archives

basic

This category contains 117 posts

Phoenix Delays Sanctuary Policy Amid Mounting Pressure After JW Report

(from Judicial Watch, in part)

Phoenix Delays Sanctuary Policy Amid Mounting Pressure After JW Report

Days after Judicial Watch exposed a new policy banning Phoenix police from contacting the feds after arresting illegal aliens, alarming pressure on the city council and chief of police has forced officials in Arizona’s largest city to postpone the order. Crafted at a Hispanic advisory committee that promotes open borders, the policy also prohibits officers from asking about suspects’ immigration status. The new policy’s two principle measures violate key provisions of a state law upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court and leave the city vulnerable to costly lawsuits.

In the aftermath of Judicial Watch’s story, which included a copy of the Phoenix sanctuary Immigration Procedures, police management is backing off and reconsidering the ramifications. Sources with direct knowledge of the matter told Judicial Watch that Phoenix Police Department brass is worried about getting sued under an Arizona law that states the following: “No official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may limit or restrict the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.” The measure also states this: “If an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States is convicted of a violation of state or local law, on discharge from imprisonment or on the assessment of any monetary obligation that is imposed, the United States immigration and customs enforcement or the United States customs and border protection shall be immediately notified.”

Following Judicial Watch’s initial report, the chief of the Phoenix Police Department, Jeri Williams, issued an unusual and unprecedented Employee Notification System (ENS) delaying the new sanctuary order. The ENS was titled “Operations Order 4.48 Revision” and states the following: “Operations Order 4.48, which provides direction regarding immigration related issues, is still being reviewed and revised.  The anticipated effective date, July 10th, 2017, is no longer achievable. The final revisions should be completed within the coming weeks.  A new effective date will be shared once the policy has been finalized.” Williams is Phoenix’s first female police chief and agency sources tell Judicial Watch she tried to quietly implement the sanctuary measures, perhaps hoping they’d go unnoticed. Earlier this year the chief, who was hired last summer, alluded to her stance on immigration enforcement in a local newspaper article questioning whether Arizona’s 325,000 illegal aliens trust the police. Chief Williams is quoted saying this: “We maintain open communication with our diverse residents and want to ensure that our crime victims and witnesses feel comfortable and confident when reporting crimes to our officers. As your chief, I commit to you that racial profiling will not be tolerated.”

The Phoenix Police Department has about 3,000 officers that were permitted to use “sound judgement” at any time under the agency’s longtime immigration enforcement policy. That allowed front-line officers to directly contact federal immigration officials involving criminal illegal immigrants. Under the revised policy, all contact with federal immigration partners must be funneled through a single Violent Crimes Bureau (VCB) desk sergeant who will document all immigration related data and give authority to call ICE. “This will bottle-neck the process,” according to a veteran Phoenix law enforcement official who added that the new policy was generated without any input from rank-and-file. Arizona law enforcement sources also told Judicial Watch that no other restrictions of this kind and magnitude regarding a federal crime are found in Phoenix Police Department policy. Officers continue to have the discretion to contact the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Secret Service, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), Postal Inspectors, U.S. Marshalls and Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) without fear of violating department policy.

If an illegal alien is arrested for a state crime, officers in Phoenix would no longer be allowed to take them directly to ICE for deportation and document the crime in a report if the sanctuary measures get adopted. Taxpayers must fund a mandated booking into county jail under the new rules, which state; “if there is a federal criminal charge and the person is under arrest for a state and/or local charge/s…the person will be booked into the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office…” Keep in mind that Maricopa Sheriff Paul Penzone doesn’t like honoring ICE holds on jailed aliens and considers illegal immigrants “guests.” The new Phoenix Police Department rules also eliminate a table showing state immigration enforcement laws as well as documentation of police contacts with verified and/or suspected illegal aliens, a troublesome change that omits valuable city crime statistics.

