THE CHURCH MILITANT
Ephesians 5:11-"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them". This Christian News Blog maintains a one stop resource of current news and reports of its own related to church, moral, spiritual, and related political issues, plus articles, and postings from other online discernment ministries, and media which share the aims to obey the biblical commands to shed light on and refute error, heresy, apostasy, cults, and spiritual abuse.
Seven men have been found guilty of grooming and raping underage girls aged 13 to 17, plying them with drink and drugs and abusing them at sex “parties” and in a van know as the “shag wagon”.
The seven-man grooming gang was described as “predatory and cynical” by a judge…
It keeps on unfolding: more and more cases of obscene, cruel abuses of UK girls and still, there has been no global outcry to match the enormity of the behavior of the Muslim rape gangs. In fact, the Muslim rape gangs are still being described by the British press as “grooming gangs”; the perpetrators are referred to as “Asian.” Meanwhile, the BBC has referred to this particular Muslim rape gang as “Oxford men.”
According to female Islamic scholar, Professor Suad Saleh, from the prestigious Al-Azhar University, the rape gang activity is all about Islam: “Muslim men are allowed by Allah to rape non-Muslim or infidel women to ‘humiliate'” them. Saleh is correct (Qur’an 4:3, 4:24, 23:1-6, 33:50, 70:30), contradicting the Western politically correct dupes who incessantly rationalize or downplay these gross human rights abuses. As Robert Spencer noted some days ago: “One survivor of a Muslim rape gang in the UK said that her rapists would quote Quran to her, and believed their actions justified by Islam.”
Detective Chief Inspector Mark Glover noted:
This group of men subjected them to an almost unimaginable level of cruelty and sexual abuse over a significant period of time.
The UK has become a subjugated land, where Muslim rapists are tolerated and those who speak out against Islamization are banned and shunned by the establishment — including Robert Spencer. Only one book actually exists in the UK on the Muslim rape gangs. To hear an interview with the author, click HERE.
In addition to the Muslim rape gang abuses against infidel girls, last year a UK Sharia court did the unthinkable: it handed down a sentence approving of honor killing. Many Muslim women are sent back home by those same courts, to be further abused by their husbands.
More on this story. “Another Grooming Gang: Abuse on ‘Massive Scale’, Men Drugged and Raped Girls in ‘Sh*g Wagon’”, by Liam Deacon, Breitbart, March 26, 2018:
Seven men have been found guilty of grooming and raping underage girls aged 13 to 17, plying them with drink and drugs and abusing them at sex “parties” and in a van know as the “shag wagon”. The seven-man grooming gang was described as “predatory and cynical” by a judge as the jury announced their decision on Friday following a five-month trial at Oxford Crown Court.
The men, aged between 37 and 48, denied what prosecutors described as “sexual exploitation on a massive scale” — but were found guilty of charges including multiple counts of rape, indecent assault, false imprisonment, and supplying drugs.
Reporting on the gang of what the BBC described as “Oxford men” was previously restricted, and two men involved in the trial still cannot be named for legal reasons.
The guilty men were named as Assad Hussain, 37, of Morrell Avenue; Moinul Islam, 41, of Wykeham Crescent; Raheem Ahmed, 40, of Starwort Path; Kamran Khan, 36, of Kersington Crescent; Kameer Iqbal, 39, of Dashwood Avenue; Alladitta Yousaf, 48, of Bodley Road; and Khalid Hussain, 38, of Ashurst Way.
Two others, Saboor Abdul and Haji Khan, were acquitted of all charges.
Six of the attackers were from Oxford and one from Bolton, Thames Valley Police said. Their five “vulnerable female victims” were aged 13 to 17 when they were abused from 1998 and 2005.
“Systematic and widespread grooming, that is what this case has revealed,” remarked Judge Peter Ross, who presided over the trial…..
“This has been a lengthy and difficult investigation undertaken by Thames Valley Police and the Elmore Team, which has taken place over a significant period of time,” commented Senior Investigating Officer Detective Chief Inspector Mark Glover, of the Thames Valley Police Major Crime Unit.
“These convictions would not have been possible without the incredible bravery and ongoing support of the victims.
“This group of men subjected them to an almost unimaginable level of cruelty and sexual abuse over a significant period of time.
“To have come through that trauma, and to have been able to help and support us throughout our investigation is a testament to the strength of their characters.
