UN Backs Secret Obama Takeover of Police

International Org Calls for Federalization of U.S.
Law Enforcement to be ‘beefed Up,’ Cover All of America

POLIZETTE — “The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice has provided oversight and recommendations for improvement of police services in a number of cities with consent decrees. This is one of the most effective ways to reduce discrimination in law enforcement and it needs to be beefed up and increased to cover as many of the 18,000-plus local law enforcement jurisdictions.”

That was United Nations Rapporteur Maina Kai on July 27, a representative of the U.N. Human Rights Council, who on the tail-end of touring the U.S., endorsed a little-known and yet highly controversial practice by the Justice Department to effect a federal takeover of local police and corrections departments.

The consent decrees are already being implemented in Newark, New Jersey; Miami, Florida; Los Angeles, California; Ferguson, Missouri; Chicago, Illinois; and other municipalities.

Here’s how it works: the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice files a lawsuit in federal court against a city, county, or state, alleging constitutional and civil rights violations by the police or at a corrections facility. It is done under 42 U.S.C. § 14141, a section of the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, granting the attorney general the power to prosecute law enforcement misconduct. The municipality then simply agrees to the judicial finding — without contest — and the result is a wide-reaching federal court order that imposes onerous regulations on local police.

The federal court orders are designed to undo Rudy Giuliani-style policing tactics that were effective at reducing crime in big cities in the 1990s and 2000s.

In short, the much-feared nationalization of local police departments is already being initiated by the Obama administration’s Justice Department. And somehow nobody noticed.

Federal requirements include how searches are conducted, what constitutes legitimate use of force, the mandatory use of on-body cameras by the police, and so forth. The agreements impose years-long compliance review regimes, implementation deadlines, and regular reviews by federal bureaucrats. This makes local police directly answerable to the Civil Rights Division at the DOJ.

Share Button

Justice Ginsburg Once Again Shares Her Intent to Overturn Heller

DAILY CALLER — This past week, Associate U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg gave a series of controversial interviews for which she has received nearly universal condemnation, even from the usually–fawning establishment press. Most of the headlines focused on Ginsburg’s derogatory statements regarding presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump. However, just as important were comments signaling her intent to overturn the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. Ginsburg signed onto Justice John Paul Stevens and Justice Stephen Breyer’s dissents in Heller and Breyer’s dissent in McDonald v. Chicago, which applied Heller’s protections to the actions of state and local governments.

The write-up of an interview Ginsburg gave to the New York Times contained the following:

[Ginsburg] mulled whether the court could revisit its 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which effectively struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act. She said she did not see how that could be done.

The court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, establishing an individual right to own guns, may be another matter, she said.

“I thought Heller was “a very bad decision,” she said, adding that a chance to reconsider it could arise whenever the court considers a challenge to a gun control law.

Curiously, the New York Times later significantly altered the part of their story pertaining to Ginsburg’s remarks on Heller, as pointed out by Jonathan Adler of the Volokh Conspiracy. The altered version removed the portion regarding Ginsburg’s contention that “a chance to reconsider [Heller] could arise whenever the court considers a challenge to a gun control law.” The Times eventually restored the missing portion of the story, but did not provide a satisfactory reason for the alteration.



Share Button

Illinois Gun Restrictions Unfairly Target Foster Parents, Lawsuit Claims

FOX NEWS — Kenneth and Colleen Shults want to permanently welcome a foster child into their Fairmount, Ill., family, but claim in a federal suit filed this week they are being forced to surrender their Second Amendment rights to do it.

Already parents of three, the couple is in the process of formally adopting a daughter through the state foster care system and is fighting Department of Children and Family Services rules they say severely restrict their gun rights. The couple charges that the firearm restrictions aimed at safeguarding foster children violate their constitutional rights and threaten their ability to keep their family safe.

“Our family has always owned and used firearms,” said Kenneth Shults, 37, who is a firearms safety instructor and a machine shop manager. “No foster parent should have to forfeit their constitutional rights in order to be a foster parent.”


Share Button

Obama Lays the Foundation for the First American Dictator: Wants to Federalize ALL State & Local Police Forces

BREITBART — Barack Obama is harnessing the increasing attacks on police in Dallas — and the periodic shootings of people by stressed cops — to push his agenda to federalize state and local police forces.

“I want to start moving on constructive actions that are actually going to make a difference,” he said during his evening press conference in Poland when he was asked about the Dallas attack.

Those actions, he said, would be based on the recommendations of the panel that he picked after the 2014 street riots in Ferguson, Missouri. The panel offered “practical concrete solutions that can reduce — if not eliminate — the problems of racial bias,” Obama said.

