My old boss, U.S. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, one of the few non-lawyers on the House Judiciary Committee, used to tell me about how Congress has the power to regulate the federal courts.

“Constitutionally, we could reduce the Supreme Court to the Chief Justice sitting in his chambers at a card table if we wanted to,” he would say.

I thought of that unused congressional authority as I pondered why it is that the Supreme Court tends to pull its members to the left.

In recent decades, from Abe Fortas and Thurgood Marshall, appointed by Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s, to Clinton appointees Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the 1990s, liberal Democrats are rarely disappointed in the left-wing positions of their appointees on virtually every issue. Not so with justices appointed by Republican presidents.

Certainly there are reliable minds on the court that can be trusted with the strict interpretation of the constitution. Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas have proven themselves worthy of our respect in that regard. Similarly, Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito are slowly building a reputation for eschewing judicial activism and for defending the concept of original intent.

But Republican nominees frequently fail to live up to the hopes of those who believe in strict adherence to the Founders’ constitutional intentions.

In modern times, perhaps the biggest disappointments began with former California Governor Earl Warren, a Republican appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower to serve as Chief Justice.

Richard Nixon’s appointments of Warren Burger and Harry Blackmun were a disaster. Both men voted in the majority on the most infamous Supreme Court ruling of the 20th Century, 1973’s Roe vs. Wade, with Blackmun writing the majority opinion. The result is forty million Americans aborted.

David Souter, appointed by President George H. W. Bush, has so abandoned any semblance of conservative jurisprudence that he is now counted consistently with Ginsburg, Breyer and John Paul Stevens on the left end of the court. 

Two Reagan appointees, Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy, turned into two of the biggest disappointments of the era. O’Connor’s left turn culminated two important recent cases, Carhart vs. Stenberg and Lawrence vs. Texas. The Carhart case struck down Nebraska’s ban on partial birth abortion. Lawrence created a constitutional right to sodomy, thereby throwing the door open wide for the movement to legalize same-sex marriage.

With O’Connor now retired, Kennedy is widely considered to be the court’s “swing vote.” But increasingly, Kennedy’s decisions are viewed as activist liberal votes. He wrote the majority opinion in the aforementioned Lawrence vs. Texas sodomy case. He voted with the liberal majority in the outrageous ruling of Kelo vs. City of New London, in which the Connecticut town was allowed to use eminent domain laws to seize property from one private owner and hand it over to another simply because the new owner could pay more in property taxes.

In two of his most recent votes, Kennedy sided with the leftists on the court in Boumediene vs. Bush and Kennedy vs. Louisiana. In Boumediene, the court granted habeas corpus rights to prisoners captured on foreign battlefields, thereby potentially extending the protections of the U.S. Constitution to every human being on earth.

In the Louisiana case, a defendant, Patrick O. Kennedy, was convicted of raping an eight-year-old girl. Louisiana law permits a sentence of death for such a crime, and the assailant was so sentenced. But in a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that such a sentence constituted “cruel and unusual punishment.”
 
Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O’Connor are both extremely enamored with foreign law. This is a problem Congress should address. Kennedy spends his summers in Salzburg, Austria, teaching international law at the University of Salzburg. He attends a yearly international judges’ conference there.

Why should international law have any bearing on decisions supposedly based on the U.S. Constitution? Perhaps this type of activity should be curtailed or banned by Congress. Perhaps the size of the court should be reduced. Perhaps John Roberts reading briefs at a card table in his chambers isn’t such a bad idea.

____________________________________________________________________________

© Copyright 2008 by Doug Patton
____________________________________________________________________________

Doug Patton is a freelance columnist who has served as a political speechwriter and public policy advisor. His weekly columns are published in newspapers across the country and on selected Internet web sites, including Human Events Online, TheConservativeVoice.com and GOPUSA.com, where he is a senior writer and state editor. Readers may e-mail him at dougpatton@cox.net.
____________________________________________________________________________

The formation of the Gay/Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives is an abomination to God and to America’s Founding Fathers. Why would elected politicians promote sexual immorality from the chambers of Congress? Politicians are elected to represent the masses of constituents from their states. Since the vast majority of their constituents are not homosexual, why are politicians risking their political careers in an effort to promote a lifestyle that most of their constituents would denounce. Of course, the answer is simple. They have sold out to homosexual lobby groups. But, in reality, there is not a simple answer, since only the 52 members of the GLBT Caucus would actually know his or her personal reasons for jumping onto the pro-gay rights’ band wagon. However, some possible reasons could be:

* To give legitimacy to their personal sexual sins.