“I know that nothing will be able to change the damage done to these women’s lives by this group of men, but I hope that these convictions will help them to move forward with their lives.”……
CHINA'S DICTATOR PLEDGES "BLOODY BATTLE" FOR WORLD DOMINATION
Jack Posobiec joins Alex Jones live via Skype to lay out the strategy behind communist China's move to claim the South China Sea as an extension of their empire: the Great Chinese Lake.
GERMANY: HEADMASTER TELLS MOTHER OF DAUGHTER BULLIED BY MUSLIMS TO COVER UP WITH A HIJAB Blonde Christian girl beaten and abused
A mother in Germany whose daughter was being bullied by Muslim students because she was blonde, Christian and didn’t wear a headscarf was told by the headmaster of a school in Frankfurt to cover her up with a hijab.
A mother in Germany whose daughter was being bullied by Muslim students because she was blonde, Christian and didn’t wear a headscarf was told by the headmaster of a school in Frankfurt to cover her up with a hijab.
The mother of the student told BILD that her daughter was being bullied by Muslim girls to such a degree that she had to “take them out of school for protection.”
“She was beaten and verbally attacked on the way to school,” said the mother, explaining that abuse was because her daughter has blonde hair, doesn’t wear a headscarf, has a German-Hebrew name and is a Christian.
When the headmaster was informed of the situation, he told the mother to cover up her daughter with a hijab.
“Your daughter does not have to say that she is German. Besides, you can give her a headscarf!” the mother was told.
The school refused to comment on the story.
Meanwhile, at another school in Ennepetal, children were bullied for eating gummy bears because the “impure” sweets contain pork gelatin and are therefore not halal.
The report also mentions the case of two fourth-graders from Bavaria, who came home crying before telling their father, “This student has said he is cutting off our heads because we are Christians.”
The mother of a third grader in Bonn also complained to a school after a Muslim student told her daughter, “Your parents will burn in hell if they do not believe in Allah.”
The story is yet another example of religious bullying and the Islamist takeover of schools in heavily migrant populated areas of Germany.
As we reported yesterday, the president of Germany’s Teachers Association has warned that schools with over 70% migrant students are spiraling out of control, with attacks on female teachers and Jewish students becoming commonplace.
Heinz-Peter Meidinger told BILD that a story in Berlin about Muslim migrant students circulating ISIS beheading videos was not a lone case and that such propaganda is “spreading like wildfire”.
Meidinger said that the presence of security guards at schools, a rarity in European countries, was “synonymous with a capitulation,” and that the situation had worsened since the influx of around 2 million new migrants from 2015 onwards.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Official White House Fact Sheet
President Donald J Trump : Sanctuary Cities Undermine Law Enforcement & Endanger Our CommunitiesWhiteHouse.gov
Washington DC –-(Ammoland.com)-Sanctuary jurisdictions obstruct Federal immigration enforcement efforts and put law enforcement at greater risk.
A “sanctuary city” generally refers to a State or local jurisdiction that refuses to cooperate with Federal immigration enforcement, often by rejecting “detainer” requests from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and refusing to share information relating to potentially removable aliens.
Detainers are used to request that a State or local law enforcement agency hold a criminal alien in local custody for up to 48 hours after their release on state charges to allow ICE to take custody of the alien and initiate removal proceedings.
State and local law enforcement agencies routinely detain suspects for violating Federal laws at the request of federal authorities.
The Constitution and Federal statues allow for ICE to detain illegal aliens, and for local police to do so at ICE’s request, relying on ICE’s determination of probable cause.
Detainers themselves establish probable cause of an alien’s removability and it would be absurd to require ICE to obtain a judicial warrant every time it detained an illegal alien.
Indeed, Congress authorized immigration officers, rather than Federal judges, to issue administrative warrants to arrest aliens based on probable cause to believe they are in violation of the immigration laws.
If this was necessary under the Fourth Amendment, immigration enforcement would grind to a halt.
When sanctuary cities refuse to comply with detainer requests, law enforcement officers must carry out their immigration enforcement duties in workplaces, residences, and in the streets.
This can lead to ICE having to enter dangerous environments to arrest criminal aliens.
Some sanctuary city officials have gone as far as warning illegal aliens about upcoming immigration enforcement actions, allowing criminal aliens to prepare themselves and putting law enforcement, the public, and the aliens at even greater risk.
ENDANGERING COMMUNITIES: Reckless sanctuary policies endanger the safety of our communities and obstruct immigration enforcement actions which can prevent further crime.
Too many criminal illegal aliens have been released into American communities and gone on to commit crimes which could have been prevented had ICE been able to take the individuals into custody.