The dramatic shootings are an opportunity to push that agenda, Obama said. “If my voice has been true and positive, my hope would be that… [the panel] surfaces problems, it frames them, it allows us to wrestle with these issue and try to come up with practical solutions,” he said.

Obama began touting the panel’s recommendations in March 2015. The report, titled “President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing Report,” was published in May 2015.

The report urges the federal government to federalize police training and practices, via the use of federal lawsuits, grants and threats to cut federal aid. So far, Obama’s deputies have cajoled and sued more than 30 police jurisdictions to adopt federal rules in a slow-motion creation of a national police system, similar to the slow-motion creation of a federal-run health-sector via Obamacare.

Obama also used the press conference to insulate his federalized police program — and his allies in the Black Live Matter movement — from popular rejection after the five police were murdered by the anti-cop African-American in Dallas.

“The danger is that we somehow think the act of a troubled person speaks to some larger political statement across the country — it doesn’t,” Obama insisted.

Obama shrugged off growing criticism that his own anti-cop statements helped trigger the shootings in Dallas and several other cities on Thursday and Friday. “It is very hard to untangle to motives of this [Dallas] shooter … you have a troubled mind … what feeds it, what sets it off, I’ll leave that to psychologists and people who study these kids of incidents.”

Throughout his press conference, Obama tried to play the role of national healer. “As painful as this week has been, I firmly believe that America is not as divided as some have suggested. Americans of all races and all backgrounds are rightly outraged by the inexcusable attacks on police … that includes protestors, it includes family members who have grave concerns about police conduct, and they’ve said that this is unacceptable, there is no division there,” he said.

Share Button

Obama Exploits Dallas Police Murders He Caused With His Anti-Police Rhetoric to Push Gun Control

FOX NEWS — Obama renewed his push for gun control measures Friday as he condemned the “senseless murders” of five Dallas police officers in a coordinated sniper attack overnight.

The attack, which also injured at least six, was carried out during an anti-police brutality protest. It was the nation’s deadliest day for law enforcement since 9/11.

Obama, speaking at the start of a NATO summit in Poland, decried the “vicious, calculated and despicable attack.”

He vowed “justice will be done” and voiced support for the “extraordinarily difficult job” of America’s law enforcement officers.

“Today is a wrenching reminder of the sacrifices that they make for us,” Obama said.

But before wrapping his remarks, the president once again returned to the issue of gun laws.

Share Button

Why Are There No Clinton Indictment Stories on OOV Today?

Every freedom loving American who believes in the “Rule of Law” now knows that there is one set of rules for the ruling class elite and a different set for common Americans.

So why don’t we publish stories about this latest travesty of justice? We simply don’t have the room on one blog to capture America’s outrage at what has just happened!

Americans KNOW what has happened and more importantly WHY it has happened, even if our so called justice system has turned a blind eye to the obvious lawlessness of Hillary Rodham Clinton & Co.

Enjoy your fantasies about Trump prosecuting her in the event he takes the presidency; it ain’t gonna happen people; the prosecution that is. It just ain’t.

It’s bad enough that communist/socialist/leftist extremists may very well dominate the coming election, just as they currently infect our higher-learning institutions, but for America to be led by a corrupt, self-entitled, Clinton dynasty is unacceptable to every single American Patriot.

If you thought America was at a crossroads with Obama, YOU haven’t seen anything yet with a return of the Korrupt Klinton Klan (KKK) to the White House.

If the KKK does succeed in winning the White House we will have the “#NEVERTRUMPER” establishment RINO’s to thank. We can begin with RINO’s Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell for starters.

In the five plus years I served in the U.S. Air Force, I spent four years in the U.S. Air Force Security Service (USAFSS). and no, we were not policemen.

    The United States Air Force Security Service was essentially the United States Air Force’s cryptographic intelligence/Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) branch. It was created in October 1948 and operated until 1979, when the branch was re-designated the Electronic Security Command.

    Composed primarily of airmen selected from the cream of the Air Force’s enlisted recruits (the top 1/2 of 1 percent), the USAFSS was a secretive and tight-knit branch of Air Force cold warriors tasked with monitoring, collecting and interpreting military voice and electronic signals of countries of interest (which often were Soviet and their satellite Eastern bloc countries). USAFSS intelligence was often analyzed in the field, and the results transmitted to the National Security Agency for further analysis and distribution to other intelligence recipients.