Besides forbidding questioning suspects regarding place of birth, country of citizenship and legal status in the United States, the postponed Phoenix policy says that transportation of illegal aliens to ICE by officers has been eliminated for civil immigration violations unless the illegal alien “consents to a transport.” Both restrictions violate key provisions of a 2010 Arizona law known as Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (SB1070). Open borders and civil rights groups fought the law in federal court and succeeded in getting rid of many of its mandates but the U.S. Supreme Court upheld two key clauses in Section 2 of the measure. The first, requires law enforcement officers to determine a suspects’ immigration status if “reasonable suspicion” exists that the person is in the U.S. illegally. This grants officers the discretion that has just been stripped in Phoenix. The other clause in Section 2 allows state law enforcement officers to transport illegal immigrants directly to federal custody. The new Phoenix sanctuary measure, also replace the term “illegal alien” with “a person unlawfully present.”

Judicial Watch will continue investigating Phoenix’s efforts to provide illegal immigrants sanctuary and has filed public records requests for the police department’s communications with third-party groups pushing for the now-paused policy change.

What if metropolitan areas decided to create ‘free zones’ for other criminals?  Burglars, armed robbers?  Something less violent?  Forgers, counterfeiters?

(I know, reductio ad absurdum much, Guffaw?)

Especially, if it impacted national security and sovereignty?

How should the federal government react?

I only bring this up as Phoenix is in my back yard (or I theirs…)

(I know, only questions today…)

Apologies for the poor copy/paste – it was the only way I could get it all in.

Anti-Libertarian Ideologies On The March: The Existential Threat To Liberty

(From Libertarianism.org)

Tom Palmer lectures on modern threats to liberalism and individualism, exploring the philosophical roots of these threats and explaining the danger they pose. He touches on the theocratic threat of Islamism and the leftist threat of identity politics, but the bulk of the discussion focuses on the recent re-emergence of the type of nationalist, racist collectivism previously exhibited by fascists in the 1920s, 30s, and 40s.

The slides associated with Palmer’s lecture are posted on SlidesLive.

I’m a ‘conservative’ libertarian.  I disagree with the National (Libertarian) Party on a number of points, mostly regarding open borders.

But, I still believe all liberty-loving folks need to band together, regardless of minor sticking points, to battle the evils of Statism.

Lest we lose it all over infighting!

 

THE “REAL” SOLUTION TO JIHADIST KNIFE ATTACKS

Suarez International

“One of them had a big knife, then he came in and walked around the restaurant, I guess they just kind of stabbed anyone that they saw and knocked things on the ground and then we just hid.”

So this last weekend – mid Ramadan (but the UK authorities are adamant that has nothing to do with it) – yet another series of well coordinated attacks in London. The timing was on cue, and the technology was primitive, yet the effect was successful. The weapons were simple: Aggression, Motor Vehicles, and Knives. Unless the nanny-state wishes to now castrate the aggression out of all males, prohibit all sharp instruments in an Okinawan-like decree, and force everyone to use public transportation, the ability of the state to prevent the next one is ridiculously impossible as long as the culture that advocates such things is allowed to roam free in the west.

That last bit is out of the hands of normal people like us, yet we are the ones that will stand at the front line of the effects of the political decisions made by those in charge. And we will either stand as ready sacrifices to the death cult, or as combatants. Britain seems to have already chosen out of their self-imposed helplessness. Soon the west, and Europe in particular, will either find its warrior heart and embrace the old ways, or it will be bent over the table and given its fate.

In this article, which I am certain will upset the “martial arts” guys, I will discuss the reality of facing a jihadist with a knife bent of “stabbing anyone they see”. I will discuss “The Jihadist Vehicle Attacks” later.

So here we go –

1). Forget the fantasy of empty hand defenses:

Do not think for one minute that your secret Jujitsu or Kung Fu methods will guarantee you winning against a dedicated, motivated, young and fit jihadist armed with a big knife intent on killing you. Add to that his expectation of dying that day…add to that his accomplices, also armed with knives, and you get a clearer picture. And winning does not mean 7 out of 10 in the drills at the dojo…it means we want a solid chance at a 100% success rate because anything less means that you die. Your chances may be better if you have devoted your entire life to nothing but full contact martial arts training (and if your adversaries are unskilled)…but otherwise…unarmed against the knife is a very foolish match to go into.

