SWAT Police: ‘This is it. We don’t go past this line.’
SWAT Police: ‘This is it. We don’t go past this line.’
Reblogged From: The Vine of Life News
Washington, D.C.—Something quite unexpected happened just hours ago, in the dark of night, during a two-day layover in Washington, DC. My son and I are scheduled to take part in a seminar outside of Raleigh, North Carolina this weekend, so we combined our travels to include a side-trip to DC for a business meeting we had previously arranged. It was during this layover that something seemingly ripped from the pages of a spy novel took place.
The California state legislature passed a bill Thursday approving $24 million to expedite the confiscation of the estimated 40,000 handguns and assault weapons illegally owned by Californians.
SB 140, authored by Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), seeks to remedy the gun-confiscation backlog that has left thousands of illegal guns on the streets, including those owned by those with criminal convictions or serious mental illness.
“We are fortunate in California to have the first and only system in the nation that tracks and identifies individuals who at one time made legal purchases of firearms but are now barred from possessing them,” Leno said in a statement. “However, due to a lack of resources, only a few of these illegally possessed weapons have been confiscated, and the mountain of firearms continues to grow each day.”
The measure will take $24 million from the Dealer Record of Sale (DROS) surplus funds and give it to the California Department of Justice, which is in charge of confiscating illegal guns. The DROS account holds fees that are imposed upon every transfer or sale of a firearm in California.
Assemblyman Brian Jones (R-Santee) said he voted against the measure because the fees that make up the DROS funds are intended to cover the cost of background checks — not confiscations.
“For example, if you go to the DMV and pay for a driver’s license, that fee is for processing the driver’s license, not for setting up sting operations for catching drunk drivers,” he said.
“If the legislature wants to raise extra funds for the DOJ, it would have to impose a tax on firearm sales, which requires a two-thirds vote,” he added.
Brandon Combs, executive director of the gun advocacy group Calguns Foundation, agrees that gun confiscation should be paid for out of the state’s general fund. His and other pro-gun groups have argued that California’s fees on gun buyers are exorbitant.
“The state should not be stealing millions of dollars from gun owners who were overcharged,” Combs said.
Assemblyman Tim Donnelly (R-Twin Peaks) told the Los Angeles Times that he voted against the measure because it is “a dangerous practice” to “send SWAT teams into our neighborhoods” to collect the firearms.
The funds will go toward enforcing the California DOJ’s Armed Prohibited Persons System (APPS) program, which began in 2007. APPS cross-references various databases to check people who have legally purchased handguns and registered assault weapons since 1996 against individuals who are prohibited from owning or possessing firearms.
APPS also cross-references gun owners with individuals who have reported to the state DOJ as mentally ill. Doctors and hospitals are required to report to the state individuals who were found to be a danger to themselves or others, or who were certified for intensive treatment for a mental disorder.
Lynda Gledhill, spokesperson for the California DOJ, said that of the individuals deemed unfit to own guns, about 30 percent have a criminal record, 30 percent are mentally ill, 20 percent have a restraining order out on them and a small percentage have a warrant out for their arrest.
California is the only U.S. state where law enforcement officials confiscate guns from the homes of individuals not legally permitted to own them. Because gun-confiscating agents do not obtain search warrants, their job involves convincing people to let them into their homes and hand over their guns. If an individual does turn over a gun, he or she can be arrested on suspicion of illegally owning a firearm.
Over the past five years, agents conducting twice-weekly sweeps have confiscated more than 10,000 guns. Using the $24 million from SB 140, the California DOJ says it would take three years to catch up with the backlog of confiscated illegal guns.
Leno’s bill returns to the Senate for approval of some noncontroversial amendments before heading to Gov. Jerry Brown’s (D) desk. If SB 140 is signed by the governor, it would take effect immediately.
“This makes enormous sense and is one of the only ways available to reduce access to already purchased firearms,” Deborah Azrael, associate director of the Harvard Youth Violence Prevention Center. “Universal background checks, as much as we should have them, can affect only the next gun purchased, not the sizable reservoir of guns already out there.”
Adam Winker, UCLA law professor and expert on constitutional law, commented on the passage of the California bill after the U.S. Congress’ failure to enact national gun background checks.
“We’re likely to see much more activity at the state level in the wake of Congress’s failure to act,” Winkler said. “The gun-control movement’s best options now are gun-control laws at the state.”
Militarized Police Force San Bernardino, California
Commentary By Gordon King
We need to be aware of what is really taking place here. We need to be able to see the forest through the trees. This is merely a diversionary tactic by Obama. His reason for gun control has nothing to do with protecting American lives. Do you really believe that it does? Do really believe that he gives a darn about you? The real reason is to disarm the American public, so that when the government attempts to take total control over us, they do not want us to be able to fight back. How much more effective would you be shooting an assault rifle with 100 rounds versus 10 rounds?