In 2016, the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) arrested a criminal illegal alien for possession of cocaine for sale and other charges.
The individual had been deported three times previously and had prior convictions for similar offenses but was still released.
SFPD arrested the individual again in 2017 on charges involving the sale of narcotics, yet the city again refused to comply with an ICE detainer request and the individual was released.
SFPD arrested an illegal alien and alleged gang member more than ten times between 2013 and 2017 for charges including rape, assault, domestic battery, robbery, and vehicle theft.
On each occasion ICE’s request to have the individual transferred to their custody or receive notice before his release was denied.
A criminal illegal alien was arrested in Cook County, Illinois in 2011 for driving on a suspended license from a prior conviction for driving under the influence (DUI).
ICE issued a detainer request but the individual was released from jail and arrested less than a year later for aggravated DUI causing death.
Activists say sanctuary policies make illegal aliens feel safe enough to report crimes to police.
Illegally present crime victims and witnesses are eligible for certain immigration benefits, like the U-visa and T-visa, to encourage their cooperation in reporting crime.
IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT: President Trump’s Administration has and will continue to pursue strong immigration enforcement based on the rule of law.
President Trump’s Administration has taken action to ensure our Nation’s immigration laws are faithfully enforced.
The Department of Justice has filed a legal action regarding three California laws that intentionally obstruct the enforcement of Federal immigration law, regulate private entities that seek to cooperate with Federal authorities, and impede consultation and communication between Federal and State law enforcement officials.
During fiscal year (FY) 2017, ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) made more than 140,000 administrative arrests and effected more than 225,000 removals.
From President Trump’s inauguration through the end of FY 2017, ERO made more than 110,568 arrests compared to only 77,806 in all of FY 2016.
However, more resources are needed to ensure law enforcement is able to do its job and enforce our immigration laws.
There are nearly one millions aliens in the United States with final orders of removal but not enough officers or resources to enforce the orders.
Many sheriffs have backed off of holding criminal aliens for fear of lawsuits.
The part of tax law that prohibits houses of worship from engaging in explicit political activity will remain intact for now, despite concerns that Republican lawmakers would try to repeal it in the latest massive federal spending bill they released this week.
The more than 60-year-old law, often referred to as the Johnson Amendment, bars churches and other tax-exempt organizations from endorsing political candidates. A group of conservatives — mostly evangelical Christian leaders and a few Republican lawmakers — have advocated for its removal in recent years, and a 2017 bill from the House Appropriations Committee included a provision largely defunding IRS efforts to enforce it.
This year’s $1.3 trillion omnibus bill, released by the GOP on Wednesday night (March 21), however, does not include a repeal. Its absence was celebrated by faith leaders and nonprofit groups who advocated against repealing the law, arguing that it protects them from political coercion.
“Those who depend on houses of worship and community nonprofits can breathe a sigh of relief, as concerted efforts to weaken the long-standing law that keeps the 501(c)(3) sector free from partisan campaigning were rebuked yet again,” said Amanda Tyler, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty.
“Some hoped they could slip a bad policy change into must-pass legislation, but advocates for keeping nonprofits nonpartisan spoke up and prevailed.”
Tim Delaney, president and CEO of the National Council of Nonprofits, echoed Tyler’s enthusiasm but warned that repeal efforts will likely continue.“It would be nice to celebrate a long and hard-fought victory, but we cannot afford to relax,” he said in a statement.
“Last year prominent politicians and well-funded lobbyists tried to gut the Johnson Amendment through an executive order and five separate bills. Their zeal last year suggests they likely will continue their push to hijack charitable goodwill for their own political ambitions while rewarding their supporters with charitable tax deductions for partisan donations.”
Last year’s attempts to gut the Johnson Amendment included several efforts to attach a repeal to larger legislation. The GOP-authored tax bill, for example, initially included language that would damage the law. That version was passed by the House of Representatives but removed from the final bill negotiated with the Senate in December.
The campaign to remove the Johnson Amendment has intensified since the election of President Trump, who promised to “totally destroy” it. The president signed an executive order addressing the issue in May 2017, later stating in an interview with conservative Christian leader Pat Robertson that he had “gotten rid” of the law. But experts — including conservative groups such as the Alliance Defending Freedom — disagreed, noting the text of the order only asks the Treasury Department to use “maximum … discretion” when enforcing the Johnson Amendment.
Despite a contention by the Johnson Amendment’s foes that the rarely enforced law compromises religious freedom or liberty, removing it is deeply unpopular with people of faith.