2). Instead of going Jackie Chan, use a weapon:

Yes, I know…it may mean violating the rules. As I have said…and it is almost a cliche now…we live in a time of war and we must make adjustments to the reality and accept that the authorities cannot prevent these events from taking place. So if you live in a free state, carry a firearm with you – EVERYWHERE. Ignore the sign if there is one saying you cannot. If you live in a not so free state, carry a firearm with you anyway and always obey the speed limit. If you live in a country intentionally bereft of any warrior culture, see item three.

3). Always be armed no matter the rules:

“But Gabe…we live in (insert oppressed socialist state or nation here) and we can’t even buy a picture of a gun here”.

A modern, educated man with a set of nuts in his bag will always figure out a way to be armed. No guns? OK, get your own knife. Knife versus knife is a far better proposition than unarmed versus knife is it not? My God, at the very least get a big fat stick that you can claim is a cane and that you can crush skulls with. It really is not that difficult if there is courage, and a will, and a defiant heart that denies the state’s right to control your destiny.

“But Gabe, the rules say I cannot have guns, knives, sticks, anything that could possibly be used as a weapon and they are about to pass laws banning ill will”.

When you cannot live in safety, and in obedience to the established law, a learned man will happily become a scofflaw. If you disagree with that, I really have nothing for you. Sorry…good luck.

4). Learn to be violent:

This is why I am not impressed with the majority of martial arts training. Too much sport. Too much esoteric spiritual stuff. Not enough violence. We need more “martial”, and less “art” – as it were. I expect that today, the Monday after the London Bridge attack, the martial arts schools in the UK (and USA) will be filled with eager soccer moms and football dads (cricket-moms and rugby-dads?) looking for the easy solution to this problem. And they will be taught esoteric stuff intended for the “perfection of character”, or stuff developed for winning a match somewhere.

What they need is to be taught to physically destroy their opponent, crushing windpipes, smashing skulls, breaking bones. The “real karate” that so few schools even understand much less teach. But again, see item 1. I have trained in hand to hand stuff since I was ten years old and I would prefer to not face against a knife empty handed.

5). Learn preemption:

It is 2017. Are we already forgetting that there is a true social-religious-political culture living in the west…in truth invited by the west, that seeks to supplant western culture by force and attrition with its own culture? If you see a couple of strong young men, that look like they just got off the boat from Afghanistan moving aggressively toward you with knives in their hands – do we really need to have a time out to explain what their intentions are for you?

This is the time to draw and shoot each one of them to the ground, not running or hiding.

6). Keep alert:

All the weapons and willingness to violence will not help you in the least if you are asleep at the bar. The first part of all this is staying alert. Sit where you can see the exit, have your back covered or have an equally alert associate watching it. Look around constantly and know who is moving and what is happening. Don’t want to live like that you say? Well, western nations, you should have thought about that before you invited the death cult into your country, or voted for fools that did so. You live in a time of war and you will either deny it and hope you are not selected by the next jihadist, or you accept reality and prepare to meet him.

That is all. There are no secret techniques to defend against the knife by physically frail and empty handed males. It takes violence and weapons. And in that order.

recently, in London

I don’t have to know someone’s ethnicity or religion.  If they approach me menacingly with a blade, that’s it!

NRA Disallows 1911s As “Primary Handguns” From Its “Carry Guard” Classes

(from TFB – James Jarrett)

Released to quite a bit of controversy at the NRA show, the NRA’s Carry Guard program is again the focus of controversy. As listed on the NRA’s Carry Guard website, instructions for prospective students of their “Level 1” program are specifically asked not to bring revolvers or 1911s as “primary firearms” to the classes.  This instruction is added as a note to bringing a full-size or compact handgun:

*NOTE: NRA Carry Guard Level One is designed for training with a semi-automatic handgun (Glock 19/17, Sig P226/P228 or equivalent). We will not allow revolvers or 1911s as your primary firearm in this class.

I can understand the reasoning to NOT want revolvers in a semi-auto class, but the decision to specifically bar the 1911 is most peculiar and likely to draw some ire of the NRA membership and potential student base.

