While acting as if they are holier than the rest of us when it comes to gun control, the Obama administration defended agents of the Drug Enforcement Agency’s use of force against the 11-year-old and 14-year-old daughters of Thomas and Rosalie Avina. The “excessive” force included putting a gun to the youngest girl’s head. Attorney’s for the Obama administration defended the actions of the agents arguing that “the DEA agents’ conduct was plainly reasonable under the circumstances,” even though this took place in 2007 under the Bush administration.

What kind of circumstances would lead one to think it was “reasonable” to put a gun to an 11-year-old girl’s head?

According to Reason.com:

After subduing their parents, agents broke into the two girls’ bedrooms during a wrong-door raid in January, 2007. The oldest of the two girls dropped to the floor and was handcuffed by agents before being dragged into the living room and laid next to her mom and dad. The 11-year-old, however, was sleeping when agents came into her room. As they began to shout at her to “get on the fucking ground,” the girl woke up and “froze in fear.” Agents then dragged her from her bed to the floor. One agent handcuffed her while another aimed a gun at her head.

 

The Obama administration’s argument is based on the agents’ belief that the home they were preparing to raid on January 20, 2007, belonged to suspected drug trafficker Louis Alvarez, who “had a history of violence and resisting arrest.” The agents anticipated that Alvarez would be armed, and that the only way they could safely arrest him would be with an early morning raid. While agents would later learn that they had the wrong house, they didn’t know that when they battered down the Avinas’ front door, guns ready.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in the matter that agents were acting within the law when it came to the parents, especially the father who resisted the orders barked out by the agents and was handcuffed at gunpoint. The Obama administration argued their case based on Muehler v. Mena, which established the right of law enforcement agents to detain residents during a raid for an unspecified amount of time (Notice that the term “rights” are being transferred from citizens to government officials).

Just how did the Obama administration attorneys handle their presentation of the agents handling of the little girls?

Agents also entered the bedrooms of plaintiffs B.F. and B.S. Avina, who were then fourteen and eleven years old, respectively. Both girls were in bed at the time, and B.S. was sleeping. B.F. complied with the agents’ instruction to get on the ground, and the agents thereafter handcuffed her. B.S. initially resisted the instruction, and agents responded by assisting her to the floor and handcuffing her. The agents did not use profanity in speaking to the girls.

They “assisted” her to the floor. Isn’t that a nice way to put things? Perhaps it was similar to the Elian Gonzalez raid. Remember that, where armed federal agents went in and took him from family to send him back to Cuba after his mother gave her life so that he could live in America?

At first the Obama attorneys said there was no profanity. Later they would simply play it down:

In response to plaintiffs’ contention that “the allegedly extensive use of profanity somehow contributes to a finding that the agents used unreasonable force,” the [lower] court noted that there was “no evidence that suggests any use of profanity was extensive.” To the contrary, the court observed that “the evidence demonstrates that the agents sparsely used profanity,” and “did so only in association with commands during entry directed solely at the adults.” Id. “Though B.F. Avina testified that she heard profanity used in the background during the agents’ entry, neither B.F. nor [B.S.] Avina testified that any of the agents used any profanity directed at them.” Id. (internal citation omitted).

Yet according to the Ninth Circuit Court’s Ruling, the daughters did testify to their use of profanity. Not only that but the Obama attorney omitted that one of the officers aimed his firearm at the 11-year-old’s head.

The Obama administration asked the Court to uphold a lower court’s ruling on the matter:

Having probable cause to believe that a drug-trafficker was living at plaintiffs’ residence, DEA agents obtained warrants to arrest the suspect and to search the residence for firearms and other evidence of illegal drug-trafficking. Plaintiffs were home when agents executed the warrants, and the agents reasonably detained plaintiffs, in handcuffs, while securing the premises. Finding no evidence that the agents used force beyond that necessary to handcuff the plaintiffs, and concluding that the agents’ use of strong language was not excessive, the district court granted summary judgment for the United States on plaintiffs’ claims of assault and battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress. This Court should affirm the district court’s judgment, as plaintiffs have adduced no evidence indicating that state law would impose liability in like circumstances.

In the end, DEA raided the wrong house. Surprise! Should they not be held accountable for their actions and lack of knowing where they should have raided? The Obama administration says “No”:

Plaintiffs [the Avinas] offer no argument or evidence suggesting that the agents did not in good faith act within the scope of the warrant in this case. As plaintiffs note, evidence exists that the affidavit supporting the warrant erroneously stated that Alvarez’s car was registered to plaintiffs’ address. But this deficiency was not apparent from the face of the warrant and therefore does not implicate the limited exception to Leon; there is no indication of any kind that the agents executing the warrant had reason to know of the error and acted other than in good faith. To the contrary, the statement in the affidavit regarding the registration would tend to confirm the existence of probable cause to search the residence.

