All Over the Place

<

EDITORIAL EXEGESIS
"It is a 6,000-word letter from [Ayman al] Zawahiri, presumably in hiding in Pakistan, to al-Qa'ida's commander in Iraq, Abu Musab al Zarqawi... It goes a long way toward letting Americans see what we are up against in Iraq and elsewhere in the world. The letter's full text is up on the Web site of the Director of National Intelligence. http://www.dni.gov/letter_in_english.pdfThose who want a premature U.S. withdrawal from Iraq will now have to explain why that won't play into the hands—and plans—of the enemy. Zawahiri makes it quite clear that al-Qa'ida's ambitions extend well beyond the borders of any one country. The goal is a fundamentalist Islamic regime that begins in Iraq, extends into the neighboring secular nations of the region, assaults Israel and moves on from there... But let Zawahiri speak for himself. The jihadists, he writes, 'must not have their mission end with the expulsion of the Americans from Iraq, and then lay down their weapons, and silence the fighting zeal.' Plainly said, these boys are in it for the long haul. Just because the U.S. might decide to pull out of Iraq hardly means that al-Qa'ida will stop trying to kill Americans... If it has a familiar ring, that's because George Bush has been warning the world about it for several years." —The Wall Street Journal

Note: I've read the full letter and it is a little long, but if you really want to know the heart and mindset of the insurgents in Irag and Afghanistan, you should read it. They do wish the destruction of Israel, the establishment of the "Caliphate" and the law of Sharia. This will establish the Islamic base for the expansion of Islam worldwide and the destruction of America as we know it. Think it can't happen? Well, maybe you're right, but the battle WILL have to be fought. Do we do it now, across the ocean, or here at home, on our shores, with our grandchildren doing the fighting? I say we do battle now, over there and with the troops we have now. JF



LIBERTY
"[W]e are not, in fact, fighting a global war on terror. It is a global war, alright. But it should instead be called the 'War for the Free World.' Such a designation has the following advantages: It is accurate. We who love freedom are locked in a struggle to the death with totalitarian enemies who subscribe to ideologies that require our destruction. Sound familiar? The Nazis, Fascists, Imperial Japanese and Soviet Communists had in mind for us the same fate. We had to wage war effectively (using non-military as well as military means) on a global scale to defeat each of them in turn. Today, the immediate threat to the Free World comes from Islamofascism—yet another totalitarian ideology, this time masquerading as a religion... By demonstrating our resolve to resist the Islamofascists and to help non-Islamist Muslim to do so as well, we can enlarge the Free World and secure the allies we will need to prevail." —Frank J. Gaffney, Jr






"Not all the treasures of the world, so far as I believe, could have induced me to support an offensive war, for I think it
murder; but if a thief breaks into my house, burns and destroys my property, and kills or threatens to kill me, or those that are in it, and to "bind me in all cases whatsoever" to his absolute will, am I to suffer it?"
-- Thomas Paine (The American Crisis, No. 1, 19 December 1776)




"Now is, in short, the time for a return to first principles. Properly labeling the present conflict is not a panacea. But making it clear that we are engaged in nothing less than a War for the Free World will make it easier to take the steps necessary, both at home and abroad, to secure the victory we literally cannot live without." —Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.






"Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences
run into each other. The divine law, as discovered by reason and the moral sense, forms an essential part of both."
-- James Wilson ()




"[T]he propitious smiles of Heaven, can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right,
which Heaven itself has ordained."
-- George Washington (First Inaugural Address, April 1789)




"Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. Do not be too severe upon their errors, but reclaim
them by enlightening them. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress, and Assemblies, Judges, and Governors, shall all become wolves."
-- Thomas Jefferson (letter to Edward Carrington, 16 January 1787)




