Recent Articles

Don’t Monkey With Cruz’s Kids

The general rule in politics is that a politician’s children are off limits. Most politicians try to adhere to this by leaving the children of other politicians out of the political process. This means children and not young adults. You see, older teens and young adult children of politicians who campaign for their parents can and should be subject to the process. Such was the case with George Bush’s daughters who the press was eager to go after (even when they were not part of their dad’s political process). One would be hard pressed to find the same press going after Chelsea Clinton.

It is not hard to find Democrats who have gone after the young children of Republican candidates. Sarah Palin’s young son and his Down’s Syndrome were the topic of many on the left. Now we have a political cartoonist going after Ted Cruz’s young daughters because they were in one of his ads.

The two young girls were portrayed as monkeys dancing to an organ grinder (Ted Cruz). The rationale was that they were in the ad so they are fair game.

How many times have Obama’s girls been a part of his political process? Did anyone draw cartoons of them in this fashion? Hell, Obama’s kids do questionable things and if it is reported the WH demands the stories be pulled and a compliant media does as it is told.

Imagine how the liberal establishment would have acted if during one of Obama’s campaigns his daughters were depicted as little monkeys…

I think the woman responsible for the hit piece on the Cruz children does not have her own kids. Word is she aborted all of hers. Maybe we can draw a cartoon of her dead and dismembered children pleading with her for their lives as she stands there with blood soaked hands.

In any event, leave the kids alone.

And please be sure to remember this episode the next time someone tells you Trump lacks civility (thanks John Nolte).

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

Freddie Gray Case Unravels

There is no doubt that police officers do bad things and get away with them. When these happen it erodes public confidence in the police and the public eventually strikes out at any officer for any act whether it was justified or not.

This seems to be the case with officer William Porter and the other five charged in the death of long time drug dealer and often arrested criminal Freddie Gray. Let me pause here to say that a person’s criminal history does not give the police the right to become judge, jury, and executioner. Every person is presumed innocent no matter how often that person has been in trouble. I get tired of seeing officers and those who support them write that it was good Gray died and that one more scumbag is off the street. While that applies when a criminal dies during the commission of a crime or in a direct confrontation with police there is no evidence Gray fit into that mold (what crime did he actually commit). The reality here is if Gray did something wrong he deserved his day in court but it is also a stark reality that if the judicial system had kept Gray behind bars where he belonged he might still be alive. I am not losing sleep over a dead drug dealer but the backlash of what happened has caused a lot of people restless nights to include six officers.

Porter and five others have been charged with the death of Gray. Each officer faces different charges but they are all charged with some portion of the alleged crime. The problem here is there does not appear to have been a crime committed.

It is possible that one of these officers did something to deliberately harm Gray but there is no proof that such a thing did in fact happen. Officers chased Gray, took him down and into custody. One can question if they had any reason to go after Gray in the first place but there is no evidence they harmed him once they did go after him.

I am aware Gray had a knife (the legality of which is unclear) but it was not found until after they chased and caught him so it was NOT the reason they went after him and claims to the contrary are untrue.

The prosecution decided to go after Porter first because they believed it was their strongest case and that once he was found guilty he would turn on the others whose cases were not as strong. The prosecution, who rushed to judgement in the first place, had no reason to believe that it would not win a conviction. The thugs in Baltimore have been threatening to riot once again if any verdict other than guilty was returned. The prosecution was counting on fear to get the conviction.

But some brave jurors had other ideas. At least one juror was not convinced that Porter was guilty of the charges and the end result was a mistrial due to a hung jury.

This will have a domino effect. Porter now has to be the one to get convicted in order to have any hope of even trying to get the others.

You see, during his trial the prosecution claimed that Gray’s injuries happened IN THE TRANSPORT VAN. None of the officers who apprehended and arrested Gray were in that van. The prosecution cannot simply change its tune and now claim those officers harmed Gray. In reality, I can’t see how they can go forward with the prosecution of these folks in any event, with or without a Porter conviction. If the prosecution contends that Gray was harmed in the van (which is what they did and is part of the record) how can anyone who was with Gray BEFORE he got in the van be responsible for what happened to him?