According to a 2016 Public Religion Research Institute poll, majorities within all major U.S. religious groups oppose allowing churches to endorse candidates while retaining their tax-exempt status — including white evangelical Protestants. In addition, 99 religious groups sent a letter to Congress in April 2017 asking lawmakers to stop attempts to politicize churches, and later that year more than 4,000 faith leaders signed on to a letter demanding Congress refrain from weakening or repealing the Johnson Amendment.
ALLENTOWN, Pa. —A Pennsylvania chapter of Planned Parenthood tweeted on Tuesday that Disney should create a storyline about a princess who has had an abortion, or has gender dysphoria, or is an illegal immigrant.
“We need a disney princess who’s had an abortion. We need a disney princess who’s pro-choice,” Planned Parenthood Keystone wrote. “We need a disney princess who’s an undocumented immigrant. We need a disney princess who’s actually a union worker. We need a disney princess who’s trans.”
The entity later deleted the tweet following public outrage.
“Today, we joined an ongoing Twitter conversation about the kinds of princesses people want to see in an attempt to make a point about the importance of telling stories that challenge stigma and championing stories that too often don’t get told,” Planned Parenthood Keystone President Melissa Reed outlined in a statement.
“Planned Parenthood believes that pop culture—television shows, music, movies—has a critical role to play in educating the public and sparking meaningful conversations around sexual and reproductive health issues and policies, including abortion,” she remarked. “We also know that emotionally authentic portrayals of these experiences are still extremely rare—and that’s part of a much bigger lack of honest depictions of certain people’s lives and communities.”
However, Reed said that “upon reflection,” the Allentown-based group decided that the “seriousness” of their point wasn’t appropriate for the subject matter of what Disney princesses people would like to see, and consequently deleted the tweet.
As previously reported, according to its annual report, Planned Parenthood performed 321,384 abortions during the 2016-2017 fiscal year. The CDC, which releases nationwide abortion figures each year, outlined in December that “women in their 20’s accounted for the majority of abortions and had the highest abortion rates,” noting that the vast majority—85%—of women obtaining abortions are unmarried.
Most abortions are for convenience purposes.
Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, who penned a newsletter entitled “The Woman Rebel: No Gods, No Masters,” actually wrote against abortion, stating that “the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization.”
“The great majority of women, however, belong to the working class. Nearly all of these women will fall into one of two general groups—the ones who are having children against their wills, and those who, to escape this evil, find refuge in abortion. Being given their choice by society—to continue to be overburdened mothers or to submit to a humiliating, repulsive, painful and too often gravely dangerous operation, those women in whom the feminine urge to freedom is strongest choose the abortionist,” she wrote.Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, who penned a newsletter entitled “The Woman Rebel: No Gods, No Masters,” actually wrote against abortion, stating that “the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization.”
However, Sanger’s solution to countering abortion was birth control, initially naming her organization the American Birth Control League. She decried large families, writing in a chapter of her book “Woman and the New Race”, “The most serious evil of our times is that of encouraging the bringing into the world of large families. The most immoral practice of the day is breeding too many children.” She claimed that children get lost in large families and end up in jail or as prostitutes.
Sanger was also an advocate of eugenics against the disabled, as she made a correlation between birth control and the purification of the races.
“Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives,” she wrote. “If we are to make racial progress, this development of womanhood must precede motherhood in every individual woman.”
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Planned Parenthood is taking a rule out of the Social Justice Warrior (SJW) handbook and is looking to turn a Disney princess into an indoctrination tool to advance an agenda. In a Twitter post on Tuesday, Planned Parenthood listed demands for Disney, one of which is to create a character who has had an abortion. The rest is a laundry list of left-wing bullet points.
The tweet reads:
We need a disney princess who's had an abortion
We need a disney princess who's pro-choice
We need a disney princess who's an undocumented immigrant
We need a disney princess who's actually a union worker
We need a disney princess who's trans.
The Left seems to be outright admitting that the entertainment industry is no longer for entertainment, but a tool for indoctrination. It's bad enough that adults cannot watch television without constantly being confronted by the left-wing agenda that seems to take aim at the traditional family and attempts to turn Americans against law enforcement, the military, and the church. But now, children are not even safe from this lunacy.
The tweet has since been deleted, but screenshots preserve its ridiculous message.
Fortunately, even Planned Parenthood supporters did not seem to be on-board with Planned Parenthood's agenda, InfoWars reports.
“Disney princesses are for CHILDREN and these are adult issues. Jesus,” one supporter said. “This far-out crap is why we got stuck with Donald Trump.”