* To give legitimacy to the gay/lesbian, bisexual, and transgender lifestyle.

* To get reelection votes for the upcoming congressional elections.

* To get reelection financing for the upcoming congressional elections.

Therefore, if there has ever been the need to recall elected representatives from office, it is now. When elected representatives choose to promote the minority over the majority, immorality over morality, it becomes extremely important to remind the politicians who actually put them in office. Therefore, if the majority chooses to remind their politicians who put them in office, Washington, D.C. politics should return to its original roots, government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” However, since most of the 52 representatives who plan to promote homosexuality in Congress are from the extremely liberal states of California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York, it would most likely be very difficult to remove these politicians from representing their respective states. But, should four large liberal states be permitted to force their ungodly views on the rest of America? Also, should 52 rogue members out of the 435 U. S. House of Representative members be given uncontested rule of the “political roost” in Congress?

What could be the motives for the action taken by the 52? First, they are definitely liberal in their political perspective. Of course, liberal means “anything goes.” In other words, based on their agenda, humans should be permitted to have sex with members of the opposite sex, with members of the same-sex, and with members of both sexes. Ultimately, the sex life of some Americans would equate to or be worse than the sex life of the people who lived in Sodom and Gomorrah. However, as recorded in the Bible, most people know what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah. Therefore, Americans need to see the path some of their elected politicians are leading them. If the 52 succeed in their pro-gay rights agenda, immorality would be sanctioned in America.

Second, fifty of the fifty-two representatives are Democratic. Sad to say, two of the 52 are Republican. But, despite the bipartisanship, it is clear that some of the Democratic contingency in the House of Representatives has an immoral agenda. Therefore, it is even more important now to elect a Republican president in 2008. If the Democratic Party continues to control Congress after the 2008 Congressional Elections, there would be only one way to stop the 52, the election of a Republican president who would veto any efforts of the Gay/Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Caucus. Senator John McCain would veto such legislation. However, Barack Obama, who was voted the most liberal senator in America and who favors the pro-gay rights agenda, would support the efforts of the Gay/Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Caucus. Most likely, he would sign these immoral bills into law. As a result, do you know what your moral responsibility would be? Simply, vote against those who would attempt to destroy the moral foundation that America established over two hundred years ago. Morality should always trump the economy or any other political issue.

Ultimately, the formation of the Gay/Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Caucus is a slap in the face of almighty God and the statesmen who wrote the United States Constitution. Apparently, the 52 representatives (the pact of 52) are attempting to make an arrogant statement to the citizens of the United States. The pact of the 52 is an open acknowledgment that they will place the sins of man above the holiness of God. The pact of 52 is an open acknowledgment that they will place the sexual desires of man above the current energy crisis and the safety of all Americans. The pact of 52 is an open acknowledgment that they will promote the will of a special interest group over the will of the majority of people that they represent. Most importantly, the pact of 52 is an open acknowledgment that they denounce the teachings of Christianity and its positive effect on the American society. Also, for your information, politicians who supported the gay rights agenda in Canada were responsible for getting the Bible banned as a hate book in some Canadian provinces. Do most Americans want this to happen in the United States? Therefore, as a result of this ungodly decision that was made by some of America’s elected politicians, God’s blessings on the United States could very well “cease and desist.” Then, it would be useless for any politician to end a speech with “God Bless America.” Instead, America might have to operate as a country without God’s divine hand to guide, to bless, and to protect it. Does the United States really want to encounter this scenario? Prayerfully, it does not. Thus, the remaining 383 House of Representative members must unite themselves to do whatever is necessary to dissolve the Gay/Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Caucus now.

link: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics

Dr. Parnell is a retired public school educator and presently teaches social science courses at a private, Christian high school in Georgia. He is the author of From Schoolhouse to Courthouse: Exposing America’s New Terror From Within (Wheatmark Publishing, ISBN: 1-58736-613-4). He is also a guest columnist on several online websites.

