Saturday, March 23, 2019



Who's Responsible for Terrorist Attacks?

After every terrorist attack, we hear contradictory rules about assigning blame for the attack. Should we only blame the perpetrators of the attacks? Or their ideologies as well? Or perhaps anyone who shares any views with the attacker, whether these views are related to the attack or not? Fortunately for us, history's greatest authority on terrorism, the Prophet Muhammad himself, agreed to do an interview with David Wood. Now when someone brings up the Christchurch Mosque Massacre or some other mass shooting, you'll have insights from Prophet Muhammad himself. (Guest starring Vocab Malone!) PATREON: PAYPAL: TWITTER: FACEBOOK: MINDS: BITCHUTE: WEBSITE: #Muhammad #DavidWood #VocabMalone


SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
America’s Democrats are a “new Nazi party,” the “party of jihad, Jew-hatred and communism,” Jewish anti-sharia activist Pamela Geller recently declared, in light of the Democrats’ inability to censure Representative Ilhan Omar for antisemitism. As previously noted, rationalizations and Muslim identity politics excuses have enabled Leftist and Islamic supremacists to normalize their anti-Semitic views on Israel, a development that has left American Jews questioning their political future.
A like-minded Jewish analyst, Deborah Weissdescribed the Omar affair as a “wake-up call” for Jews, who have historically been loyal Democratic voters. Conservative commentator Eileen Toplansky agreed that Omar and her fellow Muslim Democratic congresswoman Rashida Tlaib“ should awaken even the most somnolent Jew to the Democratic Party’s being overwhelmed by the enemies of America.” The “Democrats into whom they invested everything have turned on them,” said the prominent orthodox rabbi Dov Fischer.
Conservative commentator Daniel Greenfield has analyzed various factors contributing to the rise in America’s leftist antisemitism, including the Democrats’ turn towards socialism. “Jew-hate and socialism have always gone hand in hand,” he has documented, while the virulent antisemitism often present on college campuses is now taking over progressive politics with anti-Jewish victimhood narratives. Conservative commentator Bruce Bawer has noted that progressives’ “current victim-group hierarchy…places Muslims at the very top” and “Jews at or near the bottom, if not eliminating them from the picture entirely.” “Sorry, honey, but Jews are not part of Intersectionality,” Fischer has stated.
Victimhood claims by Muslims such as Omar, observed conservative writer Steve Postal, act as “merely a Trojan horse to inject anti-Semitism into mainstream political discourse.” Thus the conservative activist and rabbi Aryeh Spero identifies a “strategy, as we have seen from Islamists in Europe,” of a “slow but inevitable seepage of anti-Jewish caricatures into the country’s political discourse.” Bawer in Norway confirms that the “Islamization of Western Europe has made everyday life nothing less than perilous for Jews.” Accordingly, Muslim reformer Asra Nomani, a former colleague of journalist Daniel Pearl, whom jihadists beheaded in 2002 in Pakistan, described a phone call in which Pearl’s father revealed that now “Jews in America are afraid.”
These new political realities confound many Jews, as political scientist Abraham Miller has noted that “Jews and Democrats have traditionally been in the vanguard of support for ‘minority’ rights.” This reflects the Anti-Defamation League’s (ADL) leftist biases that reveal themselves in skewed hate crime statistics. Greenfield particularly noted how President Donald Trump’s election prompted the American Jewish Committee (AJC) to form the Muslim-Jewish Advisory Council with the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). Greenfield scorned this “Wolf-Sheep Advisory Council,” given ISNA’s extensive links to jihadists and sharia supremacists.
As Greenfield explained, AJC had far greater expectations than ISNA for this “sick sad joke in which Jewish lefties ally with Jihadists against a pro-Israel administration.” Yet for Jews today often experience unrequited political love, Miller observed, for “increasingly, ‘minorities’ do not support Jews or Israel’s right to exist.” This includes not just Muslims, but many other minority groups that “mindlessly embrace intersectionality,” such as Berkeley, California’s “Gays for Palestine,” a decidedly LGBT-unfriendly society.
Washington Examiner editor Philip Klein has correspondingly examined why historic Jewish liberal political leanings and trends such as secularization among Jews will at least slow any political shift of Jews to the Republican Party. Miller bemoaned the fact that “Jews, for whom being a Democrat is a commandment from the Almighty, will find a rationale in it for their continued self-exploitation and self-hatred.” Political analyst Steve Feinstein concurred that Democratic Jews have an “almost unfathomably limitless capacity for self-deception.”