Another user agreed with the first: "Exactly. They have no idea how extreme this sounds (and yes, I'm pro-choice)."
A third user opined, "Stop trying to push adult issues on innocent impressionable children. It's wrong and kinda gross."
Conservative pundit Ben Shapiro tweeted back at Planned Parenthood, “We need a Disney princess who uses her royal authority to defund you stupid a**holes.”
Others showed their opposition to Planned Parenthood's tweet by mercilessly mocking it.
One user tweeted, "we need a disney princess with a foot fetish." Another joked, "we need a Disney Princess with osteoporosis."
User Cameron Wallace showed Planned Parenthood how conservatives could also use Disney princesses to advance their own agenda:
We need a conservative disney princess.
We need a pro life disney princess.
We need a disney princess who has her concealed carry permit.
We need a free market disney princess.
We need a patriotic disney princess.
Planned Parenthood's tweet likely did not get the support the abortion provider hoped it would. The tweet itself received only 40 retweets and 38 likes.
Disney princesses have strangely been at the center of controversy for years. Feminists have criticized the fact that Disney princesses almost always need to be saved by a prince in order to break a spell or gain freedom. Others have opined that Disney princesses need to be beautiful and often dress promiscuously. More recently, SJWs have created further controversy by setting standards as to which children should be able to dress as which princess for Halloween. The PC police contend that white children should not be able to don costumes of minority characters, while also complaining that white children dressing like white princesses are an example of white privilege. It's a lose-lose situation.
Sadly, Disney princesses are not the only beloved children's characters to be a target of the Left to push an agenda. Years ago, after gay marriage became legalized in New York, there was a major online push for Sesame Street characters Bert and Ernie to have a gay wedding.
"Let Bert & Ernie Get Married On Sesame Street," read a petition at change.org started by Illinois resident Lair Scott. "We are not asking that Sesame Street do anything crude or disrespectful by allowing Bert & Ernie to marry. It can be done in a tasteful way. Let us teach tolerance of those that are different. Let Sesame Street and PBS Kids be a big part in saving many worthy lives."
In just seven days, there were over 1,000 signatures on the petition.
Supporters were disappointed, however, when a spokesman for Sesame Workshop issued a statement that read, "Bert and Ernie were created to teach preschoolers that people can be good friends with those who are very different from themselves. Even though the Sesame Street Muppets ... possess many human traits and characteristics, they have no sexual orientation."
And sane people everywhere heaved a collective sigh of relief.
But according to the conservative media watch organization Parents Television Council (PTC), children's cartoons are increasingly becoming problematic, particularly those aired on the Cartoon Network. The group gave the network a failing grade in its 2011 special report entitled "Cartoons are no laughing matter," claiming that the network aired a number of animated series that contained sexual references and depictions, foul language and violence, and failed to warn parents in advance 100 percent of the time.
While watching cartoons might seem “an innocent pastime, animation can pose an inherent risk for children and teens,” the study noted. Cartoons, it continued, “can potentially trivialize and bring humor to adult themes and contribute to an atmosphere in which children view these depictions as normative and acceptable.”
The report warns the danger is exacerbated because “children and teens are consuming more and more of their video entertainment outside the traditional confines of a television set.”
That is precisely why Planned Parenthood seeks to use cartoons to push their agenda. At least for now, enough sane people rejected the proposal to stop it in its tracks. _____________________________________________________________
Disney Princesses Pushed To Be Trans & Pro-Abortion Dr. Duke Pesta
A New York Times op-ed published this morning calls for repealing the Second Amendment in its entirety in order to “make our schoolchildren safer”.
Written by John Paul Stevens, a retired associate justice of the United States Supreme Court, the article claims that merely calling for age limits on purchasing firearms to be raised is not enough and that gun control activists should “demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.”
Asserting that the right to bear arms is a “relic of the 18th century,” Stevens decries the 2008 Columbia v. Heller Supreme Court ruling, on which he was one of the dissenters, which found that there was an individual right to bear arms.
“Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option,” writes Stevens.
He concludes by saying that abolishing the right to bear arms via a constitutional amendment “would eliminate the only legal rule that protects sellers of firearms in the United States” and “make our schoolchildren safer”.
Stevens doesn’t delve into the thorny issue of what would happen if the government attempted to forcibly disarm around 70 million American gun owners who between them own roughly 300 million guns.
The op-ed, the headline of which began trending on Twitter, will further fuel the argument made by conservatives that the left’s call for regulation of AR-15s is merely one step along the road to full gun confiscation.