A recent article in the online version of Spacing Toronto, whose aim is “understanding the urban landscape”, describes the latest Muslim incursion into the city and compares it to the 19^th century Moorish revival. The writer seriously misses the point. What happened in the 19^th century and earlier was limited efforts to introduce carefully selected Muslim styles, usually chosen for their beauty and originality, and ingeniously incorporating them into the city’s existing tradition. What is happening now is actual Muslims entering Canada, and bringing with them their visual and religious symbols, with the sole purpose of changing the landscape to facilitate their cultural practices.

We are no longer admiring some artistic or architectural  anomaly, usually beautifully exotic, but unobtrusively foreign. What we are now witnessing, in stark contrast to the original approach, are often unattractive buildings and imagery cropping up all over our cities. Their function is not to add interest or beauty, but to act as tools for cultural and other functional purposes. These elements were craftily introduced to us one little bit at a time, and quietly and stealthily threaten to usurp our existing environment.  Before we knew it, we are inundated with them, without ever having agreed to have them in the first place.

Perhaps one of the most covert structures are the Islamic centers in down town Toronto. They are euphemisms for mosques, and are housed in bland buildings throughout the city with the capacity to house large numbers of Friday worshipers. This surreptitious take-over, where every corner could essentially become a mosque, is an ironic farewell to Toronto the Good, where every corner was a church.

By initially camouflaging the buildings behind nondescript structures, Muslims then start to declare their true intent. This is evident in the activities of The Islamic Center of Downtown Toronto, otherwise known as Masjid Toronto, incorporated into what was originally a bank. Masjid may be Greek to Torontonians, but as the Arabic translation of mosque, its members have cleverly found a way to make a full disclosure. Masjid Toronto recently announced its participation in “Doors Open Toronto”, an annual 3-day event in May that introduces the city’s buildings to its residents.

This year the event was themed “Sacred Spaces, Sacred Circles.” Masjid Toronto’s smart entry into the city’s cultural scene invites the public to tour its building as an introduction to Islamic culture. It promises a visit replete with shoe-removals and mid-day Muslim prayers. Without realizing it, culturally curious Torontonians become slowly inculcated into Islam.

But, for those who wish to see the real deal, and not just some make-shift corner masjid, they could proceed to another “Doors Open” event to view the Islamic Foundation of Toronto. Although it emphasizes its educational facilitates on its website, there is no mistaking that this ungainly and unattractive building serves primarily as a mosque, with it’s clear Islamic dome and 130ft minaret looming over the suburban-like landscape. It is also conveniently located far from the center of the city where criticism by ordinary Torontonians is limited.

Now that Muslims have slowly introduced to us the structures, names and functions of their buildings, they can show us their visual presence in other ways. Television becomes an obvious venue. A sitcom entitled “Little Mosque on the Prairie” started airing on Canada’s CBC in 2007. Its title logo shows a generic mosque superimposed over the Saskatchewan prairies, a bold imagery of Islam taking over a quintessential Canadian landscape.

The sitcom’s creator, a Muslim woman who lives in Saskatchewan, unashamedly borrowed the title from one of the most beloved television series of rural America – “Little House on the Prairie.” The message is that there really is not that much difference between “Little House on the Prairie”, and “Little Mosque on the Prairie”; just a word. A mosque becomes a house, which is after all part of all Canadians’ lives. Fox television is now developing its own “Little Mosque” sitcom, bringing the story back full circle to the US, with one executive even joking that it should be called “Little Mosque in Minnesota.”

Muslims started off by covertly taking over our landscape, but gradually emboldened, they are now starting to advertise their goods. The omnipresent billboards, which dot the expansive American and Canadian highways have become their next frontier. To prepare us for this massive billboard assault, Muslims once again started off small. One of the most visible signs on Muslim store windows is the halal notice for appropriately slaughtered meats. Once we got used to the word halal, no explanation became necessary for the giant KFC billboard which went up in Dearborn, Michigan, proudly stating below the beneficent smile of Colonel Sanders: “Now Serving Halal.”