I mean, the instruction simply does not add up. The NRA specifically asks for a “semi-automatic handgun” but then disallows America’s favorite semi-auto? I can understand if the program wants a minimum capacity, but even that does not make sense as they mention bringing backup guns, etc which then has the 1911 allowed:

You should bring a secondary firearm that you carry concealed, as well as a holster for such. We will run the course with a primary carry weapon and then run a course of fire with a secondary or back-up gun to evaluate the differences. Please bring at least 40 rounds of ammo appropriate for your carry firearm for this portion of the class. Revolvers, 1911s and/or subcompacts can be used for this portion of the class. (emphasis added)

If anything, the NRA should have set a type of handgun and impartial requirements. Instead, they are managing to shoot themselves in the foot with Carry Guard yet again…

I wonder what compelled the NRA to make such as decision?  Many CCW/Constitutional Carry folks with whom I am personally acquainted often carry 1911s.

Including me.

Could it be this politically correct age is creeping over into firearms choices from politics and ‘popular’ culture?

The NRA did ban ‘other’ CCW schools/insurance from their last convention, undoubtedly to limit competition between them.

I’ll bet is Col. Cooper were still with us (as an NRA Board member) this wouldn’t be a thing.

 

Convergence And Social Justice

(copied in it’s entirety from Vox Populi)

On the convergence of Breitbart

Once an organization starts celebrating diversity, cucking and convergence are soon to follow:

The full exchange shows McHugh stating the truth that all mainstream media establishments seem to dance around, and then reminding someone who is not English that his opinion is not necessarily on point. In return, the Breitbart kaffeeklatsch erupted:

A number of Breitbart colleagues, who chose to remain anonymous, also attacked Ms McHugh for her Islamophobic comments. Speaking to CNN anonymously on Sunday, one said they found them “appalling” while another branded them “terrible”.

…This is by no means the first time she has made inflammatory remarks about race. She once told her 19,000 Twitter followers: “Mexicans wrecked Mexico and think invading the USA will magically cure them of their retarded dysfunction. Lol.”

It is rare for Breitbart, a publication which has been accused of writing racist and misogynist articles, to dismiss its employees for their controversial views. Although one exception is the case of Milo Yiannopoulos. In February, the alt-right figurehead, who was one of the site’s most high-profile writers, was forced to resign from the publication after his apparently pro-paedophilia remarks resurfaced in an old podcast.

McHugh said nothing that Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan and any conservative before 1965 would have admitted was true, and her comments are especially on point regarding recent Muslim terror attacks in the UK and France. If diversity did not exist, the problems of diversity — including the actions of other groups who want to dominate or destroy us — would not afflict us.

Breitbart has succumbed to DR3, or the tendency by conservatives to attempt to “prove” they are non-racist by accusing others of racism, creating a circular firing squad:

Many on the Dissident Right mock cuckservatives for engaging in “DR3” or DemsRRealRacists i.e. incapable of defending their values on their merits, they concede the Left’s moral premises, but accuse them of being the “real racists”, homophobes, sexists etc.

DR3 afflicts the mainstream Right, which struggles for “respectability” or at least less censorship in a Left-leaning time. Big internet giants like Google and Twitter, major publications and big donors often will drop and ignore any publication which crosses the line on race, which in late Leftism means anything but foaming-at-the-mouth advocacy of diversity or having multiple ethnic and racial groups in the same society.

As an implicit endorsement of diversity, DR3 subscribes to the “Magic Dirt” idea that if we take people from the third world, bring them to our lands and instruct them in propaganda for our system and culture, they will take it up and suddenly become us. This both replaces us and replaces their own culture with ours as a dominant colonial power.

When conservatives take up “magic dirt,” it shows that they have been captured by the very group they claim to oppose, namely the Left, since they have adopted Leftist policies like diversity, equality and indoctrination.

As I said in the Darkstream last night, to prevent convergence, you must resist the urge to excitedly embrace rival identities who happen – or merely claim – to share your values. In most cases, you will learn that identity trumps values, and when they bring in more of their identities, your values, no longer shared, will be rapidly jettisoned in favor of social justice values.

Isn’t this what the Left always does?  Consider the Fabian socialists.  They play the long game.

WE must remain honest and consistent in our values, lest they be polluted!