A good example of this leftist Jewish self-deception appears at the website of the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress (CAP). “The threat to American Jews comes from the growing white nationalist movement,” wrote Max Berger, co-founder of the radical anti-Israel group IfNotNow. Today “global anti-Semitism is on the rise, just as it was in the 1930s, when capitalism produced inequality on a massive scale.”
European Union statistics from 2018 decidedly refute Berger’s Marxist cant, as surveyed Jews reported that a preponderance of the antisemitism they encountered came from Muslims and Leftists. These were respectively the first and second largest reported ideological sources of antisemitism, followed by European rightwingers. Federalist editor David Harsanyi confirms that the “average American Jew is more likely to encounter an aggressively ‘anti-Zionist’ BDS activist on a campus (or a progressive march) than a white supremacist anywhere.”
Such facts explain why polling data in the years leading up to 2014 has suggested declining Jewish support for the Democratic Party. Following orthodox Jewry’s embrace of the Republican Party, Fischer, therefore, foresees a broader “formal political realignment of Jews away from the Democrat Party.” For example, the group Jexodus recently launched at the most recent Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), and Spero led a protest at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office.
Jewish alienation from the Democratic Party would have a significant impact because America’s small but successful Jewish minority possesses an outsized political influence. The Jerusalem Post reported in 2016 that perhaps half of all Democratic, and a quarter of all Republican, political donations, come from Jews. For Democrats such as Omar, that is indeed a lot of “Benjamins” at stake, should Jews like the legal authority Alan Dershowitz not feel welcome in the Democratic Party.
Jews would do themselves and the broader American society a favor by critically reflecting on their political affiliations. If the Democratic Party wants to victimize Jews and others by becoming the home of political Islam and leftist radicalism, then Jews should make the Democrats pay a price. Anti-Semitic and anti-American Democrats such as Omar must receive a clear rebuke by Jews who are not selling their political allegiances cheap on the basis of outdated habits.


British Government Calls Christianity a Religion of Violence in Rejection of Iranian Asylum Seeker
In 2016, an Iranian ex-Muslim sent an application to Great Britain for asylum. The man said that he had converted to Christianity after studying the Bible and finding that Christianity is a religion of peace. The British Home Office rejected the application and insisted that the apostate was lying. The Home Office justified their rejection by quoting Bible verses from Exodus, Leviticus, and Revelation that were meant to prove that Christianity is not peaceful and that no one could ever conclude that it is peaceful by reading the Bible. Is there a problem in the British Government? Should Prime Minister Theresa May and Home Secretary Sajid Javid intervene? David Wood discusses the issue.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
In a shocking declaration, the UK Home Office “has claimed Christianity is not a religion of peace after turning down a Christian convert’s bid for asylum in an ‘unbelievably offensive’ letter quoting bloodthirsty passages from the Bible…..The Iranian national was turned down for asylum in 2016, with the Home Office claiming his conversion from Islam was inconsistent’ with his claim Christianity is a peaceful religion.”
The Home Office also mocked the Iranian national for believing in Christ: “You affirmed in your AIR that Jesus is your saviour, but then claimed that He would not be able to save you from the Iranian regime….It is therefore considered that you have no conviction in your faith and your belief in Jesus is half-hearted.”
The passages cited in the Iranian national’s rejection letter were from the book of Revelation, as well as Leviticus and other parts of the Old Testament. Nice try, but Revelation is a prophetic account, not a call to violence; also, there is no global problem of Christians and Jews citing violent verses from Revelation or the Old Testament and acting upon them. Jihadists, however, are citing the Qur’an to justify their violence, and doing so repeatedly and openly.
Despite this, the UK government continues to allow in the worst jihadist hate preachers, who further the jihad against its own people. Over 100 jihadist hate speakers were invited in and hosted at British universities during the academic year of 2016 and 2017. And as previously reported on Jihad Watch:
  • Britain has a steadily lengthening record of admitting jihad preachers without a moment of hesitation.
  • Syed Muzaffar Shah Qadri’s preaching of hatred and jihad violence was so hardline that he was banned from preaching in Pakistan, but the UK Home Office welcomed him into Britain.
  • The UK Home Office also admitted Shaykh Hamza Sodagar into the country, despite the fact that he has said: “If there’s homosexual men, the punishment is one of five things. One – the easiest one maybe – chop their head off, that’s the easiest. Second – burn them to death. Third – throw ’em off a cliff. Fourth – tear down a wall on them so they die under that. Fifth – a combination of the above.”