But, Muslims did not stop there. Halal in Arabic script is prevalent in small Muslim stores. Recently, such major food chains as Subway and McDonalds are simply putting up posters and signs which use the Arabic script for halal. Now that we have become accustomed to what it looks like, we can recognize it anywhere, without even reading Arabic. English is no longer required.

Halal’s increasingly recognizable Arabic visual identification is now beginning to enter even broader venues. A Toronto-based Italian restaurant, calling itself “Kara Mia: Modern Italian Cuisine” is described by the Toronto Star as a “cozy eatery…Decorated with depictions of Venice.” The only indication to an unsuspecting visitor that this is not your average Italian restaurant is the halal Arabic script on the corner of the menus, although everything else is in English. Kara Mia announces on its website that it will soon start franchising. Halal has really gone mainstream.

What is more mainstream than having your very own ethnic magazine competing on the stands with Vogue, Elle and Bazaar? That is just what is happening with the US based Muslim Girl Magazine, launched just over a year ago by a Canadian Muslim woman. Westerners are having to get used to yet another symbol of Muslim life: the hijab. Through countless stories from around the world, we have come to accept that it is the normal attire for Muslim women. But Muslim Girl Magazine goes a step further and makes the hijab into a fashion statement. Placed alongside magazines with designs by Valentino and Ralph Lauren, Muslim Girl Magazine makes an audacious statement that this unattractive, monotonous piece of clothing is even remotely comparable to these designers.

The very first issue of Muslim Girl Magazine had a picture of a real-life Muslim girl posing near the stars of the American flag, with her hijab continuing the theme with red and white stripes. The main caption reads: “Growing up American.” But no true-blood American (or Canadian) Girl would wear the hijab. Yet, this popularizing magazine effort, along with the increased presence of hijab-wearing women in our streets, will surely influence ordinary girls with what Muslim Girl Magazine tries to portrays as a fun, colorful and interesting fashion. In fact, some girls are making the preliminary transition by wearing wraps around their hair as an exotic flair. With carefully phrased words and images, Muslim Girl Magazine can attract unsuspecting non-Muslim girls to join in their “fun.”

Muslim Girl Magazine also has an on-line version, which is where the more astute Muslim organizations establish their presence. One of the most successful endeavors has been google ads coverage of Muslim topics. Bloggers who write on Muslim issues are increasingly finding that their google ads contain Muslim-related information (since google ads advertise based on key-word identification.) The curious thing is that even a small piece on Islam and Muslims is almost guaranteed to generate a Muslim ad, while other topics appear to have less coverage.

These Muslim ads seem innocuous enough, mostly focussing on Muslim dating sites. But how clever is that. Matchmaking is the cornerstone to increasing the population by attracting mates (Muslim or not) and immersing them into Islam. After all, Muslims’ ultimate goal is to make the whole world Islam.

Muslims have made remarkable inroads into our societies using simple visual strategies. Unless we want to become what they want us to become, which is Muslim countries, now is the time to reverse those steps.  The good news is that an “Islamic building”, most likely similar to the ubiquitous “Islamic centers” of Toronto, was recently bulldozed in Italy to be replaced by a public square in memory of  Oriana Falluci, the late great Italian civilization champion who wrote about keeping Islam out of the West. The brave mayor of the city of Verona explained this decision by saying “My citizens do not want this take over.” They don’t want to see it either. The city of Verona’s recovery of its public square proves to us that it is by no means impossible repossess our landscape.

