are not in the best interest of the public.

Time To End My Naivety

Posted on by

I am relatively  new to the south. I lived here for a few years as a child, but have been away a long time. Thirty-five years in New England left me immersed in a culture I was not really aware of until I left. Southern culture includes guns, gun safety, hunting, and other forms of recreation and personal protection that are totally alien to me. Recent events have convinced me that it is time to embrace that aspect of the culture of my new home.

I love steak. As far as I am concerned, steak comes from a styrofoam and plastic package in the supermarket meat section. By faith I accept that and refuse to look past the obvious. Until recently, I believed that my safety was the responsibility of the local and state law enforcement people and that they would adequately do their job. I still believe that they do their job to the best of their ability, but it has occurred to me that I need to look past the obvious and begin to take some responsibility for my own safety.

The shootings in Paris and in California both took place in locations with strict gun laws. In both cases, the shootings occurred in gun-free zones. I believe that the end result would have been different in both cases if one of the intended victims had been armed. Despite the fact that the news is reporting today that the weapons used in California were legally purchased between 2007 and 2012, gun controls in California have supposedly taken those weapons off the streets. Obviously, not everyone in areas where certain (or all) guns are banned is interested in following the law.

I am not enthusiastic about learning to shoot and learning to defend myself, but on the other hand, I definitely have a vested interest in my own safety. At least temporarily, I believe that we have reached a place in America where good people have to take responsibility for their own safety. Unfortunately, the police cannot be everywhere at once, and there are obviously some people in this country who want to do us harm. Historically speaking, police will tell you that most murder victims are murdered by family members or people they know. This means that as long as you are careful in choosing your friends (and hopefully have upstanding family members) you are unlikely to be a victim of a killer. Since Paris, San Bernardino, and other incidents involving members of the military on American soil, that has changed. It is time to put away our naivety and learn to protect ourselves. Hopefully at some time in the future, the threat of terrorism will be gone, but it will still be to our advantage to know how to defend ourselves.