  • Theresa May’s relentlessly appeasement-minded government also admitted two jihad preachers who had praised the murderer of a foe of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws. One of them was welcomed by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
  • Nor does the UK admit only preachers of jihad terror. It admits jihad terrorists as well, even when it knows they are jihad terrorists. The Muslim migrant teen who bombed the London Tube told border officials that he was trained by ISIS, but was admitted anyway.
  • Meanwhile, the UK banned three bishops from areas of Iraq and Syria where Christians are persecuted from entering the country.
The UK government also paid out $250,000 in taxpayer dollars to protect a jihad preacher and give him medical care in Jordan, while the “most dangerous” jihad preacher, Anjem Choudary, was released from prison.
Attacking Christianity to justify the welcoming of jihadists into the UK is appalling and reprehensible. And meanwhile, peaceful truth tellers are being banned from Britain, including the free speech activists Martin Sellner and Brittany Pettibone, Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller.
Now an apostate is facing death in Iran after being rejected by the Sharia-compliant UK. Legal expert Conor James McKinney stated:
“This case seems to be an extreme example of an individual official manufacturing a reason to refuse an asylum claim, and the Home Office acknowledges that it was out of line, but those working with asylum seekers do report horror stories almost as bad on a regular basis.”
“Christianity NOT a religion of peace HOME OFFICE says citing bloodthirsty passages,” by Paul Withers, Express, March 21, 2019:
THE Home Office has claimed Christianity is not a religion of peace after turning down a Christian covert’s bid for asylum in an “unbelievably offensive” letter quoting bloodthirsty passages from the Bible.
The Iranian national was turned down for asylum in 2016, with the Home Office claiming his conversion from Islam was “inconsistent” with his claim Christianity is a peaceful religion. In the rejection letter from the Government department, published by the Iranian’s immigration case worker this week, six passages from the Bible are listed, with a claim made that Revelations [sic] is filled with “images of revenge, destruction, death and violence”. The letter also uses six examples from searchable online holy book Bible Gateway, and quotes parts of The Book of Leviticus from the Old Testament.
The full statement below the verses says: “These examples are inconsistent with your claim that you converted to Christianity after discovering it is a peaceful religion, as opposed to Islam which contains violence, rage and revenge.”
Nathan Stevens, an immigration caseworker, posted excerpts from the letter on his Twitter page, launching into a stinging attack against the Home Office for the “unbelievably offensive diatribe”.
He wrote: “I’ve seen a lot over the years, but even I was genuinely shocked to read this unbelievably offensive diatribe being used to justify a refusal of asylum.
“Whatever your views on faith, how can a government official arbitrarily pick bits out of a holy book and then use them to trash someone’s heartfelt reason for coming to a personal decision to follow another faith.”
In another post on Twitter, Mr Stevens said his client will be appealing the decision and will resubmitting a complaint to the Home Office.
He referred to text from another rejection letter, and wrote: “You affirmed in your AIR that Jesus is your saviour, but then claimed that He would not be able to save you from the Iranian regime…..

British Government Mocks Ex-Muslim Asylum Seeker’s Faith in Jesus

When an Iranian ex-Muslim Christian applied to Great Britain for asylum, the Home Office called her faith "half-hearted" and insisted that if she were a true Christian, she would simply trust Jesus to protect her from people who want to kill her. Can we even imagine the British Home Office responding to Muslim asylum seekers with such contempt and hostility? Why aren't Prime Minister Theresa May and Home Secretary Sajid Javid taking more action against this hostility towards apostates and Christian asylum seekers? David Wood discusses the issue.


Finger Photo
New York City’s sanctuary policy proved yet again why illegal aliens must be rounded up and deported, but at least the victim in this crime lived.
An illegal immigrant, who has been deported previously and faces a local assault charge, attacked an Immigration and Customs and Enforcement agent. The illegal bit off the tip of the agent’s finger.
That was the first of two detainers New York law enforcement refused to honor of late. The second involved another of those immigrants who “do the jobs Americans won’t do.” He had been charged with rape.
But sanctuary policies often cause more than the loss of a finger. Too often, murder is the result.
The Biter
Christopher Santos Felix, ICE alleges, is the man who chowed down on the ICE agent’s left ring finger, reported. A statement from the agency said the city’s “dangerous ‘sanctuary’ policies are directly responsible for the egregious and violent harm suffered by this courageous ICE officer.”
The Dominican national, ICE said, “entered the United States on a visitor’s visa in June 2015, but failed to leave within the required timeframe.” Like so many illegals, he is a criminal, and like so many illegals, he has a drunk-driving conviction. Police arrested him for assault on September 29.