As we celebrate our nation’s independence, it is worth keeping in mind that real independence depends on having secure borders. A nation that cannot or will not protect itself from a massive and intentional invasion for the purpose of changing its population and politics is a nation that will not exist very long. The world’s elites, the jetsetters, the United Nations types who keep babbling about being citizens of the world and scoff at notions of national sovereignty, who deride a requirement to speak the language of the nation, and talk of multiculturalism when clearly not all cultures are equal, are a minority. The rest of us live in a specific town or city, in a specific State, in what we proudly call the United States of America. There are many issues the forthcoming national election will address, but if illegal immigration, a broken immigration system, and the deliberate invasion of America by Mexico with the aim of changing our population and policies, is not among our priorities in 2008, then our independence, our sovereignty, is imperiled. Real independence means secure borders. We don’t have them. What we have is a porous excuse for borders, a federal government that has not and still does not take our national security seriously enough to fix our immigration system, and a lack of will by Congress to call a moratorium on the influx of both legal and illegal immigration. In his new book, “The New Case Against Immigration”, Mark Krikorian presents a cogent, moderate case for the necessity to assert control over legal and illegal immigration. President Lyndon Johnson said it best in the 1960s, “The days of unlimited immigration are past.” The problem is that, in reality, unlimited immigration is the order of the day in America today! The problem is a Congress hell-bent on extending yet another amnesty to the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, most Mexican, in America, thus opening the floodgates, as with the previous amnesty, for the arrival of their entire family, despite the fact that many lack the most fundamental skills required of any legal immigrant seeking citizenship. In a nation with more than 300 million citizens in a world hurtling toward a population of 7 billion, the failure to get control of our borders can so transform the America that it can disappear. As Kirkorian says, “Modern America has outgrown mass immigration.” At the heart of the immigration debate that has been raging nationwide has been the huge influx of illegal aliens from Mexico. “Mexicans now account for some 31 percent of the total immigrant population—legal and illegal, naturalized and non-citizen—and accounted for fully 43 percent of the growth of the total immigrant population in the 1990s.” Mexico, a nation still angry over the loss of its former territories, California and the southwestern States, has hit upon a plan to reclaim them and, through the sheer power of demographics, population and birthrates, lay claim to the whole of the nation. This plan is so deliberate that just one statistic is enough to demonstrate it. “Mexico’s network of consulates in the United States is without parallel in the world: fifty-six consulates and consular agencies (or honorary consuls, who perform consular services on a part-time basis) in twenty-six states plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, (is) the largest network anywhere.” By contrast, “The United States…has only nine consulates, plus thirteen consular agencies, in Mexico.” This network has evolved into an advocacy and educational role that is specifically forbidden by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the international treaty that governs such matters. It forbids any interference “in the internal affairs of the (host) state.” Despite this, this network of consulates distributes textbooks to American schools, supports lobbying by various Mexican-American organizations to challenge and change our immigration laws, and purports to speak for all Hispanics seeking to enter the United States or to remain here despite having overstayed their visas or simply entered illegally.  Many States, unable to get the federal government to perform its duty with regard to the protection of our borders and the deportation of illegal aliens using our schools, our hospitals, and other social service benefits, have passed resolutions to limit or deny such services and have been overwhelmingly supported by voters, many of whom are Mexican-American citizens. The other side of the illegal immigration issue is the way our existing immigration services are totally overwhelmed when it comes to actually performing the security function of stopping visitors or immigrants before they ever get on a plane or other means of getting here. “In 2005,” Kirkorian notes, “about 800 visa officers issued about six million visas to foreigners, an average of 7,500 visas per officers, roughly one every fifteen minutes.” Kirkorian is the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies. The data on which he relies is some of the best offered by any organization concerned about the effect of out of control immigration into the United States. A panoply of such organizations now exists to get Washington, D.C. to address the issues. The failure to stem the tide of immigration into America, not just from Mexico but from around the world, will ultimately undermine our national values, culture, and laws. It will ultimately steal America from the generations who came to a very different nation at a time when they were needed, who fought to protect it, and from present-day Americans and their descendents who still cherish it. Alan Caruba writes a weekly column posted on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center, www.anxietycenter.com. He blogs at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com. 

by Jim Kouri, CPP

Seventy members and associates of the Drew Street clique of the Avenues gang have been named in a federal racketeering indictment unsealed on June 25 that alleges a long series of narcotics-related offenses and violent crimes — including murder, attacks against police officers, witness intimidation and extortion of local businesses.

The charges that could bring life-without-parole prison sentences for some of the gang members, according to police officers involved in the case.

During a massive law enforcement operation involving more than 500 officers from a host of federal, state, and local agencies, including the Los Angeles Police Department, the Glendale Police Department, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and other agencies, authorities arrested 28 defendants on the criminal charges, and another four on immigration charges. Twenty-six of the suspects were already in state and federal custody. Meanwhile, officers and agents continue to search for 16 of the suspects named in the indictment.