    Individual airmen—stationed at locations scattered across the globe, ranging from Northeast Cape Air Force Station, Alaska to Pacific Islands to The Far East to Mediterranean Countries to The Middle East to Western Europe to North Africa—did a variety of jobs, almost all of them related to listening to and interpreting Eastern Bloc, Communist Chinese, and North Vietnamese military communications. Some airmen were linguists who listened to voice communications. Others – known as morse intercept operators, – monitored Soviet and other nations’ military Morse code broadcasts. (LINK)

My point being, that if I had ever allowed classified information to EVER pass over an unsecured circuit I would STILL being doing time in Leavenworth prison, 50 years later.

So here we have the queen of the political elite who INTENTIONALLY jeopardized American national security for her own self-serving interests and to keep the corrupt machinations of her family and the Clinton Foundation from the eyes of the America people and NO CHARGES are filed against her? UNACCEPTABLE!!!!!

In closing this post allow me to dispel one myth. The American Revolution is historically recorded has having taken place between 1765 and 1783. HISTORY IS WRONG!

The American Revolution is still ongoing.

Every day since 1765 we have had to fight, we have had to shed our blood, sweat and tears to maintain our hard won God-Given Freedoms and Liberties against the forces of evil and tyranny, both foreign and domestic. Those of us who have sworn the oath and pledged our lives to defending those Freedoms and Liberties continue to do so and call upon ALL American Patriots to join us in the battle to maintain the America we love for our posterity and the peace of the entire world.

Clinton, and ALL Democrats who support her, are a clear and present danger to our Constitutional Republic and should be treated accordingly.

Nothing less than the future of America is at stake here.

No Clinton, especially Hillary Clinton, should EVER be allowed to ascend to the Presidency again. EVER!

“The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil
is for Good Men to Do Nothing.”



Share Button

Judge Upholds Voter Citizenship Checks

WASHINGTON TIMES — Kansas, Alabama and Georgia can demand their residents submit proof of citizenship before signing up to vote even if they’re using the federal government’s registration forms, a judge said Wednesday, delivering a win to states concerned about voter fraud.

The League of Women Voters and the Obama administration had tried to halt the practice, arguing that federal law doesn’t require an extensive citizenship check when people register to vote, and saying the three states were imposing an extra burden on voters.

But Judge Richard J. Leon said that while it may be an inconvenience to require proof of citizenship, and voter registration drives may have to do more work to get folks signed up, it’s not an insurmountable burden — and certainly less so than trying to explain Obamacare.

“The organizational plaintiffs and their members will undoubtedly have to expend some additional time and effort to help individuals,” Judge Leon wrote. “But let’s be candid: doing so pales in comparison to explaining to the average citizen how the [Affordable Care Act] or tax code works!”

Since the voter groups didn’t show a real and irreparable harm, he rejected their request for a preliminary injunction.


Share Button

Obama Considering Ignoring SCOTUS Decision on Executive Amnesty

BREITBART — U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch is looking into options to challenge a Supreme Court ruling that effectively determined a lower court’s decision neutering President Obama’s executive amnesty would stand. The ruling would help to prevent Obama from ignoring U.S. laws and from allowing many illegal aliens to stay in the U.S. without deportation.

The statements from Attorney General Lynch were made during an interview with Reuters. The Reuters writer appears to have confused the ruling, as SCOTUS did not make the decision to block President Obama’s executive amnesty, they simply tied in their decision–which led to the Fifth Circuit’s ruling being left in place.

The Obama administration is looking into whether it can challenge the Supreme Court’s decision to block President Barack Obama’s plan to spare millions of illegal immigrants from deportation, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch said Tuesday.

“We will be reviewing the case and seeing what, if anything else, we need to do in court,” Lynch told Reuters in an interview.

Breitbart Texas’ legal analyst, Lana Shadwick, discussed the ruling in a recent article. She wrote:


Share Button

Declaring Constitution a “Waste of Time” Should Be Grounds for Impeachment of Republican Federal Judge

    Note from OOV: BREITBART nails this one on the head of Judge Richard A. Posner.

    Posner swore an oath to “faithfully and impartially” discharge his duties “under the Constitution and Laws of the United States”.

    He clearly and unambiguously abandons that oath by declaring the U.S. Constitution a “waste of time”.

    He must resign IMMEDIATELY or the Congress MUST initiate impeachment proceedings against him.

    Republican or Democrat, America cannot long suffer traitors like Judge Richard A. Posner. He is as much a danger to America as ANY terrorist, foreign or domestic!

BREITBART — Judge Richard A. Posner, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981 and serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago, has published an op-ed at Slate declaring that the U.S. Constitution is a waste of time.