On that same date, ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) officer lodged a detainer for Santos Felix, however, the detainer was not honored and he was released from local custody. On March 3, 2019, Santos Felix was arrested by ERO for immigration violations. At the time of the arrest, Santos Felix allegedly assaulted an ERO officer and is now facing federal prosecution.
The criminal complaint against the Caribbean Chomper, the Daily Caller reported, alleges “he attacked ICE officers after his handcuffs were temporarily removed so that he could put on some clothing. Officers quickly moved to secure Felix and while they were restraining him, he bit the officer’s finger.”
Federal officials rightly aimed fire at New York and its crazy leftist activists and politicians. “The officer’s injury was the direct, foreseeable and entirely avoidable result of New York’s criminal alien sanctuary policies,” DHS official said, the websites reported. “Proponents of sanctuary policies claim they make communities safer, but in many cases they are causing more harm than good.”
Another One
Felix wasn’t the only border-jumping illegal that ICE collared recently in New York, no thanks to the local authorities. They also caught another illegal whom police had charged with rape.
ICE reported that Enforcement and Removal Operations arrested a 28-year-old border-jumping Guatemalan on March 14 after locals freed him so he could disappear again. Westchester County authorities loosed the illegal upon unsuspecting residents because of the county’s Immigrant Protection Act:
On Feb. 14, he was arrested by the New Rochelle Police Department and charged with Rape 3rd Degree. On Feb. 19, ICE issued a detainer to the Westchester County Department of Corrections. On Feb. 25, the active detainer was not honored, and he was released on bond from the Westchester County Jail. This individual was previously removed by ICE on July 22, 2009, and unlawfully returned to the U.S on an unknown date, and place. On March 14, ERO deportation officers arrested him in New Rochelle, New York. He is currently detained in ICE custody pending removal to Guatemala.
Thomas Decker, chief of the ERO field office in New York, explained again why sanctuary policies are so harmful: “This man with pending rape charges in Westchester, was released back into the unsuspecting community as the local authorities were prevented from honoring our detainer because of their new immigrant protection act.”
In January, ICE agents rounded up more than 100 illegal-alien criminals in New York that local authorities should have turned over to police.
Unhappily, ICE can’t always catch an illegal released under sanctuary policies before he murders someone.
In December 2017, ICE placed a detainer on an illegal alien who was jailed for domestic violence in Middlesex County, New Jersey. The county ignored that detainer, pursuant to its sanctuary law. The illegal murdered three people in Missouri a year later.
More recently, authorities in California blamed the state’s sanctuary laws for the murder of a policeman.
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo says ICE agents are a “bunch thugs.”


Following last week’s deadly shootings at two New Zealand mosques that left 50 dead and many more seriously injured, Internet Service Providers in New Zealand have responded by implementing outright censorship of content related to the shootings. That censorship is manifested in different ways — from blocking certain content to barring access to entire alternative news sites. Major social media companies had already begun purging and censoring posts about the shootings, but the CEOs of major telecommunications firms in New Zealand and Australia have gone even further — creating what could be described as “The Great Trans-Tasman Firewall.” And the government of New Zealand is threatening citizens with harsh fines and jail time for possessing or sharing the video showing the shootings.
After the shootings were streamed live on Facebook by the shooter himself, the social media giant deleted the video and froze the account belonging to Brenton Tarrant, who is identified as the shooter. In the next 24 hours, Facebook blocked another 1.2 million attempts to upload the video and removed another roughly 300,000 uploads that managed to get through the filters.
While it may seem reasonable for Facebook to ban and block the video of the shooting, the social media platform has gone even further, censoring even some discussions of the shooting. And Scribd, a social media document-sharing website, has been busily scrubbing the site of all copies of Tarrant’s manifesto.
Perhaps worst of all, though, is Twitter. The so-called free-speech platform forced journalist Nick Monroe to delete eight tweets he posted as he covered the shootings as they were happening.
Of those eight tweets, only one included a link to the shootings. Of the other seven, one included a link to the manifesto, one included a paraphrase from the manifesto about wanting to start a civil war in America, one included a link to a “catbox” video (no, this writer does not know what that is, either) that has since been deleted, one is a quote of the shooter saying “subscribe to pewdiepie” before starting the shooting, one is a link to the shooter’s post on 8chan’s /pol/ board about his weapons, and two are links to the shooter’s Twitter account. One of the Twitter links was a tweet showing that two days before posting on 8chan about the weapons, the shooter posted the same thing to Twitter. The other Twitter link was to show that the Twitter account was a relatively new one.