The prosecution cannot have it both ways. It cannot simply change its tune and claim Gray was harmed during the arrest. I do not think they should have charged any of the officers but if they were dead set on doing so they should have charged those who had first contact with Gray and claimed he was harmed during the arrest. It would have made more sense to do it this way and then claim Porter ignored Gray’s requests for medical care.

By taking the route she did Baltimore State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby ensured that in the event of a failure to convict Porter the entire case would unravel.

We are seeing that now.

Baltimore has remained calm so far as people wait to see what comes next. People are aware that Porter can be put on trial again and they are waiting to see if that is the case.

I can’t imagine the political troll Mosby will not retry the case. She wants a conviction, nothing less.

It is up to brave jurors to look at the evidence and take an informed decision. So far that evidence points to not guilty.

And then the riots will begin.

Mosby did this. She convinced the medical examiner to change the ruling on death from accidental to homicide. She has not been forthcoming with evidence and she is playing politics with the lives of six officers who, by all the evidence so far, did not harm Freddie Gray.

Facts do not matter in a mob ruled locality particularly when the desire is revenge not justice.

This is what you get when Democrats run things.

And Baltimore is getting what it deserves.

The real crime is that six officers are getting screwed over in the process.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

Get Ready For Unrest Baltimore

The first officer charged in the death of Freddie Gray is awaiting the verdict from a jury. His trial wrapped up this afternoon and the jury is now deliberating his fate.

If Officer William Porter is found not guilty the city will again become unhinged.

After Gray’s funeral Baltimore became a national news story as rioters vandalized the city and burned buildings and cars. The rampage cost millions of dollars and put many lives at risk. The rioters did not seem to care as they went about destroying things.

Mayor Rawlings-Blake told police officers to give them room to destroy and destroy they did. The National Guard was finally requested and sent in to restore order.

People have been protesting peacefully during the trial but the peace might soon be in jeopardy.

If the jury finds Porter not guilty the city will probably burn again. Or at least the rioters will try. The Mayor has opened the operations center and alerted surrounding law enforcement agencies in case help is needed. I bet though, the antagonists have been working on riot plans for weeks…

If Porter is found guilty there will likely not be riots because those who support him (and I think he is not guilty) will probably not burn the city down. The people who feel entitled and live off the government on the other hand have no problem destroying the property of others if they do not get their way.

Be on the lookout if you are in or near Baltimore. When they announce the verdict is in it would be best to get away from the place as quickly as possible before it is announced.

The last place anyone will want to be is in Baltimore if the words not guilty are uttered.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

Maryland Gun Control, Absolute Failure

We are well aware of the failures of places with tough gun control laws. Chicago has thousands of shootings this year and it is nearly impossible to legally own a firearm there. California’s gun control failure was on display in San Bernardino last week when Muslim terrorists murdered a bunch of defenseless people.

Maryland is not far behind the crowd of gun control hell holes where criminals get guns and murder people while the law abiding are denied their protected right and are treated like the criminal class.

Martin O’Malley, former governor and presidential candidate, is responsible for pushing through these restrictive and unconstitutional laws. He relished in the moment and thought it would increase his bona fides with the liberal base. O’Malley, like his fellow Democrats, called for more gun control exploiting the dead while they were still warm and before all the facts were known.

The Second Amendment Deals With An Individual Right

The reality is these people were defenseless because their government made them so. The reaction of those in charge is to increase security from unarmed guards to armed guards. The only folks that there was no mention of arming are those who will suffer at the hands of bad people, the citizens.

It has been nearly two years since Maryland passed all the tough gun control. Baltimore City has over 300 murders this year, most of them with firearms and there are plenty more shootings where people were only injured. Perhaps the criminals did not get the memo about gun control because they keep getting guns and they keep using them.

Case in point, the first line from a Baltimore Fox 45 (WBFF) article indicates that police have taken two more guns off the street. They arrested two men who were involved in drug distribution and each of them had a gun. The article clearly indicates that neither of them was legally allowed to possess a gun and yet, they both had one.

You see, criminals do not obey the law, period. It is against the law to murder people and yet that happens. What makes anyone think that gun control laws will keep criminals from getting guns?