Ladies and gentlemen, it appears that the Obama administration wants you and your children to be defenseless in order that none of their “officers” are hurt during a raid on your home, but that’s not all. They really do want to remove as many firearms from the American public as they can. They want you to think they care about “the children.” But you can see from this case, that they will go to all sorts of lengths to disregard the fact that their agents used excessive profanity, excessive force, and brought to bear extreme emotional trauma on the minds of both of these girls, including putting a gun to one of their heads. Do you really think Barack Obama cares what happens to kids at a school in Newtown, Connecticut?

Judge Andrew Napolitano has done a great service with his recent article, “Guns and Freedom.” While the American debate on guns and governments continues, Napolitano makes the case, by appealing to the notion of natural law, that our individual right to self-defense does not come from government, but from God. Napolitano rightly states that:

[Colonial Americans] defeated the king’s soldiers because they didn’t know who among us was armed, because there was no requirement of a permission slip from the government in order to exercise the right to self-defense. (Imagine the howls of protest if permission were required as a precondition to exercising the freedom of speech.) Today, the limitations on the power and precision of the guns we can lawfully own not only violate our natural right to self-defense and our personal sovereignties; they assure that a tyrant can more easily disarm and overcome us.

Although there is much more often encapsulated in the modern use of the term, “natural law” is precisely what Thomas Jefferson was appealing to when he wrote in the Declaration of Independence about “self-evident” truths and “certain unalienable rights.” Napolitano agrees:

To assure that no government would infringe the natural rights of anyone here, the Founders incorporated Jefferson’s thesis underlying the Declaration into the Constitution and, with respect to self-defense, into the Second Amendment. As recently as two years ago, the Supreme Court recognized this when it held that the right to keep and bear arms in one’s home is a pre-political individual right that only sovereign Americans can surrender and that the government cannot take from us, absent our individual waiver.

In other words, the Second Amendment doesn’t grant the right to self-defense; we already had these rights from God Himself. The Second Amendment is nothing more than an acknowledgment of this “natural” and “divine” fact. Conservatives and gun owners that are trying to stake their claim to “gun rights” by appealing to the Second Amendment are on very shaky ground indeed, because what the government has “granted” can always be “taken.”

The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, thus, with the same instruments they would use upon us. If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto had had the firepower and ammunition that the Nazis did, some of Poland might have stayed free and more persons would have survived the Holocaust.

Notice what Napolitano is saying here and how he carefully chooses his words: “the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms.” The Second Amendment did not make gun-owning a right any more than the First Amendment made free speech a right. Both of these amendments to the Constitution were nothing more than written admissions of these rights. And, it must be remembered, these Amendments were added after the Constitution was written because of the Anti-Federalists’ mistrust of centralized government. It is also telling that these Amendments are referred to as the “Bill of Rights” and state their reason for existence as being to “prevent misconstruction or abuse of its [the Constitution's] powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: and as extending the ground of public confidence in the government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.” This means that the Bill of Rights was not only an acknowledgment of certain “divine” rights, but a restriction upon the government regarding them. Napolitano makes the modern misunderstanding of this historical fact clear:

Most people in government reject natural rights and personal sovereignty. Most people in government believe that the exercise of everyone’s rights is subject to the will of those in the government. Most people in government believe that they can write any law and regulate any behavior, not subject to the natural law, not subject to the sovereignty of individuals, not cognizant of history’s tyrants, but subject only to what they can get away with.

Unfortunately, most people in America, not just those in government, have this same erroneous understanding of the relationship between rights and laws.

I just wrote my quarterly tax check to the IRS. Then I read that Planned Parenthood’s total assets are more than $1.244 billion, part of which is some of my and your confiscated tax money. Planned Parenthood is subsidized to the tune of $524 million. That subsidy comes from us!

Who do you think paid for the Hydrogen Cyanide (Zyclon B) gas that was used in Nazi ‘work camps’ during World War II to kill Jews and other ‘undesirables’? (The Nazis were into euphemisms just like Planned Parenthood. Abortion death centers are called ‘clinics’ not ‘killing centers.’) The people of Germany paid for Hitler’s murdering ways through the taxes that were collected.

To add unmitigated fury to it all, Planned Parenthood was complicit in the murder of 333,964 preborn babies in 2011. Let that number sink in while you read and hear about all the rightful anger, rage, and sadness over the killing of 6 and 7 year-old children at the hands of a madman in Newtown, Connecticut.