Monroe used the tweet showing Tarrant posting about his weapons to display the hypocrisy of Twitter banning 8chan for having that post. Since Tarrant tweeted his weapons two days before posting the same content to 8chan, Monroe tweeted, “You can’t ban 8chan for this without banning Twitter.”
It appears, however, that while Twitter is strong in the hypocrisy column, it is conversely weak in the logic column, since under threat of banning Monroe, the social media “free-speech” platform demanded he take down the tweet. Oh, the irony.
Following the censorship practiced by Facebook, Scribd, Twitter and other social media platforms, the CEOs of three of New Zealand’s largest Internet Service Providers — Spark, Vodaphone, and 2degrees — published an open letter to Twitter, Facebook, and Google. That letter — available in both PDF and Text formats — states, “Consumers have the right to be protected, whether using services funded by money or data. Now is the time for this conversation to be had and we call on all of you to join us at the table and be part of the solution.” The letter calls for “following European proposals which include taking down material within a specified period, proactive measures and fines of up to $80m for failure to do so,” according to NZHerald.
NZHerald is not merely an innocent bystander reporting on this, by the way. As Monroe reported in tweets which somehow evaded Twitter’s censorship, NZHerald quietly edited an article about the shooting to remove a reference to a “well known Muslim local” who “chased the shooters and fired two shots at them as they sped off.” This can clearly be seen by looking at the “before” and “after” versions of the article.
NZHerald also reported that the CEOs — Spark's Simon Moutter, Vodafone's Jason Paris. and 2degrees' Stewart Sherriff — wrote, “You may be aware that on the afternoon of Friday 15 March, three of New Zealand's largest broadband providers, Vodafone NZ, Spark and 2degrees, took the unprecedented step to jointly identify and suspend access to web sites that were hosting video footage taken by the gunman related to the horrific terrorism incident in Christchurch.”
Those CEOs lamented that “it is impossible as internet service providers to prevent complete access to this material,” adding, “hopefully we have made it more difficult for this content to be viewed and shared - reducing the risk our customers may inadvertently be exposed to it and limiting the publicity the gunman was clearly seeking.”
Part of “mak[ing] it more difficult for this content to be viewed and shared” includes not only removing or blocking the video and manifesto as well as discussions of them, but blocking access to websites that are even suspected of making “this content” available.
The letter goes on to say “Internet service providers are the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, with blunt tools involving the blocking of sites after the fact. The greatest challenge is how to prevent this sort of material being uploaded and shared on social media platforms and forums.” And the CEOs wrote that they “call on Facebook, Twitter and Google, whose platforms carry so much content, to be a part of an urgent discussion at an industry and New Zealand Government level on an enduring solution to this issue.”
That “discussion at an industry and New Zealand Government level” will almost certainly end with demands on the part of government and acquiescence on the part of Internet businesses with the end result being even greater restrictions on free speech.
New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern told reporters this week, “It's our view that it cannot, should not be distributed, available, able to be viewed. It is horrendous,” adding, “While they've given us those assurances, ultimately the responsibility does sit with them. I want them, very much, to focus on making sure that [the video] is unable to be distributed.”
Given the close (read: symbiotic) relationship between Internet Service Providers and the government in New Zealand, this should serve as a cautionary tale for those who favor Net Neutrality and other government regulation of the Internet in the United States.
Ardern’s heavy-handed approach is not mere bluff and bluster, either. New Zealand police posted to Facebook to “remind the public that it is an offense to share an objectional publication which includes the horrific video from yesterday's attack.” The post went on to say, “If you see this video, report it immediately. Do not download it. Do not share it. If you are found to have a copy of the video or to have shared it, you face fines & potential imprisonment.” Keeping with the 1984 theme of the post, New Zealand Police continued by asking, “What are the penalties for possession or trading in objectionable material?” and answering:
Anybody found “knowingly” in possession of objectionable material can receive a maximum of 10 years imprisonment.
Every time a person downloads objectionable material onto their screen, there is the potential for a possession offense having been committed.
Anybody who knowingly makes or knowingly trades, distributes, or displays an objectionable publication via the Internet can receive a maximum of 14 years imprisonment.
It appears that while pretending to limit “the publicity the gunman was clearly seeking,” Big Internet and Big Government in New Zealand are bending over backward to give him what he said he wanted: a fight between those who value liberty and those who would take it away. Of course, since he said that in his manifesto and Kiwis aren’t allowed to even possess (much less read) it, many of them may be unaware that they are being played as pawns in a game they are deliberately being kept from understanding.


