Saturday, November 29, 2014
The Obama Agenda of Fear on US Streets, Gun Control and Sheltered Illegal Immigrant Criminals
An October Gallup survey shows that, on average, 37% of Americans are afraid to go out walking alone near their homes after dark. The percentage is highest among young Americans under 30 and among lower income Americans, but even among higher income and older Americans, approximately 30% are afraid to go out walking alone after dark. And another October Gallup survey shows that, on average, 63% of Americans feel their home is safer if they have a gun in it. This is an all-time high for this issue in Gallup surveys. Sixty-seven percent of men and 58% of women said having a gun in the house makes it a safer place. Sixty-five percent of whites and 56% of nonwhites said having a gun in the house makes it safer. Fifty-nine percent of people in the East, 62% in the Midwest, 68% in the South, and 59% in the West said having a gun in the house makes it safer. Eighty-one percent of Republicans and 64% of Independents said having a gun in the house makes it safer. But only 41% of Democrats said having a gun in the house makes it safer. ~~~~~ Meanwhile, the National Rifle Association warns that the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty that will take effect on December 24 could lead to increased gun control if President Obama implements it via executive order. NRA spokeswoman Catherine Mortensen told The Blaze : "We are worried about an end-run around Congress...Barack Obama or a future anti-gun President could use [the treaty] and international norms compliance to rationalize enacting gun control politics through executive actions, especially in the import and export realms." Under the terms of the UN treaty, participating nations must set up export and import controls for combat vehicles, aircraft, and small arms. The treaty also requires those nations to "establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list, in order to implement the provisions," according to the Washington Times. The treaty was approved by the UN General Assembly in April 2013. The NRA says the treaty is an "attempt by other countries, including some despotic regimes, to try and infringe on our constitutional rights. This treaty is a very real threat." The United States delegation to the UN supports the treaty, but the Senate, soon to be controlled by Republicans, is "less than likely" to ratify it, the Times says. The Obama administration is publicly voicing support for the treaty, and the NRA fears that could eventually result in implementation via executive order. "Even now, with an existing appropriations rider prohibiting action to implement the treaty unless it is approved by Congress, administration officials are publicly professing support for international efforts to bring the treaty into effect," Mortensen said. "That's outrageous. The United Nations is trying to establish what they call basic norms and bring international pressure on the United States to eviscerate our Second Amendment Rights and they have found willing allies in the Obama administration and John Kerry," the NRA's Mortensen added. ~~~~~ And as President Obama pushes ahead with his constitutionally questionable reform of US immigration law by means of executive order - while the new Republican Congress awaits its opportunity to counter Obama in January when it takes over - several parts of Obama's decisions are coming to light. Newsmax reports that lower-tier criminals such as drunken drivers, sex offenders and drug dealers -- yes, drug dealers -- aren't on the Priority One list of people to deport, according to Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, whose guidelines are being prepared for the nation's immigration officers who will administer President Obama's new executive order. Johnson has prepared a DHS memo in which he writes : "In general, our enforcement and removal policies should continue to prioritize threats to national security, public safety, and border security. Due to limited resources, DHS and its components cannot respond to all immigration violations or remove all persons illegally in the United States." So, Johnson will direct immigration authorities to seek and deport terror suspects and felons, reports the Washington Examiner. And, lower-level criminals will be considered secondary priorities, thus an illegal immigrant can be in prison for a year for a violent crime but still not be considered a primary removal priority. Johnson's DHS memo says that there are three priorities for detaining illegal immigrants. Priority One lists the first illegals to be deported : "aliens engaged in or suspected of terrorism or espionage, or who otherwise pose a danger to national security," including people trying to "unlawfully enter" the country, immigrants convicted of felonies, if the immigrant status is "not an essential element" of the offence, and those convicted of an aggravated felony. Priority One status immigrants could have their deportations delayed, though, if they qualify for asylum or there are factors showing they are not a threat. Priority Two offenders, the second group to be subject to deportation, include people guilty of a "significant misdemeanor" that includes domestic violence or sexual offenders, burglars, people guilty of gun offenses, drug dealers, or drunken drivers. A significant misdemeanor means that the person can be sentenced to a maximum of one year in jail, but not less than five days. This status also includes "aliens convicted of three or more misdemeanor offenses" other than traffic offenses. Finally, the Priority Three level includes those who have simply violated immigration laws, and they may be allowed to stay if an officer determines they are not a threat to the United States and its laws. But, the Johnson memo is said to suggest that even those falling within the Priority One designation are not to be targeted for immediate deportation -- immigration officers are permitted to determine if there