Posner writes:

And on another note about academia and practical law, I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, day, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation (across the centuries—well, just a little more than two centuries, and of course less for many of the amendments). Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century. Which means that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the post–Civil War amendments (including the 14th), do not speak to today. David Strauss is right: The Supreme Court treats the Constitution like it is authorizing the court to create a common law of constitutional law, based on current concerns, not what those 18th-century guys were worrying about.

In short, let’s not let the dead bury the living.

Presumably, when Posner took office, he had to take an oath to defend the Constitution:

I … do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as … under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.

Liberal jurists are known for their view that the Constitution is a “living document,” i.e. subject to re-interpretation by judges as time and circumstance dictate (and uniformly in a socially liberal, statist direction).

It took a Republican judge to declare it “dead.”

Share Button

SCOTUS Says NADA! to Obama Immigration Tyranny!

Just in time for Independence Day and festive celebrations from coast to coast, the US Supreme Court, in effect, ruled against the blatant abuse of presidential power attempted by our soon-to-be-departed Chief Executive, the alleged “Constitutional Scholar,” the one, and (thankfully) only, Barack Hussein Obama.

Thus ends Obama’s pernicious attempt to use presidential power as a recruiting tool for illegally growing the Democrat Party, through importation of impoverished, uneducated and unskilled illegal aliens.

As reported:

A tie vote by the Supreme Court is blocking President Barack Obama’s immigration plan that sought to shield millions living in the U.S. illegally from deportation.

The justices’ one-sentence opinion on Thursday effectively kills the plan for the rest of Obama’s presidency. The outcome underscores that the direction of U.S. immigration policy will be determined in large part by this fall’s presidential election, a campaign in which immigration already has played an outsized role.

Hispanic racists like Illinois Congressman Luis Gutiérrez will no doubt slam the SCOTUS ruling, given that Gutierrez operates under the anti-American view that US borders and immigration laws should not apply to hard working Hispanics, —solely because they are Hispanic!

Rather than blaming SCOTUS and Republicans for the failed immigration coup, Gutierrez and millions of illegal aliens should vent their rage and disillusionment at our addled president who repeatedly admitted that he did not have the Constitutional authority to unilaterally change or make immigration law, but who nonetheless issued Executive Orders to curry political favor.

Today’s ruling should put a merciful end to Obama’s childish braggadocio about how his pen and phone were viable tools in his lust to go around the Constitution and the US Congress!

For today at least, God Bless the SCOTUS!

And let the deportations begin!

John W. Lillpop
Pine Grove, California

Share Button

Donald Trump May NOT Get My Vote

While I NEVER voted for Barack Obama, I admit that I helped elect him TWICE because I refused to vote for RINOS McCain (2008) and Romney (2012). Sadly, I find that I may be facing that conundrum once again.

It’s no secret to anyone who reads this blog that I consider Hillary Clinton more dangerous to the principles on which this country was founded than Obama is, or ever was. The idea that I may help her ascend to the presidency makes me both ill and angry at the same time.

The news that Donald Trump may side with the Democrat gun grabbers and agree to use the “No Fly” or “Terror Watch List” as a means of “gun control” is the single most disturbing thing to come out of his campaign.

I agree with the basic premise that anyone suspected of terrorist ties or proclivities to do harm, the mentally ill, domestic abuse perpetrators, and convicted non-violent felons, should NEVER be able to purchase firearms. But is the “No Fly” list the right vehicle to accomplish this? I think not and I’ll tell you why.

As I have said in my bio; I have sworn the oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same”, so many times that I have lost count.

I believe that the 2nd Amendment:

1. Confers an INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms, and
2. It is an inalienable right that can never be infringed upon for ANY reason, and
3. Was fundamental in the founding of this country, and is fundamental to America’s future by securing our rights as a free people “against all enemies, foreign and domestic“.

I also believe in the inalienable right of “Due Process”.

“Due Process” has been a mainstay for free people for the last 800 years. The Magna Carta Libertatum (Latin for “the Great Charter of the Liberties”), commonly called Magna Carta , clause 39 states:

No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.

English speaking people knew in 1215 that this was a foundational cornerstone to the preservation of ALL of the peoples rights and liberties. The Magna Carta led to the adoption of the 5th and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution 500 years later.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

…No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The “No Fly” or “Terror Watch List” has no means to appeal a decision to put an American citizen on it. If it is used, in its present form, as a means of “gun control” then it will be a clear violation of EVERY American’s, gun owner or not, right to “Due Process”! It’s just that simple.