Chuck Baldwin’s Open Letter To Senators Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, Et Al. Regarding Tyrannical Gun Laws

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has announced that the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to begin conducting hearings next Tuesday, March 26, on Senate Bill 7, the Extreme Risk Protection Order and Violence Prevention Act of 2019—otherwise known as a national “red flag” gun confiscation bill. The bill was introduced in the Senate by Marco Rubio (R-FL). If this gun confiscation bill passes the U.S. Senate, it will most certainly pass the Democrat-controlled U.S. House of Representatives, and President Donald Trump absolutely WILL sign it into law.
I am writing this open letter to Senators Rubio and Graham, President Trump and the untold numbers of legislators, judges and lawmen that will be working together to facilitate and execute the confiscation of the arms of innocent American citizens—citizens who have not even been charged with a crime.
I have purchased a full-page ad in the capital city newspaper in my home State of Montana, the Helena Independent Record, in which the following letter will appear this Sunday, March 24. I urge readers to feel free to use, copy, promote, publish, etc., this open letter in an attempt to bring this information to the attention of as many people as possible.
The GOP faithful are mostly in denial about what Donald Trump and many Republican senators are up to. They refuse to acknowledge that Trump, Graham, Rubio, et. al are about to enact a gun confiscation bill that rivals anything in Nazi Germany or Stalin’s Russia.
If S.7 becomes law, NO gun owner (and that means YOU) will be protected from the seizure of their firearms. It will not matter that they have not committed a crime; it will not matter that they have not been charged with a crime; and it will not matter that they have never even threatened to commit a crime. And they won’t even realize that it’s happening until the SWAT team bangs on their door at 5am to seize their guns.
The letter below is an in-depth, passionate appeal to everyone involved to STOP S.7 from becoming law. The letter speaks for itself.
Again, I urge everyone to take this open letter and get it into the hands of as many people as you can. If the American people do not arise in massive numbers against this bill, it WILL pass. We are getting NO HELP on this from the NRA or the vast majority of so-called pro-Second Amendment Republicans. Ron Paul, Gun Owners of America (GOA) and a few others are trying to warn the American people about this communistic bill. But that’s about it.
I beg you, folks, distribute this open letter to your friends, your family members, your neighbors, your sheriffs, your chiefs of police, your legislators, your local judges—distribute this letter to EVERYONE. We don’t have much time. And I mean that literally.
[Begin my open letter to Senators Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, et. al]
I know I am speaking for tens of thousands of my fellow Montanans and tens of millions of my fellow Americans when I say what I’m about to say.
“Red flag” gun confiscation laws violate every principle of liberty upon which our country was founded. There is no due process associated with “red flag” laws. A judge’s order to seize the firearms from an American citizen who has not been accused of a crime, charged with a crime, convicted of a crime—or who never even threatened to commit a crime—based on the accusation of a single individual is anything but due process.
Our accuser could be a disgruntled employee, a bitter ex-spouse or relative, a vengeful neighbor, an anti-gun liberal or even an anti-gun policeman. By definition, “red flag” laws use mere suspicion of what one “might” do as justification to seize a person’s firearms. Tactics such as these have been used in virtually every despotic regime of history. In the name of protecting society, the rights and liberties of individuals were denied. Eventually, these repressive governments included political or religious persuasion as triggering “red flags,” which led to their disarmament—all in the name of public safety, of course.
You know as well as I do that when the rights of ONE American are abridged, the rights of ALL Americans are abridged. This is not yet a communist nation where the rights of the state—or even the rights of a majority of citizens—supersede the rights of the individual.
Furthermore, it is a fallacy to suggest that a mental health diagnosis, by itself, indicates that someone is automatically a threat to himself or others. Dr. Ann Bukacek, a highly respected medical doctor in the community in which I live, recently wrote:
Mental health diagnoses given by physicians or other mental health care workers do not predict firearm violence. As a physician for over 30 years who has treated many patients with mental health diagnoses and some autistic spectrum patients, I have not had one of those patients commit an act of gun violence. I did have a patient who bludgeoned a man to death with a blunt object, and that patient carried no mental health diagnosis. Psychopaths with no conscience, especially the more intelligent ones, usually escape detection and/or a particular diagnosis.
This doctor’s examination of the issue reflects reality.
Besides, under these “red flag” laws, exactly who is it that determines that someone is “crazy”? Is it one judge, who bases his or her conclusion on the accusations of just one individual? Is it up to politicians or government bureaucrats to define who is and who is not “crazy”?
