About Judge Who Blocked California’s Magazine Ban

Judge Robert Benitez just overturned California’s statute not only banning the future banning the sale of magazines holding over 10 rounds, but also mandating that they be confiscated. I took a closer look at the judge who wrote that California’s statute is unconstitutional.

Judge Robert Benitez was appointed a federal judge by President George W. Bush. Elections have consequences. Thank you, President Bush and to all voters who chose him over his Democrat opponents. Not enough voters, and Judge Benitez would not have been there to stop the Communists of California’s Democrat Party.

Judge Benitez was born in Havana, Cuba in 1950. This means that his parents fled Castro’s communist takeover of the island. Perhaps Judge Benitez heard his parents recount the takeover of Cuba by the Communists. Perhaps because of them, he sees himself as guarding against the howling mob demanding dictatorial rule — in California.

Turnabout Is Fair Play at the NYC Trump Assassination Play

These two patriots exercised what the Left considers to be their First Amendment right to act out in the face of injustice and violence. Not a Democrat? Voice your opposition; get arrested.

Block streets, overturn cars, set off air horns, threaten others — get away with it if you are a Democrat disrupting a Republican rally.

When the government no longer enforces your First Amendment right to peaceably assemble, and when government looks the other way when organized, paid mobs overrun your own rally, I suppose this is how we have to fight back. The official response of the play is “Free speech for all, but….”

And, by the way, I do not believe there is any First Amendment right to encourage a mob to assassinate the President of the United States; nor are the cast and audience assembled peaceably.

Laura Loomer was arrested for trying to stop the cast from depicting the assassination of President Trump. You may donate to her legal defense here, and her media’s website, “The Rebel” is here.

The Left’s 3,000 Tyrants of Political Correctness

A raised eyebrow–skeptical? A pause — incredulous? A tone — are you belligerent? A facial expression — are you mocking?

All of the above were the subject of my profession’s effort to engage in totalitarian, leftist control. The Board overseeing ethics violations proposed a rule change — rejected by the state Supreme Court — exactly like the communistic control which is the subject of this article in National Review. For those reprobates not converted, or shamed into submission, there was the threat of being hauled before the governing ethics board for punishment — even the loss of the license to work. The perverted commandment added to the books of commandments the Left wants to force us to live under: shall not express a bias against (insert favored group here) by word or deed.

Express: just to express, no action required for a violation.

“A bias”: just a bias, a leaning, some indication that you might think in a wrong direction.

By word or “deed”: Your facial expression, your tone, your manner of behaving — all could be interpreted as “expressing” the forbidden “bias.”

And, yes, “sexual orientation” was one of the favored classes about whom you would have been permitted only to praise, favor, or otherwise approve of. Heartily. You had better approve heartily; too faint praise could have been interpreted as expression of a bias.

All of these infractions empowered your opponent in a lawsuit to report your ethical violation to the Board for investigation. There’s your little communist street watch collaborator committee, ready to “denounce” you.

Our Supreme Court wisely informed the lawyers of what was going on by soliciting comment from the state’s lawyers, and it got back plenty. The little communists lost. For now. Regardless, their point was made: there is an official dogma; depart from it, and you stand to be punished. If not this year, in the future. And, so, free thought, discussion, analysis, and action are suppressed. It may take some time, they think, for them to prevail and ban the offender outright.

I am sure they took down names. I am sure they are still taking names down, now. Waiting.

And that’s just in the realm of policing the lawyer profession for unethical behavior. There are many, many antisocial behaviors to punish. For example, we just saw two television program stars persecuted for attending a Christian church where people actually take the Bible seriously. And, owning a gun? You know that kind of antisocial behavior cannot be tolerated.

To the Left: The prescription for what you perceive as society’s many dysfunctions is not a subsuming power to control every behavior and word. The prescription is liberty under equally applied law. That way, you have to engage in public debate and convince others you are right, instead of jailing those you think are wrong, or stripping them of their means to earn a living. In our federalist system, we get to see how these debates play out differently, in different states.

Because, none of you out there is anywhere close enough to God to play God.

Commander SOUTHCOM Speaks On Border Security

Derelict Democrats, I start with this quote by Admiral Kurt Tidd, at Defenseone.com, that ought to be alarming to any thinking American:

USSOUTHCOM’s actions during last summer’s Operation Citadel are but one illustration of this collaborative approach. Led by the Department of Homeland Security, the multinational and interagency effort resulted in the arrest of 41 people on charges related to smuggling hundreds of people into the United States. Each was linked to transnational criminal organizations operating in South and Central America. As with many operations, the arrests yielded valuable information about other networks — in Asia, Africa, Europe, and the Middle East — that help smuggle people into the United States. One of the major takeaways from the operation is that, contrary to many long-held opinions, these networks do indeed work together at multiple levels and their efforts are often closely coordinated. While they typically have independent leadership, the groups consistently use the same web of enablers (document forgers, logisticians, safe houses, etc.) to move their products.