It would not even surprise me if we were to find out that the federal government was behind the Newtown Massacre. It is already a proven fact, areas of cities that have armed residents have much lower crime rates than areas that do not have armed citizens. How is taking away guns from law abiding citizens going to make it any safer? Criminals don’t care about gun control, in fact just the opposite. If more law abiding citizens do not own guns, it makes their job that much easier. Gun control is not about protecting anyone, it is about controlling the masses. Making it easier for the government to take control.
April 9, 2013
President Barack Obama traveled to Hartford, Connecticut on Monday and delivered a speech calling for a vote on the Second Amendment. He lashed out at Republicans who plan to resist attempts by Congress to destroy the right to bear firearms.
“Some folks in Washington are already floating the idea that they may use political stunts to prevent votes on any of these reforms,” Obama said. “They’re not just saying they’ll vote no on ideas that almost all Americans support. They’re saying they’ll do everything they can to even prevent any votes on these provisions.”
Obama’s use of the phrase “political stunts” is a reference to the possibility of a Senate filibuster to stop legislation.
On March 22, Republican senators Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Ted Cruz sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid stating their intention to oppose any legislation threatening to destroy the constitutional right to bear arms.
“We, the undersigned, intend to oppose any legislation that would oppose on the American people’s constitutional right to bear arms, or on their ability to exercise this right without being subjected to government surveillance,” the letter states. “The Second Amendment to the Constitution protects citizens’ right to self-defense. It speaks to history’s lesson that government cannot be in all places at all times, and history’s warning about the oppression of a government that tries.”
The establishment media, led by the New York Times, has launched a campaign to portray Paul and more than a dozen other senators concerned about the future of the Constitution as obstructionists.
“The gun lobby is spreading the pernicious falsehood that a background check will lead to a gun registry, and a registry will lead to a knock on the front door by a government SWAT team intent on confiscating the nation’s weapons. Mr. Paul and the other signatories who share this belief have promised to filibuster that bill. And given his newfound interest in the dramatic arts, he is probably planning to perform in another C-Span marathon in the weeks to come,” the Time editorialized as Obama gave his speech in Hartford.
Chris Matthews and Rev. Al Sharpton told MSNBC’s diminished audience that most Americans want universal background checks – and hence registration and ultimately firearm confiscation – and demanded Republicans put aside their “partisanship” and allow Democrats in Congress to vote on a bill that will strike a blow to the cornerstone of the Constitution.
Matthews admitted MSNBC has consistently waged a war against the Second Amendment. “I think MSNBC and you and I and a bunch of other people on this network have been keeping up the fight for gun safety” since the Sandy Hook massacre, “not just a few times but consistently every night,” he said.
This article was posted: Tuesday, April 9, 2013 at 7:25 am
March 29, 2013
Infowars reporter Jakari Jackson examines how the Fox show “The Following” is only the latest series to demonize militias.
In one of Alex’s early films, he included a clip from a FEMA training center where the instructor was explaining how the Founding Fathers were terrorists.
Editor’s Note: Three American scholars, two Christians and one Muslim, spoke to WND about the threat of political Islam. They say there will be further trouble unless Americans understand the threat and learn how to resist it. This interview with Catholic psychologist William Kilpatrick is the second part of the series. In part one, Robert R. Reilly of the American Foreign Policy Council said America is hurting itself by working with U.S.-hating Muslims.
WASHINGTON – Catholic psychologist Dr. William Kilpatrick is warning that Christian Americans are naïve about Islam and working towards their own extinction.
Kilpatrick, author of “Christianity, Islam and Atheism: The Struggle for The Soul of The West,” said alarms should be sounding.
“Muhammad said that he came as a ‘warner,’” wrote Kilpatrick in his book, published in November. “Among the banners that can be seen in various Muslim demonstrations in Europe is one that reads, ‘Islam – our religion today, your religion tomorrow.’ For anyone who follows the pronouncements of Islamic religious authorities around the world, there can be little doubt that this is their goal.”
Kilpatrick chronicles Islam’s war on Christian civilization as a war on universal human rights. He cites three factors working against all people of goodwill: cowardice or malice by secular governments, naïve Christian leaders and irreligious or atheist news media preaching indifference.
Indifferentists purport that all religions are equal and valid, except Christianity. Among them are secular media who whitewash Islam’s history and agenda, charging instead that Christianity is guilty of intolerable extremism.
Islam on the rise
Islam certainly is on the rise, but it’s difficult to discern whose demographic statistics are accurate, if any. The latest Vatican research shows 1.2 billion Catholics worldwide, while the Pew Research Center claims Muslims slightly outnumber Christians at 2.2 billion compared to 2.18 billion, respectively.