The government has already declared that American’s have no constitutionally protected right to fly on an aircraft, much like they insist we have no “right” to drive on highways. However, denying an American due process to appeal the denial of their 2nd Amendment right is a clear violation of our Constitution.

I am not a particular fan of Donald Trump but he is clearly the preferred alternative to Clinton or Sanders for ANYONE who cherishes the U.S. Constitution.

Trump has been endorsed by the NRA and by many American on the basis of his promise to fight ANY infringement of our 2nd Amendment rights.

Why then is he siding with the Democrats on adopting the “No Fly” list as the chosen tool for gun control that will, in its present form, deny all Americans their “Due Process” rights?

If Donald Trump proceeds down this road he will NOT get my vote in November. PERIOD!


Share Button

Clinton Wants to Strip Constitutional Rights of Anyone FBI Investigates

Note from OOV: This headline is absolutely ironic and at the same time HILLarious!

Here’s a political hack (Clinton) who is under CRIMINAL investigation by the FBI and she in her typical knee-jerk fashion calls for the stripping of “CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF ANYONE FBI INVESTIGATES”!!!

Seriously? If she is serious then she should step down as the presumptive Democrat nominee for POTUS.

If she demands we start stripping rights on the basis of FBI investigations then America should demand that we start with HER!

What do you think?

DAILY CALLER — Hillary Clinton said anyone the FBI is monitoring for suspected terror ties should be banned from buying a gun Saturday, suggesting the federal government should be able to strip U.S. citizens of their constitutional right to buy a gun before convicting them of a crime.

“If the FBI is watching you for suspected terrorist links, you shouldn’t be able to just go buy a gun with no questions asked,” Clinton said at a rally in Cleveland. “And you shouldn’t be able to exploit loopholes and evade criminal background checks by buying online or at a gun show.”

The presumptive Democratic nominee was responding to news early Sunday that a man inspired by the Islamic State shot and killed 49 people at a gay night club in Orlando.

“And yes, if you’re too dangerous to get on a plane, you are too dangerous to buy a gun in America,” Clinton continued, again implying that the subjective judgment from the government that a person is “dangerous” should be grounds for preventing a U.S. citizen from exercising their constitutional rights.

Clinton herself, of course, is tied up in an FBI investigation right now into her use of a private email server as Secretary of State.



Share Button

Federal Appeals Court Rules Americans Have No Right to Concealed Carry in Public

WASHINGTON TIMES — Americans have no constitutional right to carry concealed firearms outside the home, a federal appellate court ruled Thursday in a decision that immediately came under sharp criticism from Second Amendment advocates.

In a closely watched en banc ruling, the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a California law that requires a gun owner to show “good cause” in order to obtain a permit to carry a concealed handgun in public. What constitutes good cause is left up to county sheriffs, and the 7-4 decision overturns a ruling by a three-judge panel that said the requirements adopted by sheriffs in San Diego and Yolo counties were unconstitutional.

“We hold that the Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public,” Judge William A. Fletcher wrote in a 52-page opinion for the majority.

But in the absence of a blanket Second Amendment right, legislators have the power to pass “any prohibition or restriction a state may choose” on the carrying of concealed guns, said Judge Fletcher, an appointee of President Clinton.

Federal appeals courts have upheld similar restrictive “good reason” requirements in New Jersey, New York and Maryland.

An ongoing case is challenging a similar requirement in the District of Columbia. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on Thursday stayed a lower-court ruling that banned the city from enforcing its requirements.

Dissenting 9th Circuit judges were sharply critical of the majority’s decision to address only the concealed-carry restrictions. Judge Consuelo M. Callahan wrote that the limitations set up and knocked down “an elaborate straw argument.”

The county policies in California for those applying for concealed-carry licenses “are tantamount to complete bans on the Second Amendment right to bear arms outside the home for self-defense, and are therefore unconstitutional,” wrote Judge Callahan, who was appointed by President George W. Bush.

Among the plaintiffs in the case are Edward Peruta of San Diego County and Adam Richards of Yolo County, who sought to carry concealed firearms for self-defense but were denied concealed-carry licenses in 2009 after they were unable to show good cause. Their challenge was backed by major gun rights organizations and opposed by national gun control advocates.




Share Button

Honoring Our Fallen Soldiers

They Went Into Harm’s Way To Insure Our Freedoms
Let’s Celebrate Those Freedoms

FRONTPAGE MAGAZINE — During my 30-year career with the former INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) I had the privilege of working with members of many other law enforcement agencies, both from within the United States and with those of foreign governments. One of those foreign police forces was the Israeli National Police.