‘I Consider Myself A Guest Here’

Canadian William Shatner REFUSES

To Trash Trump: ‘I Consider Myself a

Guest Here’

William Shanter, the ICONIC Star Trek actor himself, refuses to talk ill of President Donald Trump regardless of his feelings for politics. In a recent interview he had with the Daily Beast he spoke all about it, and his new book, ‘Spirit of the Horse’. During this interview, Shatner made it really clear that his name was not to be added to an open letter that was released out of Hollywood last year denouncing Trump’s candidacy.

“I didn’t do that. I would never have done that,” the actor said of the anti-Trump letter posted on the Trek Against Trump Facebook page last September.

There were however, notable personalities of the original star trek series like George Takei (of course) who played Hikaru Sulu, and Star Trek Into Darkness director JJ.Abrams, who was a very avid Clinton supporter did sign that letter.

The Beast reporter did attempt more than once to get Shatner to dish on Trump, and the actor stuck to his guns refusing to do so, making it very clear that he wasn’t willing to speak ill of the president.

“I don’t want to discuss Trump or [George] Takei,” Shatner said, adding: “Listen, I’m Canadian and I’m apolitical. I love America. I consider myself a guest here.”

“I won’t do anything that might get me deported,” the 86-year-old star joked.

The Priceline pitchman, known best for his role as Captain James T. Kirk, commander of the U.S.S. Enterprise, also revealed that while he and Abrams have discussed him having a role in the rebooted Star Trek film franchise, the director hasn’t extended the offer.

“I’ve met with J.J. Abrams, who seems to be running the film franchise now,” Shatner said. “Though I’ve repeatedly expressed my interest in being in one of the Star Trek movies they seem to have no interest in bringing back old Captain James T. Kirk.”

Shatner, who made his small-screen debut as Captain Kirk in 1966, also revealed that he has never seen any of the new films.

A lifelong lover of horses, Shatner’s new book Spirit of the Horse is a love letter to his four-legged friends.

Although he is very liberal in his political beliefs, he knows how to stand for those beliefs without being ridiculous and out of line like his other Hollywood friends.

Yep. I could sit next to him on a plane, introduce myself as a conservative and he’d like me.

That’s how it’s suppose to be.

h/t Facebook, I Have the Truth.com

AMEN, Mr. Shatner and Mr. Wendal!

Now, I’m not an unabashed fan of the current President (although he is certainly a vast improvement over the last one!)  Having said that, I tire of the juvenile and sometimes criminal actions taken against the President.  Like it or not, he IS the President!  And deserves some respect.

(I’d preferred a more libertarian President, stopping this ongoing assault on the Fourth Amendment.  One with a better speaking style.  Wish in one hand…)

To see and hear (most) Hollywood types continue to attack and beat on him is more than shameful.  YES, everyone has a right to an opinion.

But, lets be adult about it, shall we?  Disagree on policy choices, not hairstyles!

 

The “Lawful Purpose and Self Defense Act” Has Been Proposed!

Rep. Rob Bishop Introduces the

(from NRA-ILA)

On Wednesday, May 24, 2017, Chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources Rob Bishop (R-UT) introduced H.R. 2620, the “Lawful Purpose and Self Defense Act.”This bill would remove ATF’s authority to use the “sporting purposes” clauses in federal law in ways that could undermine the core purpose of the Second Amendment. Under Chairman Bishop’s legislation, all lawful purposes – including self-defense – would have to be given due consideration and respect in the administration of federal firearms law.

While the NRA’s announcement above is poorly written, the message is clear.  WE (gun civil rights advocates) are becoming the vanguard.

Sporting purpose never had a place in the Second Amendment.  Period.  Nice we are on the right side, for once.

 

The Name Game

When I was growing up, most of my friends were named after parents or relatives. A few juniors. Common Anglo Saxon names – Thomas, Susan, George, John.
Names that were from grandparents were thought of as old fashioned. Martha, Edith, etc.  Black people had Anglo names, for the most part.
Other ethnic names were just that. Guadalupe (Lupe), Juan. Not to many other options.  There was one Jesus (Hey-soos’), which the P.E. teacher consistently mispronounced!
We were a predominantly white bread college town.
As I have often said before – the times, they are a changin’…
My nieces are named Rilyn and Karsyn. A good friend’s grand baby is Sagan Universe!
Now Thomas and Susan are the old-fashioned names!