Democrats, did you decipher that? “Transnational criminal organizations.” Only infiltrators, traitors and fools oppose border security. It is not “racist” to require secure borders. It is common sense.

By now, most of us know some nice people who are here illegally from a Spanish-speaking country. They left their homes for a better way of life. I get that. I am more sympathetic than a casual reader here might realize.

But, these well-meaning people are not the only ones to slip secretly into the USA. NONE of us will be secure in our homes, if Democrats and Republican establishment collaborators continue to permit this.

Unconvinced? Let me tell you just one of the operations I would conduct, if I were an Islamic terror mastermind. I would solicit funds from willing Saudis and the Iranian government, and buy crates of cheap AK platform weapons, and ammunition. I would smuggle those into northern Mexico, and secrete them in dry, well-drained caches located at safe houses I bought for this purpose, and to stage human smuggling operations. I would also smuggle crates into the USA, and distribute them across the country, using infiltrators to secrete smaller distributed quantities, likewise stored in safe houses.

I would also secretly manufacture the weapons. In other words, instead of using my own money, I would take the Saudi and Iranian money, and grow rich supplying myself warehouses full of weaponry. Why not? Someone is going to thrive in the smuggled weapons trade, and grow rich from the increased demand. I might manufacture or at least assemble in a “friendly” Latin American country.

Democrats, you are accustomed to applying for government grant money to fund everything from your community agitator offices, to dubious research. Think in terms of applying to America’s enemies for grant money to fund all of this.

Then, I would recruit from the second generation of Muslims among us, to stage mass shootings, at unpredictable places, at seemingly random times.

All of that is facilitated by these organized crime mobs, now — and by Democrat-voters who elect their collaborators into office. The collaborators have various motives: some want cheap labor; some want suppressed wages and increased dependency on Democrat welfare schemes; and some fewer but more malevolent traitors want to break America down with anarchy and chaos.

Finally, military minds are shifting from just the “war on drugs” to perceive the larger, broader, network of enemies who would destroy America for all of the rest of us.

Keep them out, first. Then, hunt them down, kill them, seize their trucks, their computers, their boats. Harass their finances.

And, never, ever vote for Democrats, again, if you want your country to be safe. World War M has already merged with World War Z. Only the western Left remains clueless.

Don’t be clueless. We are running out of time to be clueless.

Democrat Anarchists Sharpen the Guillotine

Most Democrats probably do not even realize it, but they are practicing 19th century Marxist anarchism. Some know it.

I will not let my country be taken over by an illegal, minority mob, as was France under Robespierre. Today’s Democrats are little different, screaming, threatening, bribing, railroading, tricking and rioting to suppress even the sniff of opposition to their dogma.

If they steal the election yet, then let the revolution begin.The answer to 1984 is 1776. And, yes, this is a threat from a “Second Amendment” person.

In 1789, our Founders barely kept the new USA from descending into chaos. They gave us a piece of paper, and wiser Americans chose the rule of law. In that same year, 1789, the French Revolution began with the erosion and then abolition of monarchy. But, instead of resulting in an American-style Constitution and rule of law, it rapidly degenerated into the despotism and violence that France is still infamous for: “The Terror.” It is said that the Revolution lasted until 1799, when finally Robespierre who had sent so many to the guillotine, lost his own head there. Then, a Corsican artillery officer rose to dictatorship and embroiled the entirety of Europe in years of warfare until his defeat at Waterloo.

I say the French Revolution never ended at all, and you can hear its demonic spirit playing out on MSNBC, in the streets of Baltimore, and in the Facebook posts of the deluded masses of Marx-infected thinkers. You heard it from Barack Obama, and you heard if from Hillary Clinton. They would send us all to the guillotine, if we were not armed.

Think I’m overstating this? Read their hate-filled rhetoric. I have been othered into a “deplorable,” and am “irredeemable.” I am a racist, misogynist, homophobe, blah blah blah. That’s the kind of stuff you say about people as you work up your fury toward declaring that they have no right to exist. That’s what happened in France after 1789. And,  It’s happening here. The Parisians never thought it would get so out of hand, either. But, it did. It does, when anarchists break down the rule of law.

Guillotine

The Coming Democrat Police State

If you want to foresee the future under a Hillary Clinton party presidency, all you need do is consider what they did to the guy they blamed for their failures in Benghazi. Now, add to that story this man they used and prosecuted to cover up the failure of their Libya and Syria policies.

Bear in mind, you who are too young to remember, the Democrats tried to bring down Ronald Reagan for arming Nicaraguans fighting communism. Democrats held their hearings, railroaded, and prosecuted, for political advantage. Just like now. Now, they use the power of the prosecutor to play political tricks. Are you tricked? Are you “compliant”?

“Guns in Parks” Reveals Disturbing Democrat Deviousness

Lawyers for the City of Knoxville are defending against a lawsuit filed by gun owners. The City wants to raise all of its possible defenses. A threshold defense is “standing”: Who has been affected by the law enough that he has the right to sue the City over it?