As we reported yesterday, numerous protest signs seen at the ‘March For Our Lives’ event openly called for all guns to be banned, by force if necessary.
Left intentionally unsaid is that, per a prior Supreme Court, the militia is “expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time [and] “the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear … ordinary military equipment … that … could contribute to the common defense.”USA – -(Ammoland.com)- “Repeal the Second Amendment,” retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens declared in a Tuesday “op-ed” in The New York Times. It’s actually the third time “the newspaper of record” has hosted such sentiments in recent months, and they’re hardly alone.
But no one’s talking about taking your guns, the gun-grabbers scoff. Honest.
Citing the “dark money”-funded #MarxForOurLives media events we’re told were “organized” by children, Stevens cites ginned-up “demand” as justification for gun bans and for the eradication of a right the Founders deemed “necessary to the security of a free State.”
Recognizing the dangers of “pure democracy” mob rule, our Bill of Rights defined some of the areas where the individual would be immune to the will of the collective. Stevens knows that. His ignoring it is a motivated choice.
What this means is, no matter how many of us disagree with you, we cannot lawfully use force to shut you up, to suppress your political views, or to make you worship in the way we see fit. We cannot break into your house and search your property without probable cause and a legal warrant. We can’t torture you into confessing to a crime. Barring behaviors on your part to disqualify yourself from incarceration after being afforded full due process protections, we cannot strip you of your right to keep and bear arms.
The safeguard against tyranny provided by an armed populace from which a citizen militia can be formed is “a relic of the past,” Stevens counters, providing no additional corroboration beyond his say-so.
Now there’s a neat trick—because the government has ignored its duty it can now declare it obsolete. Try that with your employer. Stevens is offering a personal opinion here, not a legal one. And note he doesn’t say what about human nature has changed.
In the previous century that saw two world wars, continual violent political upheaval, genocide and systemic, brutal tyranny and repression, and noting the continuation into this century, has humanity truly demonstrated a benevolence and maturity that distinguishes our era from those that preceded us? In a culture that breeds gang warfare, rampant violence, city-crippling riots and a national murder rate measured in the tens of thousands, how can anyone credibly claim that the need for individual and collective defense is a relic of the past? And ultimately, what is this “outdated” Second Amendment really about, if not the preservation of a free people when all other options to defend life and liberty have been exhausted? Against all enemies, individual and aggregated, foreign and domestic…?
Don't look for Stevens to address that.
While it’s true Congress has been allowed to abandon its Constitutional duty “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,” former diplomat Alan Keyes correctly notes that’s something a free people ought to revive. The question now becomes how to convey that to lawmakers as an expectation with credible consequences should they continue to shirk an enumerated job requirement.
“For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation,” Stevens claims.
“Any limit”? What a liar.
And that would come as a surprise to William Rawle, whose ”View of the Constitution” was the standard Constitutional law text at leading universities in the early 19th Century. Here’s what he had to say:
“No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give the Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under a general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any pursuit of an inordinate power either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.”
“In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a ‘well regulated militia,” Stevens follows up, deliberately obscuring the most crucial point.
The Miller court specifically acknowledged “the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense … [who] were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time [and] “the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear … ordinary military equipment … that … could contribute to the common defense.”
The “well regulated” part began after they reported for duty.
“Chief Justice [Warren] Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating ‘one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime,’” Stevens continues, conveniently not mentioning that the opinion was not issued in any legal case, but rather in Parade Magazine of all places.
“I was among the four dissenters,” Stevens says of the Heller decision, meaning if he had the power, he would order that you do not have a right to keep and bear arms and that the government should destroy you if you defied him.
“Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option,” Stevens declares.
First of all, a Constitutional amendment is anything but simple. The Founders that Stevens disregards so cavalierly purposely designed things that way. And this also shows Stevens hasn’t let either reality or existing precedent influence his biases, as the Heller majority noted when citing an earlier decision:
“The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.’ As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, ‘[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed…’”
If a tyrannical government does repeal the Second Amendment it will not take away our right to keep and bear arms. Only we can give that up.
Calling for repeal is a Hail Mary of sorts on Steven’s part. A few years back he wanted to amend things to read:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms — when serving in the militia — shall not be infringed.”
It’s tempting to dismiss this latest attack as the ramblings of a subversive dotard and conclude there’s no fool like an old fool. But Stevens has been doing this for years and is voicing the very real goals of those intent on establishing that old standby of totalitarian regimes everywhere, a monopoly of violence.
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.