Don’t get me wrong.  I’m all about honoring ethnic and/or family history.  I’m named for my maternal and fraternal grandfather.  German and Irish stock! (Didn’t know Guffaw was Germanic, did you?)  😛

Don’t even get me started on the ethnic names!  My favorite (oft repeated on the Internet) is the woman who named her child La-a.  Then was furious when people couldn’t spell or pronounce it correctly!  People said Luh-uh, Lay, all manner of wrong pronunciations.

Her name was pronounced LAH DASH UH!!

I miss names like Linda and Mike

Guess I’m old.

Sanctuary! Sanctuary!

I was recently asked (by a liberal friend) my thoughts on the Sanctuary Cities controversy.

To be honest, I’d not given it much thought.

Initially, my gut response was (as I suspect it is with most conservatives in the Republic) they (the cities and States creating Sanctuary Zones) are in violation of federal law.

Period.

But then the libertarian part of my brain became engaged.  Have these cities and States (or even those therein who are seeking Sanctuary) received due process for their actions?  Or is it just the power of the federal government that is forcing these political entities to bow to their will?  And, of course those individuals, too.

I remembered, the Republic antebellum, when the States held much more power.  But Lincoln killed that concept.

And the federal government has continued to grow ever since!  Have you ever seen a warrant, signed by a judge, used for the searches at the airport?  Or DUI checkpoints?  Or when ‘they’ spy on your computer?

If the illegal aliens avoiding the feds are in these places, they need due process to be extracted and deported.  If they are more than illegal aliens (like criminals) they too need due process.

That pesky Constitution so says.

As a conservative, I say go get ’em.  As a libertarian, I say wait for proper paperwork.  Just withholding gov’t funds to cities and States may be a great tactic (as ‘they’ ubiquitously do with highway funds!) but blackmail is not proper paperwork.

I am a conservative libertarian.

I am all about legal aliens to be here legally, get their ‘green’ cards, and move toward proper citizenship, if they desire.

Illegal aliens?  Should be deported.  Except is the most special circumstances.

But the paperwork needs to be in order, first.

Not just federal force.

 

 

Long Gun vs. Handgun In Home Defense

(from TFB, in part)

Long Gun vs. Handgun in Home Defense – Maneuverability Differences Overblown

It used to be conventional wisdom to have a 12 gauge at the ready for self defense. Then, slowly, the tactical world fell back in love with the handgun under the guides of maneuverability within the home. The thinking was that the handgun, being a smaller package, was better for one to clear their home. Combined with the higher capacity and ease of reloading, the handgun, was per thinking, the easier to use weapon.

This is, of course, before one even brings up the ability to suppress the weapon, which is good for the defender to maintain their hearing.

However, Thunder Ranch posits that this significant maneuverability advantage is overstated. While sure, the shotgun is a longer weapon, when presented to a target its really not significantly longer than the handgun at full arm extension in the proper firing position. They back this up with a quick demonstration of a common Mossberg 500, an over-under and a full-size 1911.

There was one point that the instructor made in the video that I think is poignant (paraphrased): “Would you rather fire one shot from a handgun at a guy running at you with a knife or a shotshell?

I,  for one, will take the shotshell.

Unfortunately, I have wee ones floating around so the need to keep the weapon locked up while easily accessible trumps my desire for 00 buck…

Yea, I remember those ‘olden days’, when home defense was defined by having a shotgun. (This was the 70’s).   I remember a discussion in some gun store with a proprietor, while drooling over an Ithaca Model 37 Deerslayer Police Special, and making conversation, suggesting it would be a ‘fine, upland bird gun’.  (This was before I owned any).  And the sales guy responded, “Would be good for turning around in a hallway, as well!”  🙂

Well, my friends, we seem to have gone full circle.

I would take the shotshell, as well, if I were ever fortunate enough to own another DSPS, again.

 

"Round up the usual suspects."

In Loving Memory…