In fact, the two who were arrested had 200 bags of cocaine in their possession and I know that possessing, buying, selling or using cocaine is against the law.

Anyone see a pattern here?

Gun laws only affect the law abiding and they make us sitting ducks for those who have no regard for the law or for human life.

Martin O’Malley brought this to Maryland (mostly the urban areas as most of the suburbs are full of conservative people who own guns and obey the law) and now he wants to bring it to the nation.

I have no time and no desire to be lectured about guns by people like O’Malley particularly ones who are protected by armed guards.

MOLON LABE
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

The Second Amendment Deals With An Individual Right

A piece is posted at Bill Moyers.com by a writer named Dorothy Samuels (the site indicates it was originally posted at The Nation) gives us this writer’s opinion that the Second Amendment was never meant to protect an INDIVIDUAL right to a firearm. She indicates that the Conservatives on the Robert’s Court twisted the words and meaning of the Second Amendment and ignored the prefatory phrase; a well-regulated militia, in order to invent a right out of thin air. Her assertion is that it was well established that the Second Amendment did not protect an individual right.

I do not agree with her but as an aside, where was her outrage when the Robert’s court, led by John Roberts, codified Obamacare by changing a penalty to a tax?

Ms. Samuels could not be more wrong. It is important when looking at the Constitution to look at the words the people who wrote it used. It is important to read what they discussed about the document.

With regard to the Second Amendment the Founders were clear that it protected the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms. There is no doubt the militia is mentioned and it is important to note that each citizen can be called into service for the militia (at that time men of a certain age). There is no guarantee they ever will but their right to keep and bear arms still exists. If they are ever called they will be properly trained (which is what well-regulated means) to defend the state.

“[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

The second phrase reads; “the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The phrase The People means the body citizen. It does not mean the militia, it means the citizens or the people. The preamble to the Constitution starts out We The People and no one is foolish enough to suggest that this means only those called into the militia.

If Ms. Samuels and those who think like her believe that only the militia should be armed then we need a lot more people carrying firearms. Title 10 US Code Subsection 311 defines the militia as;

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. Cornell Law

Many quotes of the Founders can be found here. It is worthwhile to look at them and see what they had to say about individual liberty and freedom and how firearms kept and borne by citizens was important. Note that the quotes discuss the people and their right to bear their PRIVATE arms.

“The great object is, that every man be armed … Every one [sic] who is able may have a gun.”
Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386

I would also point out that the first ten amendments are called the Bill of Rights. Some extend to industry like the media, institutions like religion and to the states and the people of those states. When it all boils down these are individual rights that are protected for the people from their government. The body of the Constitution already addresses standing armies, the Navy and the militia. If Congress intended for arms to only apply to the militia then it would have addressed it in the body and not in the portion that was designed to protect individual rights.

Ms. Samuels claims her position is well established. I say that the opposite was well understood a long time ago so much so that it needed not to be addressed. However, the common thought was displayed in the Dred Scott decision which reads, in part:

It would give to persons of the negro race, …the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, …to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased …the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went [emphasis mine]. Wikipedia

Now the Scott decision was a horrible one and dealt with slavery. The issue about firearms was only presented as a parade of horribles the court said would happen if Negroes (the court’s words, not mine) were allowed to be free (to be entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens). However, it clearly shows that the court was concerned that a ruling freeing Scott would give him the same rights as citizens and among those was the right to keep and carry firearms wherever he went.

There is no doubt that it was well established, contrary to Ms. Samuels claims, that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right so much so it was stated as an afterthought in the Scott decision. It was well known that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual one, that was never in doubt. It concerned the court that Scott would be allowed to do that which free men were already allowed to do.

So it is clear that Ms. Samuels is incorrect. She and those who dissented in Heller are the ones on the wrong side of history. Firearms are not responsible for the problems of society.

People are and the response, all too often, from people like Ms. Samuels is to punish those who had nothing to do with the problem.

It is un-American and it is unconstitutional.

All you have to do is read what the Founders wrote and look at the real history of the nation, not the common core crap they are teaching these days.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.