In America, U.S. Census Bureau figures, released by the Association of Religion Data Archives, are incomplete because some 158 million people refused to reveal their religions. Still, 2.6 million U.S. residents declared themselves Muslim; roughly 137.2 million claimed to belong to a branch of Christianity; and 58.9 million of the Christians declared themselves Catholic. A higher count of 77.7 million Catholics, courtesy of the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, is probably more accurate as it’s based on parish registration.
Why, however, does the Obama administration appear to favor Muslims and adopt policies that infringe on the rights of Christians?
Kilpatrick told WND he’s “alarmed” that critics of Islam, such as himself, eventually could be charged with “hate crimes.” As noted in WND exposés, Obama’s Justice, Defense and Homeland Security Departments refuse to classify religiously motivated attacks by Muslims as terrorism. As WND reported, after Obama took office in 2009, DHS sent a memo to law enforcement officials in the states labeling outspoken Christians and others “right-wing extremists,” further urging them to monitor such Americans as likely terrorists.
Robert R. Reilly, author of “The Closing of the Muslim Mind: How Intellectual Suicide Created the Modern Islamist,” criticized the Obama administration for favoring political Islam but said Islamists won’t win if Americans return to their Judeo-Christian roots.
Kilpatrick likewise criticized Obama’s policy toward the Islamic world.
“In our failure to understand Islam, we’ve helped to bring to power some of the most extreme Islamists, such as the Muslim Brotherhood,” he said.
But the problems don’t begin with government. Many professing Christians, the majority of voters who elect lawmakers and the president, ignore religious differences to everyone’s peril.
“Excessive emphasis on tolerance and sensitivity has resulted in a dangerous knowledge gap for Christians,” said Kilpatrick. “The main victims of Islam are Muslims. Should Christians be more worried about offending the sensibilities of some Muslims or should they be concerned about the men, women and children who are oppressed by Islamic laws?”
Several refugees from Islamic countries, whose identities are being kept confidential, spoke to WND verifying Kilpatrick’s claims.
One Muslim lady happily dresses like an American when she’s in the U.S. On Islamist requirements for women to be suppressed under a burqa or hijab, she said, “Those are men’s rules.”
A young woman who fled with her widowed mother and sister from one Muslim-ruled country to another said until they gained asylum in the U.S., almost none of their human rights were recognized.
Still others said that before the Arab Spring, they had befriended Catholics or other Christians and secretly converted to Christianity.
Christian refugees from Islamic nations are deeply concerned about Obama’s domestic and international agendas.
While some Muslims come to the U.S. to wage jihad, others say coming to America was “everything” because they believe in freedom as it’s expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.
Where should Christians begin?
“Tolerance needs to be balanced with justice, and justice seems to require that Christians be provided with a fuller account of Islam, because their survival may depend on that knowledge,” said Kilpatrick.
Jihad “isn’t an interior spiritual struggle,” he said, “but a serious obligation to subdue non-Muslims.”
That means, he said, many Western Christians “are going to be woefully unprepared for the kinds of things that are already happening to Christians in Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Nigeria and Sudan.”
“The Islamic faith is founded on a blunt rejection of basic Christian beliefs, but you would hardly know it from reading official church statements or from listening to prelates,” Kilpatrick stressed. “Instead of informing their flocks that Islam rejects Christ and requires its people to work toward the eventual subjugation of Christians, many Christian leaders have been more intent on emphasizing the common ground that Christians and Muslims share.”
Kilpatrick pointed to the Second Vatican Council declaration “Nostra Aetate” as focusing almost exclusively on the similarities between Muslims and Christians.
“That approach was in keeping with the spirit of change and openness that marked the [1960s] council because it seemed to fit with the prevailing circumstances in the Muslim world at the time,” he said. “The search for shared beliefs and values arose when the militant side of Islam was kept in check by secular rulers.”
Despite Kilpatrick’s critique, the last two popes haven’t shied away from criticizing political Islam.
In his 1994 book “Crossing the Threshold of Hope,” Pope John Paul II praised Muslims for their “fidelity to prayer,” but critiqued the impersonal depiction of God in the Quran.
In part, he wrote: “Whoever knows the Old and New Testaments, and then reads the Quran, clearly sees the process by which it completely reduces divine revelation. It is impossible not to note the movement away from what God said about Himself, first in the Old Testament through the prophets, and then finally in the New Testament through His Son. In Islam all the richness of God’s Self-revelation … has definitely been set aside.”
Pope John Paul wrote of his efforts to stop human rights violations of fundamentalist Muslims trying to impose their religion on others, especially Christians, but ended the chapter diplomatically by saying the Church is always open to dialogue.