There are times when a statement made by someone else creates a seminal moment; when an issue is brought into such focus that you can never forget it. Such a moment took place quite a few years ago when I joined an Israeli police general for a working lunch. He was sharing information with me about an Israeli fugitive who was wanted for committing serious crimes in Israel and had fled to the United States to avoid arrest. I would ultimately arrest the fugitive for his violations of our immigration laws and have him deported so that he could face justice in his native Israel.

During that lunch the general told me that Israelis viewed Americans as their “big brothers” and had tremendous respect for the United States. He went on to tell me that the one thing that Israelis in general found hard to understand, however, was an issue that he could not understand either. he wanted to know why Memorial Day had become an opportunity for linen sales and barbecues. He told me that in Israel when they celebrate the sacrifices of their military they do so in a very different and very somber way. At the appointed time motorists turn off their engines, get out of their cars and bow their heads in prayer and contemplation of the sacrifices of their fallen young men and women who made the “ultimate sacrifice.” Radio programming is interrupted for a minute of silence to pray or simply show respect for their fallen members of the IDF (Israeli Defense Forces).

I have never been able to get that conversation out of my mind, and every time Memorial Day comes around I find myself contemplating that conversation many years ago, wishing that Americans would find an equivalent way of truly paying homage to our fallen soldiers irrespective of the branch of the military in which they served.

In my musings I came to think about what motivates the valiant members of our armed forces and, I would include, the valiant members of the various law enforcement agencies and other first responders. The obvious answer is that these people all went in harm’s way to defend and protect us and our nation.

America is synonymous with freedom.

Our Constitution and within it, the Bill of Rights, codify our freedoms. Our freedoms are, however, increasingly coming under attack.
Continue reading “Honoring Our Fallen Soldiers”

Share Button

Judge Orders Ethics Classes for ‘Deceptive’ DOJ Attorneys

FOX NEWS — A federal judge has ordered annual ethics classes for Justice Department attorneys as a punishment for being “intentionally deceptive” during litigation over President Obama’s executive immigration orders.

“Such conduct is certainly not worthy of any department whose name includes the word ‘Justice,'” U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen wrote in a withering order released Thursday.

Justice Department attorneys misled the court about when the Department of Homeland Security would begin implementing President Obama’s executive order granting “deferred action” to illegal immigrants whose children are citizens. In doing so, they tricked the 26 states who filed a lawsuit into “foregoing a request for a temporary restraining order,” according to the judge.

The facts of the deception are not in doubt, Hanen emphasized. “[DOJ] has now admitted making statements that clearly did not match the facts,” he said in the May 19 opinion, first noted by the National Law Journal. “It has admitted that the lawyers who made these statements had knowledge of the truth when they made these misstatements … This court would be remiss if it left such unseemly and unprofessional conduct unaddressed.”

As punishment, Justice Department attorneys who wish to appear in any state or federal court within the 26 states that brought the lawsuit have to undergo annual ethics training. “At a minimum, this course (or courses) shall total at least three hours of ethics training per year,” he wrote.

Share Button

New Surveillance System May Let Cops Use All of the Cameras

WIRED — The 30 million or so surveillance cameras peering into nearly every corner of American life might freak you out a bit, but you could always tell yourself that no one can access them all. Until now.

Computer scientists have created a way of letting law enforcement tap any camera that isn’t password protected so they can determine where to send help or how to respond to a crime. “It’s a way to help people take advantage of information that’s out there,” says David Ebert, an electrical and computer engineer at Purdue University.

The system, which is just a proof of concept, alarms privacy advocates who worry that prudent surveillance could easily lead to government overreach, or worse, unauthorized use. It relies upon two tools developed independently at Purdue. The Visual Analytics Law Enforcement Toolkit superimposes the rate and location of crimes and the location of police surveillance cameras. CAM2 reveals the location and orientation of public network cameras, like the one outside your apartment. You could do the same thing with a search engine like Shodan, but CAM2 makes the job far easier, which is the scary part. Aggregating all these individual feeds makes it potentially much more invasive.

Share Button

Check Out This Moron Who Opposes Free Speech


Share Button

Liberal AGs Have Begun a War Against the First Amendment

DAILY SIGNAL — Last week, a line was crossed in the ongoing campaign of liberals to criminalize freedom of expression. The attorney general of the U.S. Virgin Islands subpoenaed a decade of materials and work by a private advocacy group that had dared to question the orthodoxy of climate change.