“[This case] highlights a progressive law enforcement model in which federal authorities join with their local counterparts to quickly investigate and charge significant numbers of gang members in order to remove them from neighborhoods they have plagued for long periods of time,” said United States Attorney Thomas P. O’Brien.

The gang problem in and around Drew Street received substantial attention earlier this year when several members of the gang murdered a rival gang member who was walking with his two-year-old granddaughter and later engaged in a shootout with Los Angeles Police officers. These shooting incidents are alleged as racketeering acts in the indictment.

According to the 157-page indictment returned by a federal grand jury on June 12 but unsealed on June 25, members and associates of the Drew Street gang are part of a criminal enterprise that, at its heart, is a violent, drug-trafficking organization. The Drew Street clique is part of the Avenues street gang in northeast Los Angeles, and is alleged to control drug-trafficking activity and, to a significant degree, all manner of life, in the area surrounding the intersection of Drew Street and Estara Avenue.

The criminal organization allegedly operates and maintains its control through attacks directed at law enforcement, intimidation, extortion, and robberies and murders of both rival gang members and innocent members of the general public.

The leadership of the Drew Street gang — notably “shot-caller” Francisco “Pancho” Real, 26, who is the lead defendant in the indictment — collected “taxes” from those who sell narcotics in the neighborhood, according to the indictment. A portion of the taxes is then paid by gang leaders to the Mexican Mafia.

Drew Street gang members also allegedly raise funds for the Mexican Mafia by conducting armed home-invasion robberies and collecting extortion payments from area businesses. The Mexican Mafia allegedly authorized Francisco Real to take control of the Drew Street clique less than a year ago.

Francisco Real allegedly demanded a $30,000 extortion payment from the owners of two businesses in the neighborhood in March. When one victim balked, Francisco Real stated that their businesses were in his territory, according to the indictment. Later, Francisco Real and two associates allegedly drove to one of the businesses and told a victim that Francisco Real controlled the area and the victim was required to pay $30,000 or Francisco Real would kill him and burn his businesses.

Fifty-one defendants are named in the first count, which alleges violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. The charge alleges that the Drew Street gang is a criminal enterprise designed to distribute crack cocaine, powder cocaine and methamphetamine. The RICO charge also alleges a host of criminal activities designed to preserve the power of the Drew Street gang, crimes such as murder, witness intimidation and attacks on police. The first racketeering charge alleges 87 racketeering acts, with more than half of those acts occurring in 2008 alone.

In addition to the criminal case, the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office has filed civil actions — nuisance abatement lawsuits — seeking injunctive relief for nine properties on Drew Street and one located a block away on Chapman Street. The lawsuits are designed to bring to the properties armed security guards, security cameras, strict tenant screening measures and evictions of individuals involved in narcotics activities. The lawsuits also seek orders directing property owners to reside in their properties, attend neighborhood watch meetings, and provide regular maintenance.

“Local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies are working together every day to put criminal street gangs out of business and return our neighborhoods to our law-abiding residents,” said City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo. “[This] operation represents the largest scale use of property abatement actions against a street gang in the history of Los Angeles,” he added.

“Today’s joint city, state and federal agency operation is the first phase of a three-step plan to restore hope and revitalize a residential and business community,” said Los Angeles Police Chief William J. Bratton, who previously served as police commissioner in New York City.

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance (thenma.org).  In addition, he’s the new editor for the House Conservatives Fund’s weblog. Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty. 

He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations.  He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country.   Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com and PHXnews.com.  He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com.   He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc.  His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com. Kouri’s own website is located at http://jimkouri.us
   

-By Warner Todd Huston

With more fallout from the Supreme Court’s latest 2nd Amendment ruling, the Chicago Sun-Times has published an op ed wagging a finger at the Supremes saying that the Heller decision will be a “tax on Chicago citizens,” and that it is a tax to be “paid in blood and money.” The Times scolds the Court with all sorts of dire warnings and worries that blood will flow in the city but, as with D.C., the violence in Chicago with its extreme gun ban often causes the city to top the lists of the most violent cities in America. So, why the Sun-Times imagines the current 25-year-old gun ban is worth keeping is anyone’s guess.