There are some people who believe that anyone who would even own a firearm is “crazy.” Others believe one’s political or religious beliefs qualify him as “crazy.” Heck! We have all read the documentation of various governments (local, State and federal) that have assigned all kinds of “crazy” (even “dangerous”) definitions against people based on their interpretation of Bible prophecy or their association with political candidates such as former Congressman Ron Paul or their opposition to politically correct ideologies, etc.
Does the judge who issues a warrant to seize a person’s firearms under a “red flag” law provide the accused with an opportunity to defend himself BEFORE violating his constitutional and Natural rights? No. Does the judge provide an opportunity for a close examination of the accusations against the accused (including investigating the accuser) BEFORE violating his constitutional and Natural rights? No. Does the judge allow the accused to face his accuser BEFORE violating his constitutional and Natural rights? No.
“Red flag” laws turn the Bill of Rights and the fundamental legal doctrine that a man is innocent until proven guilty completely upside down. “Red flag” laws are a mockery to every constitutional principle of liberty since the Magna Carta. Seizing a citizen’s firearms by force (and thereby rendering him defenseless) without a crime being committed—or even the accusation of a crime being made—is old-fashioned TYRANNY. Such an act presumes a person is guilty until proven innocent.
Then there is this: After the guns are seized, it could take years for the victim to prove his innocence (or competence) and have his guns returned—and in what condition would they be when (and IF) returned? Furthermore, will you legislators, judges and police officers who collaborate to strip an innocent person’s ability to defend himself accept any responsibility when the real bad guys take advantage of this person’s vulnerability and invade his home and bludgeon or rape or even kill his family? Of course you won’t. But mark it down: You will be held responsible in the eyes of Almighty God—and in the eyes of the citizens you have victimized.
And are you really going to try and tell us that police officers are more competent and mentally stable than the rest of us? Are you kidding? The examples of improper, unsafe, careless and even homicidal acts of cops with guns are ubiquitous.
It was an FBI agent who was armed at a nightclub in Denver and then started gyrating and dancing like a madman until his handgun fell on the floor, discharged and wounded a fellow patron. But no official even questioned this officer’s fitness to possess a firearm—even AFTER that event took place.
Then there is the case of the Dallas police officer who walked into the wrong apartment and shot and killed the man who lived inside. Where was the “red flag” regarding this officer? And what about the two police officers in St. Louis who used a revolver to play Russian roulette, and one of the two wound up shooting and killing the other one? Why wasn’t a “red flag” raised about these nincompoops? These stories could go on forever.
Where are the “red flag” laws for the policemen and sheriff’s deputies in this country? The only difference between them and the rest of us who are being victimized by these draconian “red flag” laws is that they wear badges, and we do not—and the other difference is the vast majority of private citizens who carry firearms are not nearly as stupid and incompetent as the policemen mentioned above.
So much for equal justice under the law.
It has taken many of us a lifetime of hard work and labor to be able to obtain our gun collections; we have successfully passed FBI background checks and local and State requirements and obligations for responsible gun ownership, yet our guns are going to be confiscated overnight on the word of someone (an anonymous someone, at that) who claims we “might” be unsuitable to own a gun? Again, such an act turns American history and our Bill of Rights upside down.
Kris Kobach is the former Secretary of State of Kansas. He is a former professor of constitutional law at UMKC School of Law. He wrote an excellent analysis of the constitutional violations of these “red flag” laws:
  1. The seizure of guns without any hearing at all.The laws all contain an ex parte provision that allows the state to temporarily seize a person’s guns without even notifying the gun owner or giving him a chance to be heard. This is the quintessential denial of due process. The Fourth Amendment makes clear that a person cannot be denied of liberty (to exercise one’s constitutional right to bear arms) without due process of law. This confiscation is “temporary,” but it can easily lead to long-term or permanent confiscation.
  2. Based on the testimony of one unrelated person.The confiscation order can be based on the testimony of only one person claiming that the gun owner poses a risk to the safety of himself or others. The law [proposed in Kansas] deceptively says that it has to be the testimony of a “family member.” But “family member” is defined to include “former dating partners” and anyone who has ever lived with the defendant. So a jilted former boyfriend or girlfriend, or even a roommate from years ago, could easily set in motion the disarming of a lawful gun owner.