The group is the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the attorney general is Claude E. Walker, who had recently signed on to a campaign of over a dozen attorneys general to ferret out so-called climate change “deniers.” It is possible that CEI was being targeted by Walker precisely because one of its attorneys, Hans Bader, had criticized New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who was leading the campaign.

This is all part of growing chorus of officials willing to use their powers to condemn climate change skeptics. A few weeks ago, for example, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch had asked the FBI to look into the matter of whether climate change-denying scientists could be accused of fraud for not toeing the line.

There is no other way to characterize these moves. They are blatant attempts to bend the law—in Schneiderman’s case, by using consumer protection and securities laws—to shut down free and open research. It is but another example of the new illiberal attempt by progressive liberals to use the power of the law to intimidate and coerce those with whom they disagree.

Share Button

Millennials Brush Off Founding Fathers, Overwhelmingly Oppose Free Speech

WASHINGTON TIMES — The relationship between college students and free speech: It’s complicated.

A new Gallup survey said 72 percent of college students oppose campus restrictions on “expressing political views that are upsetting or offensive to certain groups.”

But asked whether “slurs” and other “intentionally offensive” language should be banned, and they’re all for it.

Sixty-nine percent of college students surveyed said they would be in favor of prohibiting “intentionally offensive” speech on campus, and 63 percent also said they would support administrative measures to ban “costumes that stereotype certain racial or ethnic groups.”

As the sound and the fury over the “Trump 2016” chalkings shows, there’s a gray area between political expression and intentionally offensive speech in the minds of today’s college students.

Share Button

Supreme Court Rules in Redistricting Case: Illegals Can Be Counted

WASHINGTON TIMES — A unanimous Supreme Court ruled Monday that illegal immigrants and other noncitizens can be counted when states draw their legislative districts, shooting down a challenge by Texas residents who said their own voting power was being diluted.

The ruling does not grant noncitizens the power to vote, but says the principle of one person, one vote doesn’t require localities to only count those who are actually eligible to vote when they are deciding how many people to put inside of each district.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the court, said even though only eligible voters are supposed to cast ballots, elected officials represent all people within their districts, and it is that act of representation, not the election itself, that the boundaries are drawn to.




Share Button

Judge Garland and the Second Amendment

WASHINGTON TIMES — His Elevation To The Supreme Court Would Uphold Gun Restrictions

Though President Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to succeed Justice Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court will more than likely remain in limbo until at least until after the November election, the choice should be unsettling to supporters of the Second Amendment and gun ownership rights.

Begin with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), established by the 1993 Brady Act, under which firearm background checks would be conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Once a person passed the background check, the FBI’s record of his or her identity was required to be destroyed, although it would be kept by the dealer. No records of firearm sales were allowed to be recorded at a government facility, and no system of registration of firearm owners was allowed.

Nevertheless, when NICS went online in 1998 Attorney General Janet Reno signed a regulation allowing the FBI to retain full information on the firearm purchaser — name, address, race, and date of birth — for six months. She called the list an “audit log” rather than gun owner registration.




Share Button

States’ Rights Advocates Eye Convention to Bypass Congress, Amend Constitution

A Message from OOV: As much as I support “States Rights” and our desire to lift the yoke of central federalist government tyranny from the necks of the American people, I ask you to ask yourselves the following question:

“Do you trust that the same people who have taken this country to precipice of destruction and historical irrelevance to amend the most treasured document upon which the foundation of this country is based in a way that won’t deprive us of the very cherished and hard won freedoms and liberties we seek to secure for ourselves and our posterity?”


I’ve heard all the arguments about the safeguards that would be in place to protect a re-written Constitution that would be detrimental to the stated goals of such an undertaking, but I am NOT confident that would be enough.

A second Constitutional convention is fraught with too many dangers for me to go along with any tweaking of the only social contract that has held our beloved Republic together for 200+ years.

Until such time as we replace the professional political hacks, the ruling elites of the establishment, with patriotic statesmen & stateswomen who will put God and Country before loyalty to party and ideology I say leave things as they are.

FOX NEWS — ATLANTA – What if a supermajority of states could override a federal law or Supreme Court ruling?

That’s just one idea being proposed by advocates of a “convention of states” to amend the U.S. Constitution.

“The American people are mad and they’re looking for a way to say, ‘No more,’” said Brooke Rollins, president and CEO of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative think tank. “Our founders, in their brilliance, gave us a tool to do that. And it’s Article V.”

Article V of the Constitution allows a minimum of two-thirds of the states to call for a convention to propose amendments, in turn going around Congress.