Quick example: A is selling an old building; B is buying it, and plans to turn it into a theater. C, D, and E read about it and are excited: they will have a theater in their neighborhood! A breaches the contract, and won’t sell. B decides to find another property, and moves on. C, D, and E are miffed, and file suit to enforce B’s right to buy the property. The seller A laughs at them, and files a Motion for Summary Judgment. The grounds: lack of standing. The judge tosses out their suit. They did not own the property, and suffered no measurable loss.

The City of Knoxville has a liberal Democrat mayor. Liberals believe that only government people should have guns. The rest of us are to be disarmed, so that we cannot resist their tyranny. Having failed to outlaw guns altogether, they try every trick they can to outlaw the practical exercise of the right to keep and bear arms. One trick is creating “gun ban zones.” They tried to ban lawful handgun carry in parks. Our State Representatives and Senators gave the cities a chance to behave sensibly, and then spanked Memphis, Nashville, Chattanooga and Knoxville, making “guns in parks” bans illegal. Carry in national, state, and municipal parks is now legal, state wide.

Along comes the annual fair, held at Chilhowee Park. Despite years now of a proven track record that law-abiding citizens carrying firearms are not a problem, the mayor and her minions agonized, wringing their hands over all of this liberty, and came up with a clever “solution.” Following Democrat principles of deception and despotism, our mayor declared Chilhowee Park not to be a park. They may even have convinced themselves that the lie is true.

Now, let’s pause right here. When the facts make the outcome ambiguous, such litigation may be necessary. Even though our statute is plain, the City played a game and law-abiding citizens filed suit.

Time passes; the fair returns. This time, gun owners go, buy tickets, and talk cordially with the police officer guarding the gates. The officer advises them that they will be arrested (for criminal trespass) if they enter the fairgrounds armed.

The City minions now take the position that since the gun owners were not actually arrested, they lack standing.

I write all of this, this morning, to emphasize that government is force. Government accomplishes all that it does by force. We citizens are compelled to avoid banned behaviors by threat of a speeding ticket, or threat of a civil lawsuit, or threat of arrest and jail. There are those who are willing to abuse the authority we voters have given them, by piling upon us law after law after law, some of which are merely their whims. There are those little tyrants willing to usurp the law and use the power of the state to throw decent, law-abiding people in jail for nothing. They should be ashamed.

Democrats and Republicans and all others should be alarmed at a government insisting that decent, law abiding people be thrown in jail just to test the legality of a city ordinance. This government of “3,000 tyrants one mile away” is out of control.

 

Government by Intimidation: The Park That Is Not a Park

Local Mayor Rogero and team wave magic wand and declare Chilhowee Park not a park. This not-so-clever deception creates a pretense to ban permit holders from carrying weapons in the “event site” where the annual fair is held — at Chilhowee Park. However, this prickly portends prosecution. Ordinary citizens do not want to be arrested and prosecuted. So, a couple of gun owners, including my friend Liston Matthews, have filed suit testing the legality of the city’s maneuver — without appearing at the fair armed to flout the illegal ordinance.

The Mayor — a Democrat if you cannot already tell by the sly deceptions deployed against ordinary law-abiding citizens — argues that no one was actually verbally threatened with arrest, so it doesn’t count. The judge is considering the question. I think the judge will rule against the mayor, in part because the City’s position on “standing” actually encourages a citizen wanting to test the legality of a law, to break the law. And, what do “No guns” signs mean, if not that the force of the law will be brought to bear against you. Otherwise, we might all ignore the speed limit signs, too.

But, in the meantime, members of the Tennessee Firearms Association out-maneuvered the Mayor and her minions. Some spoke with the police officer in charge of the fair patrols, and obtained the verbal, “You will be arrested….”

Bergeron and his wife, Kimberly, asked Houk specifically what would happen should the permit holders try to enter the fairgrounds while armed. Raymond Bergeron, 61, was armed at the time. His wife was not. Both had their $10 entry tickets in hand.

Both, Houk assured them, would be subject to arrest on a charge of criminal trespassing should they violate the gun ban. TFA members shot video of the exchange.

With that, the members of the association thanked Houk for his time, thanked him for the job he did, wished him well and ended the conversation. They got what their attorney had told them they needed to satisfy Knox County Chancellor John F. Weaver’s questions regarding whether their lawsuit had been filed by an injured party.

Note: Local gun owners have a good relationship with our common-sense police department, whose officers know that they are highly unlikely ever to be called to arrest a member of the Tennessee Firearms Association holding a handgun carry permit.

The point of this post is that our laws should never be twisted to intimidate citizens. It is evil to do so. It should concern us all that the mayor — and others — think such ploys are a legitimate exercise of government power. The mayor should willingly want the chancellor to rule on the ordinance, without making the ploy argument that the plaintiffs lacked “standing.” By using government’s authority to arrest and jail to play word-games with the gun laws, the mayor reveals something sinister about her worldview, her administration, her political party, and herself.

Fewer laws. Less government. More accountability of public officials. Because, abuse of power is inherent in governing. Because we are all just people, and government people are no more righteous than the rest of us. They just are entrusted with more power.