What’s different about the two killing fields? The size and age of the children and the law. It’s illegal to kill children who have been born, but it’s an indication that we are a civilized society to kill children in the womb. Ann Coulter describes the cover-up in the way language is used:

“The Orwellian dishonesty about abortion begins with the Left’s utter refusal to use the word abortion. It would be as if members of the National Rifle Association refused to use the word gun. These ‘pro-choicers’ treat abortion the way Muslims treat Mohammed. It’s so sacred, it must not be mentioned. Instead we get a slew of liberal euphemisms for baby-killing: ‘reproductive freedom,’ ‘a woman’s right to control her own body,’ ‘terminating a pregnancy,’ ‘freedom of choice,’ ‘a woman’s own private medical decision,’ ‘a procedure,’ ‘access to health care,’ ‘family planning,’ ‘our bodies, our selves,’ ‘choice.’

“Choice is important when it comes to killing babies, but not so much when it comes to whom you hire, whom you associate with, what you think about evolution, how much gas your car consumes, how much water comes out of your bathroom showerhead…. The only other practice that was both defended and unspeakable in America like this was slavery….”

In this gun debate, every pro-gun/anti-abortion advocate in Congress should make the connection: There won’t be any talk about guns and the people who use them unlawfully until there is a public discussion about the bloody business of abortion.

If New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo wants to talk about more gun restrictions, then force him to talk about the killing of pre-born children (and why he’s living with a woman he’s not married to, is divorced, supports homosexual marriage, and is still a member in good standing in the Catholic Church being a member of Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception in Albany).^[1].

At least tax payers aren’t funding people’s gun purchases.

Back when GM needed to be bailed out, it was considered unthinkable that America would not have its own car companies. The big three auto makers were given the status of the Statue of Liberty or the Jefferson Memorial. When Romney was running his alleged opposition to the bailout was used against him.

So how can we go from bailing out American automakers to giving more taxpayer money to their foreign competitors? That is exactly what the Detroit News reveals that our government is doing, though you would never know it from the headline. The headline makes it look like a foreign company is simply making an investment based on an assumption of risk and a calculation of profitability: “Nissan launching production of Leaf in U.S.” But the story shows us some other factors:

“Nissan Motor Co. said it will begin U.S. production of its all-electric Leaf on Thursday in Tennessee as part of a $1.4 billion government loan. The Japanese automaker won an Energy Department loan in 2010 to build a battery plant in Smyrna, Tenn., and to retool to build the Leaf at its assembly plant next door. The Leaf will be built alongside the company’s gasoline-powered products. Nissan says it is the only automaker that manufactures its own electric vehicle batteries, at the biggest lithium-ion automotive battery plant in the United States.”

The story reports all this as if it is telling us of a sensible plan. But I don’t get it. How do we go from bailing out American companies in order to preserve them, and then go through money at their competitors?

But in addition to providing subsidized competition for American-made products, we also get all the signs that this is just another Solyndra waiting to happen:

“The Leaf’s sales have struggled and the automaker failed to double sales in 2012 as it had predicted and instead sold about the same number as in 2011. Last year, Nissan sold 9,819 Leaf EVs in the United States — up 1.5 percent over 2011. The Leaf is not the only struggling electric vehicle. Ford Motor Co. sold just 685 Focus EVs in 2012 — its first full year of sales — even though it has built 1,627, according to a report from Ford last week. Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn has previously predicted that 10 percent of all vehicles sold by 2020 worldwide will be electric vehicles.”

So we are using taxpayer money, even in the midst of imminent doomsday from our debt, in order to entice a company to build vehicles that only a tiny minority of people wants to drive. Based on what? The prediction that ten per cent of all vehicles sold by 2020 worldwide will be electric is obviously a false prophecy and a delusion. It is not even close to reality.

I really don’t know how to properly respond to this sort of news. The whole reason why unemployment is so high right now is because of insane economic tampering by the government to the benefit of a few companies at the expense of the many. The extra American jobs that are promised will probably never materialize and certainly will never last. They are simply welfare expenses and they will cost the American taxpayer more jobs because the money to support them is taken away from the productive economy and misallocated to this “green” agenda.

We are ruled by arrogant children.

The Washington National Cathedral is the closest thing our country has to an official state church.  It plays host to almost all state funerals and inaugural services for newly elected presidents.

In 1893, Congress passed a measure to allow for the construction of a new cathedral in the nation’s capital.  The measure was proposed to Congress by the Protestant Episcopal Cathedral Foundation, run largely by the first seven Episcopal Bishops of Washington.  Construction began in 1907 and was actually completed in 1990 when then President George H.W. Bush presided over the placement of the final finial.  Interestingly, in 2011, the National Cathedral received $700,000 in federal funding for repairs due to the earthquake that occurred that year.