The push to do so has proceeded in fits and starts over the last several years, driven by a desire for states to debate a range of constitutional changes dealing with everything from campaign finance reform to balanced budgets. So far, six states have signed on — Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Florida, Indiana and Tennessee. Indiana was the latest to sign on, approving a resolution endorsing the effort earlier this month.

But organizers would need another 28 to bring their plan to fruition, and call the convention. If they reach that level of support, states would be entering uncharted territory.

Share Button

Recent Rise in Concealed Carry

Daily Caller — In light of the recent San Bernardino terrorist attacks, many states are beginning to relax their restrictions on concealed carry weapons (CCWs). Because of this change in policy, in combination with the December tragedy, Americans are purchasing smaller guns that can be used as CCWs. The reason people are moving to smaller guns? It’s easier to store, conceal and find concealed carry holsters that don’t leave an imprint.

When the San Bernardino attack took place, I was working a couple freeway exits up from Inland Regional Hospital (IRC). I saw the community come together to support one another, but I also saw something completely different: a community that was fairly against guns – particularly CCWs – becoming suddenly fond of the idea of packing. It took the death of 14 people and a national tragedy to make an anti-gun community open their eyes to the possibility – and probability – of becoming law-abiding, concealed carrying citizens.

In the days and weeks after the horrific event took place, people began flocking to the county Sheriff’s office, requesting their own concealed carry permit. By late last month, the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s office had a backlog of concealed carry permit requests; their CCW applications increased by nine-fold.

While fear has ignited the recent traffic increase the gun industry has seen, the reasoning for wanting to own a firearm remains the same: people want to know how to protect themselves should they need to in a self-defense type of situation.




Exclusive Test Fire: Glock 17 & Glock 19 Gen4 MOS — PDW




Share Button

Grassley Calls for Funding Restrictions to Stop VA From Stripping Veterans of Second Amendment Rights



TOWNHALL — One year ago, we learned the Department of Veterans Affairs has been stripping veterans of their Second Amendments rights for simply needing help managing their finances. As I reported in April 2015:


Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder expressing deep concerns over Veterans Affairs evaluations classifying veterans as “mentally defective” and banning them in the federal background check system from purchasing or owning a firearm.

According to Grassley’s office, the VA “reports individuals to the gun ban list if an individual merely needs financial assistance managing VA benefits,” keeping them from exercising their Second Amendment rights.

The VA is placing veterans on the gun ban list without proper legal backing and is certainly engaged in over reach through this practice.

On top of serious concerns about the infringement of Second Amendment rights, Grassley is raising questions about the lack of due process for veterans classified as “mentally defective,” and therefore unfit to purchase a firearm, who simply need help managing VA benefits.

For months, lawmakers have called on President Obama, the administration and the VA to explain why veterans who accept financial management help are being deemed “mentally defective” and placed into the FBI-background check system as ineligible to purchase or own a firearm.


Share Button

Second Amendment as Second-Class Right? a Dismal Warning

BEARING ARMS — Since the passing of Justice Scalia, the Supreme Court has moved one step closer toward undermining the Second Amendment. Justice Scalia left behind an admirable judicial record in defense of our Second Amendment rights, and his successor must be an individual to carry on his legacy.

In a recent article, the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action provides additional insight on the implications of the Supreme Court balance and protections for Second Amendment rights:

The Voisine case arises out of the prohibition in the Gun Control Act, 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(9), which prohibits those convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,” as that offense is defined, from possession of firearms and ammunition.

The defendants in Voisine had been convicted of domestic violence under Maine’s simple assault statute, which defines “assault” as including “intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly caus[ing] bodily injury or offensive physical contact” to another person. Neither had used a firearm or weapon of any kind in committing the offense. The question before the Court is the scope of the federal definition and whether it extends to misdemeanors which include reckless conduct as well as more deliberate conduct where there is an intent to harm. (Under that formulation, for example, an individual who injures a family member while recklessly driving could commit a qualifying domestic violence offense, potentially resulting in a permanent ban on firearm possession.)

As Assistant U.S. Solicitor General Ilana Eisenstein was winding up her argument in support of the expansive interpretation, Justice Thomas interjected to ask that she identify another “constitutional right that can be suspended based upon a misdemeanor violation of a State law.” While she struggled to conceive of a responsive example, Justice Thomas persisted in his line of questions, noting, “[Y]ou’re saying that recklessness is sufficient to trigger a … misdemeanor violation of domestic conduct that results in a lifetime ban on possession of a gun, which, at least as of now, is still a constitutional right.”

Learn about this case and its implications for your gun rights by reading more at https://www.nraila.org/

Share Button