The Sun-Times, though, is filled with woe at the Heller decision and offers the downright stupid solution of more gun banning despite the singular fact that their “solution” has miserably failed in every city it has been tried — including the very one they claim to care about. Not to mention that the Times seems to have no clue about the Constitution nor any respect for the citizenry of that same city.

Thursday’s landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision gutting a Washington, D.C., handgun ban can best be viewed, from Chicago’s perspective, as a tax on Chicago citizens… A tax to be paid in blood and money.

Oh, the gnashing of teeth.

Because of the court’s ruling, Chicago residents, in the not too distant future, likely will be able to buy handguns and keep them in their homes for the first time in more than 25 years… That new freedom will come at a high cost for our citizens.

First of all Sun-Times, the Second Amendment is not a “new freedom.” It is well over a 200 year-old “freedom.” No, not even a freedom but a right bestowed upon us by God and not in your power to remove.

The Sun-Times’ idea of how the ruling will “cost” the city is laughable, as well.

Today, Chicago effectively bans its residents from privately possessing handguns — a law in effect since the early 1980s — and that’s not going to change anytime soon… First, there will be reams of litigation, with Chicago taxpayers footing part of the hefty bill.

A child of 10 could see the solution to eliminating that “cost,” Sun-Times. That “hefty bill” that the city will incur in defending the indefensible could easily be rendered moot if the city simply admitted it was wrong, followed the law of the land, and dumped its illegal gun ban. There. Problem solved.

Then there is this untenable line of leftist group think:

Unless the makeup of the Supreme Court changes, the city will almost certainly lose, and more guns will flood into Chicago as a result.

Again, in typical left-wing fashion, this concept sees no difference between the ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens and criminals making of them one and the same. Like most leftists, the Times proves that it does not trust the average citizen imagining he will suddenly become a murdering, psycho the second he takes a gun into his sweaty fist. And, how the new decision will cause a “flood” of new guns anyway is a mere assumption made by fearmongers as opposed to one predicated upon any sort of fact.

Now, look at how the Sun-Times imagines that this “flood of guns” will be used.

Handy for self-defense.

Also handy for blowing a spouse’s brains out during a knock-down, drag-out fight.

Or for blowing your own brains out, when life becomes too much to bear.

Or accidentally shooting yourself as you go downstairs to check out a suspicious noise.

What overwrought tosh. Again, the statistics of what guns have been used for in parts of the country where gun laws were liberalized do NOT SHOW this sort of outrageous rise in accidents, murder and the like. It just doesn’t. Yet, despite real evidence to the contrary, gun grabbers and anti-Constitutionalists everywhere insist on saying it does despite reality. It’s as if they are sitting in the dark with their eyes tightly, shut saying to themselves over and over again, “there is no such thing as monsters.” As if just saying “guns are evil” makes it true.

Well, to employ the old saying, Sun-Times, you are entitled to your own opinion, but you aren’t entitled to your own facts.

Then the Times indulges in the most bald faced absurdity about what will happen in Chicago. Along with the previously stated nonsense about how there will be a “tax” of “blood” on the city, the Times moans that more guns must mean more crime.

The court’s decision will only, in the end, help criminals, by putting more guns out into society.

But, one must wonder how it could get any worse in “the city of big shoulders”?

In the Times’ own paper over the last few weeks 9 were shot in one weekend, and a household of 5 people were found killed a few weeks ago. This is not uncommon as it seems every week we see half a dozen killed in the city.

Blind to the possibility that Chicago might find its crime rate go down (like it has elsewhere) when the citizens are able to defend themselves, the Sun-Times opens up the waterworks for a final, ridiculous stab at melodrama.

Such praise for the court’s wrong-headed decision, though, does nothing to help pay the coming bill for Chicago taxpayers — a bill that will grow for years to come — or dry a mother’s tears over the next child slain on the city’s streets.

Here’s a thought, Sun-Times. Instead of whining about guns, why not launch a program to encourage young black men to stay home with their children and to marry the mothers of those children so that those same kids won’t end up in gangs? How’s that for a solution that doesn’t include destroying our God given right to self-defense?

Or does that idea make too much sense?