are "compelling and exceptional factors that clearly indicate the [Priority One] alien is not a threat to national security, border security, or public safety and should not therefore be an enforcement priority." ~~~~~ Dear readers, Americans afraid to walk alone in their neighborhoods after dark, feeling safer inside their homes if they have a gun, worried that the UN, with Obama's help, may try to interfere with their constitutional right to bear arms, while Obama and DHS allow illegal immigrants who are criminals, including drug dealers and sex offenders, to be protected from deportation by an executive order that is, itself, very likely an illegal abuse of presidential power. Certainly, fear on the streets is not solely an American phenomenon; it exists all around the world and is worse in many countries than in the US. But, most countries have long since stripped the right to bear arms from their citizens. In this, Americans stand alone - the inheritors of the only Founders in history who feared the tyranncal excesses of government more than they feared their fellow Americans. That America's current President should agree with any foreign body that attempts to tamper with the US Constitution and the Second Amendment right to protect liberty and oppose tyranny -- for that is the soul of the Second Amendment -- is scandalous. That he should, at the same time try to force Americans to accept illegally-entered criminals as if they deserved to be in America, or could enter legally - because if they applied in their home country and declared a felony in their past, they would not receive a green card - is also a scandal. But, Americans are a strong and determined people. Neither illegal immigrant felons nor a President who has wandered far from the Constitution will long prevail.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
On guns, to quote Charlton Heston "They'll pry it out of my cold, dead hand".
ReplyDeleteOn illegals, they're all felons because they broke the law coming in here. I say send them all back and their kids.
If it were that simple or that doable at this point. We long ago pasted the point that a few hundred thousand illegal immigrants could be rounded up by various law enforcement agencies and sent back home
DeleteAnd if their kids were born here (most only a few days post the illegal arrival of the parents) a SCOTUS needs to be brought into the picture for a ruling on the "legal" status of these kids whose parents came here for that exact purpose to give birth and have a U.S. Citizen in the family.
And for anyone who doesn't know how this works ... when the child is born (free of medical charges) it is name EXACTLY after the mother or father. Then a SS card is applied for in that name and Bingo-Bango the corresponding parent has documentation to go out and work, get a driver's license, etc. When in reality the individual that that SS card represents is less than 2-3 months old ... F R A U D. With deportation wrote all over it.
No we had a simple solution to what was a simple problem years ago except the law makers couldn't see the end of their nose.
"The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools."
ReplyDelete- Thucydides
Tonight there is violence in our streets, corruption in our highest offices, aimlessness among our youth, anxiety among our elderly. ...Security from domestic violence, no less than from foreign aggression, is the most elementary form and fundamental purpose of any government, and a government that cannot fulfill this purpose is one that cannot command the loyalty of its citizens. History shows us that nothing prepares the way for tyranny more than the failure of public officials
ReplyDeleteto keep the streets safe from bullies and marauders.
In early November two black males in Milwaukee walked up to the home of a white family, in a majority black neighborhood, and unleashed a hail of gunfire. A five year old white girl was murdered while sitting on her grandfather’s lap. The house was located in a census tract that is 77% black and 14% white. Milwaukee police say there is no question the shooters were deliberating trying to kill people inside the house – REALLY, do you think so? At least a dozen bullets were fired directly into the house.
DeleteIf the races were reversed, this would be the biggest news story in the entire western world right now. Imagine for one second that two white males walked up to a black occupied home, in a mostly white neighborhood, and opened fire. Imagine a five year old black girl was murdered while sitting on her grandfather’s lap. There would weeks of national coverage. There would be documentaries. The story would be revisited by the national media over and over for the next ten years.
For the most part violence is driven by two things – Racial depravity and/or Mental illness. Something can (if society wishes to bare the expense) be done about mental illnesses. But racial depravity is a taught, learned, inherited, absorbed violence that is neither natural nor fact based. The only GAIN of racial violence is the act of the VIOLENCE. Any aim at minimizing social injustices with violence is as stupid as the perpetrators of the violence.
VIOLENCE & HATRED PRECIPITATES VIOLENCE & HATRED. Look at the Middle East. 3,000 years of violence and hatred and what do they have today- a homogenous society? – Not At All. They have just what they had 3,000 years ago.
There should be fear and disconnect from a president that puts people who first act in getting to America is an act of criminality, above born American citizens.
ReplyDeleteAnd any man that has lied constantly on every subject to the American citizen, who lied and continues to lie about who he is and what he is – has no expectations of faithful followers that past presidents have had.
Any man that has to date done nothing except “slice & dice” the Constitution for his own agenda (whatever that is) deserves the ire of the American public. Obama deserves (almost demands) the tyrannical rage of the American public.