  3. Using a very low standard of proof.The standard for obtaining an ex parte order against a gun owner is absurdly low – one need only show “reasonable cause” to believe that the person may pose a risk. That’s even lower than the “probable cause” standard for obtaining a search warrant. In addition, the judge is forced to rush his decision and issue the confiscation order on the same day of the ex parte hearing. Within two weeks of the ex parte hearing, a hearing with the gun owner present must occur; the purpose is to put in place a long-term confiscation order. But even at that hearing, the standard of proof is far below the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used in criminal trials. Rather, it need only be shown by “a preponderance of evidence” that the person poses a risk of injury to self or others. What kind of evidence? Things like the “reckless storage” of firearms and drinking habits can be considered. If you keep a handgun in the bedside table and drink beer regularly, you may [be] in trouble.
  4. Shifting the burden of proof to the gun owner.The long-term confiscation order lasts up to a year, but may be renewed indefinitely. Once it is in place, it becomes very difficult to remove. To have the confiscation order lifted, the gun owner must provehe does not pose a threat to himself or others. Proving a negative is nearly impossible. Adding insult to injury, the bill even authorizes local law enforcement to charge the gun owner a storage fee for confiscating and storing his guns.
The implementation of “red flag” laws (at any level) is unconscionable and totally unacceptable. And I am here to warn you that there are millions of Americans who will never submit to such oppression. None of us wants to see acts of violence committed against law enforcement personnel in America, but when law enforcers begin carrying out these draconian “red flag” laws, they will begin lighting the matches of resistance in the hearts of freedom-loving people in this country like hasn’t been seen in over 150 years.
We have already heard about Gary Willis, the Maryland man who was killed by police officers in his own home as they attempted to carry out a “red flag” order to seize his guns. This man had committed no crime; he had not been accused of committing a crime; he was given no hearing and no due process. Mr. Willis did not attempt to harm the officers; he merely resisted their efforts to disarm him, and he was killed on the spot—in his own home—by police officers who had taken an oath to protect the liberties of this poor innocent man.
I assure you, Mr. Willis will not be the last American to resist the attempted confiscation of his firearms.
Do you legislators, judges, county sheriffs, chiefs of police, sheriff’s deputies and city policemen not realize that “red flag” laws are tantamount to a declaration of war against the American people? Are you so far removed from “the laws of Nature and Nature’s God” that you cannot see this? Do you not realize that in spite of all of Great Britain’s abuses of power, our colonist forebears did not openly rebel against the Crown until King George sent troops to Lexington and Concord to confiscate the colonists’ firearms? You do understand that, right? And you do understand, do you not, that the blood of the colonists flows in the veins of we Americans?
At what point do the American people come to believe that you truly do NOT wish to honor your oath to the Constitution or behave in a manner that truly honors America’s Second Amendment and the heritage of liberty that we all share as Americans? At what point do we Americans lose all respect for our civil magistrates and peace officers? For many Americans, that point will come when policemen bang on their doors at 5am and attempt to seize their guns.
Do you not realize that every single instance of an innocent person being subjected to a “red flag” gun confiscation order will only magnify and strengthen the resentment and animosity in the hearts of the community against these laws—and against the ones who are creating and implementing them? Do you not understand that this is a powder keg that could explode into all-out rebellion at any time? Do you want that? I don’t want that! I don’t want that for my wife and me, my children and grandchildren, my friends or my community.
Why would you legislators, judges and policemen even think about doing such a thing?
In the name of all that we hold dear, in the name of the brave men at Lexington Green and Concord Bridge, in the name of every American who has given his life in defense of the principles contained in our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution and our Bill of Rights—including many of our brave police officers and sheriff’s deputies—and in the name of the Natural Laws of our Creator, please STOP this madness before you literally tear our communities and our country apart.
As a legislator, you must not pass any semblance of a “red flag” law; as a judge, you must not issue a gun confiscation warrant on the basis of a “red flag” law; as a sheriff or chief of police, you must not order your officers to confiscate a citizen’s guns on the basis of a “red flag” warrant; and if you are a sheriff’s deputy or city policeman, you must not obey an order to confiscate your fellow citizens’ guns on the basis of a “red flag” law.
I beg you to realize what you are doing. I beg you to refuse to participate in this madness. I beg you to join your fellow churchmen, clubmen, neighbors, friends and townsmen and help us turn back this dastardly attempt to transform our constitutional republic into another repressive regime that, in the end, would require The People to tear it down.
Again, I beg you to think about what you are doing, about the pain you are causing, about the lives you are ruining and about the potential harm you are inflicting on our country.
“Red flag” laws are on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of our Constitution, the wrong side of liberty and on the wrong side of the laws of God.