The National Cathedral is operated by the Episcopal Church, which is the closest Protestant denomination to the Catholic Church in many ways.  It is the official seat of the Bishop of Washington, who at the moment is the Right Reverend Mariann Edgar Budde.  It’s also the official seat of the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, who at the moment is the Most Reverend Katharine Jefferts Schori.  Yep, both church officials are women, which goes against scriptural teachings, and also explains why they have become so liberal.

If you can compromise the Bible and God’s teachings in one area of the church, then why not violate a few more?  Well, they are.  After same-sex marriage was voted to be legal in Maryland and the District of Columbia in November, Budde decided to allow for the inclusion of same-sex marriage ceremonies in church practices.

Rev. Gary Hall, the newly appointed Dean of the National Cathedral welcomes the idea of performing same-sex marriages in iconic sanctuary.  Hall believes that this will help break down barriers and open up more opportunity to reach the community in way that reflects God’s diversity.  He told the press:

“I read the Bible as seriously as fundamentalists do.  And my reading of the Bible leads me to want to do this because I think it’s being faithful to the kind of community that Jesus would have us be.”

“As a kind of tall-steeple, public church in the nation’s capital, by saying we’re going to bless same-sex marriages, conduct same-sex marriages, we are really trying to take the next step for marriage equality in the nation and in the culture.”

All I can say is that he’s not reading the same Bible I am because it clearly says that homosexuality is an abomination.  But, when your top church leaders defy God’s Word in one area, it’s easy to do so in other areas as well.  I just wonder how much longer God will wait before unleashing His wrath on our nation for turning from Him and His ways?  I’m getting older and facing God’s wrath on our nation is really the only thing that truly scares me anymore.  In fact, I find the idea terrifying, for even those who are faithful and standing strong for God will suffer the wrath He will bring down on the nation as a whole.  If you don’t believe, read what happened to Daniel and his friends when God judged his nation.  He was taken captive into Babylon and was not treated well at all.

There’s talk that President Obama will ignore Congress and issue Executive Orders to implement new gun regulations over against the clear reading of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Is an Executive Order a law? Will we be obligated to obey it?

Executive Orders have a long history. Republicans and Democrats have issued them. Only a few of them have been overturned by the courts.

Neither Republicans nor Democrats do much about Executive Orders they don’t like since both parties issue them. This is how the Washington game is played.

Republicans and Democrats like Executive Orders on difficult issues because it stops the legislative process that they’ll have to participate in and eventually vote yes or no. They can always tell the voters back home, “Well, I would have voted against that if the President hadn’t issued an Executive Order. Golly gee willikers, now my hands are tied.” Right.

An Executive Order is only valid if it’s done within the jurisdictional authority of the President’s constitutional authority. To rule against the Second Amendment is not a presidential prerogative. If it is, then the President could turn his attention to the First Amendment and issue an order that newspapers can no longer criticize him. Conservative talk radio would die a quick death if the President issued an Executive Order saying that the freedom of speech had to be limited in several ways, one of which was negative political speech, especially about him.

Don’t get me wrong. I do believe that President Obama would like to do all these things. He’s mad with power. He has a vendetta against America.

Chris Matthews of MSNBC made a statement about how President Obama should have been treated by presidential challenger Mitt Romney in their second debate. It was the fact that Gov. Romney actually challenged the President that led Matthews to go Gestapo on Romney:

“I don’t think [Mitt Romney] understands the Constitution of the United States… He’s the president of the United States. You don’t say, ‘you’ll get your chance.’”

Yes you do. President Obama is an elected official. He’s not a king. The king battle was fought a long time ago at Runnymede in 1215.

If the President and other anti-Second Amendment advocates want to limit our freedoms, then they can go through the amendment process. An Executive Order is the chicken’s way out. It’s also unconstitutional.

The Democrats know this. That’s why they’re sending out Vice President Biden to soften the rhetoric:

“The president is going to act. There are executive orders, there’s executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet. But we’re compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required.”

Did you see it? “Legislative action that we believe is required.” In terms of the Separation of Powers, the President does not have the constitutional authority to legislate. Of course, that hasn’t stopped him or any other president.

Biden went on to say that “this is a moral issue and that ‘it’s critically important that we act.’” Morally, the President can’t ignore an Amendment to the Constitution. How is banning guns for everyone the moral thing to do when only a tiny fraction use guns illegally? How will banning guns to stop immoral people from using whatever they can find to do harm?

Timothy McVeigh used kerosene and fertilizer to kill 169 people. Abortion doctors use medical instruments to kill pre-born babies? A man was poisoned with cyanide before he could cash in his $1 million dollar lottery ticket.