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
The quote at the end is from Thomas Jefferson
DeleteGun control deters violent crime about as well as the death penalty. Worse, stricter gun control is the surest way to insure that virtually every would-be shooter is successful.
ReplyDeleteHere is a list of potential national tragedies that were prevented thanks to an armed populace (as compiled by the Libertarian Party):“A 1997 high school shooting in Pearl, Miss., was halted by the school’s vice principal after he retrieved the Colt .45 he kept in his truck; A 1998 middle school shooting ended when a man living next door heard gunfire and apprehended the shooter with his shotgun; A 2002 law school shooting in Grundy, Va., came to an abrupt conclusion when students carrying firearms confronted the shooter; A 2007 mall shooting in Ogden, Utah, ended when an armed off-duty police officer intervened; A 2009 workplace shooting in Houston, Texas, was halted by two coworkers who carried concealed handguns; A 2012 church shooting in Aurora, Colo., was stopped by a member of the congregation carrying a gun.”
The same is true of gun-control advocates. As columnist Thomas Sowell has noted: “The key fallacy of so-called gun-control laws is that such laws do not in fact control guns. They simply disarm law-abiding citizens, while people bent on violence find firearms readily available. If gun-control zealots had any respect for facts, they would have discovered this long ago.”
That there really isn’t any way to predict or ultimately prevent these random tragedies—except, if you’re lucky, an armed person being nearby—is a basic truth liberals’ anti-gun ideology has blinded them to. Banning knives would not have stopped Jack the Ripper. Banning guns will not stop the crazed few who seek to open fire on the public.
Although it’s sad to see anyone lose his life, Michael Brown isn’t nearly as sympathetic of a victim. He robbed a convenience store, assaulted a police officer, ignored his order to stop and then ran at the cop when he had a gun on him. What do you say about someone who gets shot under those circumstances other than he brought it on himself?
ReplyDeleteThere are seven (7) lessons we can learn from how these cases panned out and they’re not the ones liberals always seem to be pushing in these situations. Even though we have a black President, racism is everywhere in America!
1) The initial story you hear is probably a lie
2) The Left has zero interest in discussing why black Americans are really more likely to be shot by police officers
3) It’s time for cops to start wearing body cameras
4) You better arm yourself because you can’t count on the police to protect you
5) The mainstream media is more interested in promoting the idea that America is a racist country than the truth
6) Most people on the “Left” care more about the narrative than the truth
7) “Black Leaders” are looking to ratchet up the tension, not ease it
On Nov. 24, the day news broke that a grand jury had declined to indict a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, who shot and killed a teenager he said was attacking him, the FBI reported that 76 law enforcement officers were killed in the line of duty in 2013.
DeleteAnother 49,851 officers, 136 a day every day, were assaulted while on duty last year, according to the FBI report. Of the officers who were attacked, 14,565, or 29.2 percent, were injured, and 31.2 percent of the injured officers were attacked while responding to a disturbance call, such as domestic disputes or a bar fight.
According to the FBI, assailants used hands, fists, or feet in about 80 percent of cases, firearms in 4.5 percent, knives or other cutting tools in 1.8 percent, and other weapons in the rest of the cases. For the 15th straight year, the largest percentage of attacks on officers occurred between midnight and 2 a.m.
Last year 27 of the 76 officers killed in the line of duty died in "felonious acts," and of those officers, 26 were shot and one was hit by a vehicle. Most of the officers killed accidentally in the line of duty were killed in car crashes. The average age of the officers killed in felonies was 39. Two were female, 25 were white, and two were black.
Today blacks are about 13 percent of the population and continue to be responsible for an inordinate amount of crime. Between 1976 and 2005 blacks committed more than half of all murders in the United States. The black arrest rate for most offenses — including robbery, aggravated assault and property crimes — is still typically two to three times their representation in the population. Blacks as a group are also overrepresented among persons arrested for so-called white-collar crimes such as counterfeiting, fraud and embezzlement.
ReplyDeletePercentage-wise, black Americans are much more likely to commit crimes and so, it’s not a surprise that they’re more likely to end up in potentially dangerous conflicts with police officers. Encouraging black Americans to be hostile to police officers, which is sadly all too common, only exacerbates the problem by making cops more suspicious and by making black Americans more likely to do potentially dangerous things around the police.
The vast majority of black Americans are decent, hardworking, strong family oriented, law-abiding people and it’s sad that some percentage of them are afraid of the police. That’s an issue that police departments should do much more to address, but unless they’re met halfway by community leaders who are willing to work with the cops, any effort is doomed to fail.