Pope Benedict XVI doesn’t accept Islamic violence against Christians when, for example, someone publishes an irreverent cartoon of Muhammad.
The reaction to Benedict’s 2006 address on faith and reason at the University of Regensburg was cause for pause because Islamists waged international riots, they bombed Catholic churches in Israel and shot a Catholic nun to death in Somalia. Despite death threats and numerous Islamic governments calling for a retraction, Benedict continued preaching the Gospel and human rights with delicate diplomacy, even in Muslim majority countries.
Shortly after the violence, Pope Benedict issued two apologies but no retraction. He said, “At this time, I wish also to add that I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims. … Yesterday, the cardinal secretary of state published a statement in this regard in which he explained the true meaning of my words. I hope that this serves to appease hearts and to clarify the true meaning of my address, which in its totality was and is an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with great mutual respect.“
Even at Regensburg, Benedict XVI was diplomatic in discussing the widespread Muslim rejection of reason.
“Without descending to details,” he said, “such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the ‘Book’ and the ‘infidels,’ [Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus] addresses his [Muslim] interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness that we find unacceptable, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: ‘Show me just what Mohammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.’ The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable.”
In part, the fury was ignited by media who merely featured Pope Benedict quoting the emperor without the pontiff”s critique of his “unacceptable” “brusqueness.”
In America, Kilpatrick is worried about the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which has been holding “dialogues” and conferences with Muslim organizations and leaders since 1996. The USCCB has made blanket statements condemning critics of Islam, but cites no examples. Last year they collaborated with the Islamic Society of North America, and Kilpatrick urges the bishops to investigate ISNA before taking further action.
Kilpatrick said, “Any adequate response to the threat from Islam will require us to push Muslims to rethink their faith on the most basic level. Critics of Islam tend to avoid the main question in favor of secondary questions. The secondary questions are: Is Islam a religion of peace? Is Islam compatible with modern values? Are women treated fairly under Shariah law?
“The main question is: Did Muhammad receive a revelation from God? That’s the heart of the matter. As long as Muslims believe that Muhammad received his marching orders from God, the Islamic jihad will continue.”
The Quran says Allah first gave his doctrines and rules to the Jews, but they changed His sacred word. He then revealed his doctrines to Christians, but they lied in saying Jesus was His son. So, according to Islam, Jews and Christians are infidels. The Quran also condemns the concept of the Holy Trinity and incorrectly states Christians believe the Trinity is God the Father, Jesus and His mother, Mary. Therefore, according to the Quran, Muhammad was the last prophet.
“First of all, the God of the Quran is sort of a dictator,” Kilpatrick said. “Muslims refer to themselves as ‘slaves of Allah,’ and He’s a very capricious dictator. Muslims describe Him as ‘pure will.’ Therefore, He’s not really held to the rules of reason: He can say one thing and then contradict it a little bit later in another verse.”
Muslims have developed a doctrine of “abrogation,” the overriding of teachings in that appear first in the Quran with others that appear later, he said.
“If two passages in the Quran contradict each other, the earlier passage is abrogated by the latter passage,” Kilpatrick explained. “Thus, almost all the peaceful passages are in the early part of the Quran, and so they’re canceled by the latter more warlike passages.”
One could argue that Christians also consider themselves slaves of God. However, Christian slavery – Christian servitude – is voluntary. Paul, in Romans 6:20-23, describes it this way: “When you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. But then what return did you get from the things of which you are now ashamed? The end of those things is death. But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
Kilpatrick discussed Muslim doctrines on hell and heaven.
“Unbelievers are going to hell, and it’s described in detail in many, many places. Of course, they believe in Paradise, which is described as a garden of earthly delights with food, refreshments, couches, pavilions and jewels – for the men,” he said.
“According to the Hadiths, Muhammad is reported to have said that when he looked at hell, he saw many more women than men. So there’s a bias against women.
“I might point out that ideas have consequences,” Kilpatrick continued. “Given the account of heaven in the Quran, it might make men want to shortcut the process of getting there, and the only sure way of doing that, according to Islamic tradition, is by killing and being killed in the way of Allah. And so we see all the martyrdom operations and bombings.
“It’s quite interesting that on September 11, the airline apparently made a mistake and Mohamed Atta’s luggage was left behind in Boston. When [authorities] opened his luggage, they discovered a wedding suit, a bottle of cologne and a long letter expressing his desire to meet his 72 wives in heaven.
“The best way to secure peace and show our love for Muslims is to offer them something better,” Kilpatrick advised.
He believes the “something better” is the truth about God as the rational creator and redeemer, Whose love, justice and mercy are the keys to everlasting joy.