FAMILY
"The coalition of national pro-family groups that's pushing the Federal Marriage Amendment has determined that success hinges on scrupulously avoiding any public discussion of homosexuality. They seek to stop a thing without naming it—always a difficult proposition. The coalition decided that a direct challenge to the homosexual ethos (that same-sex couples are equal in dignity and worth to a father and mother working to ensure society's future) would allow them to be cast as bigots. Hence, their argument boils down to 'do it for the kids' (truly, a courageous stand). Traditional marriage must be preserved because it's the best way to raise children, they plead. While indisputably true, by defaulting on the more fundamental point—why two men who are sodomizing each other are not the moral equivalent of a man and a woman joined in a monogamous relationship, sanctified by faith and tradition—they have allowed the social acceptance of homosexuality to advance unhindered. To win a battle, they are ceding ultimate victory." —Don Feder




CULTURE
"Do poor blacks really need to hear 'millions more' excuses why black men can't be faithful to one woman and be responsible for the children they bear? Or why they can't get an education because white people hate us? Do poor blacks really need another venue for hip-hop multimillionaires to explain, in four-letter epithets, that blacks suffer because George W. Bush doesn't care about them? This while these moguls get richer by the day peddling black booty on BET, inspiring black kids to live the life that guarantees to keep them poor? Despite [Louis] Farrakhan's supposed objective to 'empower' poor folks, he should understand, as more and more blacks are beginning to understand, that he, and other long-standing traditional black leaders, really promote quite the opposite. Poor blacks do not need to be 'mobilized' to turn even more responsibility for their lives over to others. They need to go to school and take care of their families. The place where this needs to take place is within a couple-mile radius of where they live. It certainly won't take place on the National Mall in Washington... The work that blacks need to do in Washington today is to reduce government interference with black individual lives, families and communities to solve our own problems... Black problems today are in individual hearts, minds and homes. This is where they need to be solved." —Star Parker





RE: THE LEFT
"The idea that what I want overrides what you want has increasingly become part of our thinking, our policies and even our laws. There is literally a federal case before the Supreme Court over the fact that many colleges and universities refuse to allow military recruiters on campus. Why? Because, as the academics will tell you, they are opposed to the military, either in general or because they think the military are discriminating against homosexuals or for whatever other reasons they have. These academics have every right to be against the military, for any reason or for no reason. If they don't like the military, they can stay away from the military, since there is no draft. But what they want is to keep other people away from the military, by preventing students from hearing what the military recruiters have to say, as students hear what recruiters from all sorts of other institutions and movements have to say on campus. The reason there is a legal issue is that a federal law has been passed, saying that colleges and universities that forbid military recruiters from coming on campus are no longer eligible to receive federal money. Academics are outraged. They see this law as a violation of their freedom—including their right to violate their students' freedom. It is classic spoiled brat politics, based on the idea that what I want overrides what you want."
—Thomas Sowell




"While the people have property, arms in their hands, and only a spark of noble spirit, the most corrupt Congress must be mad to form any project of tyranny."
—Rev. Nicholas Collin







"Democrat leaders jumped on DeLay in ways meant to advertise their own 'virtue.' House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi...said DeLay represents a 'culture of corruption' and hopes a 'level of shame would set in on the Republicans.' I'm glad Pelosi has reintroduced the words 'corruption' and 'shame' to the political vocabulary, for who would know more about those subjects than the Democrats, who shamelessly defended the corruption of the last Democrat president, William Jefferson Clinton." —Cal Thomas




More Demo "Patriotism": "Democrats are committed to fighting and winning the war on terror. But the Iraq war has made us less safe, and led to squandered opportunities to fight global terror because of the allocation of resources in Iraq."
—Nancy Pelosi **It's true that the Demos are committed to winning the war on terror; the only problem is that they are supporting the wrong side.




From the "Village Glitterati" Files:
"Cronyism, corruption, incompetence, high crimes and misdemeanors with the Bush administration, the list goes on and on... [W]e are entangled in an unwinnable war and hundreds of thousands of young men and women have been sent to be maimed and killed, all in the name of keeping America safer... On September 11, the country was shocked by the terrorist attacks, although the President was warned repeatedly of al-Qa'ida's imminent threat and still chose not to act."
—Blabs Streisand
**Memo to Blabs—you've got the wrong guy: "[Clinton] had no strategic vision. He didn't understand how to use the military, which was obvious... There were several times...in the 1990's when we knew about al-Qa'ida, we knew about Bin Laden as far back as 1996, and we had two specific chances to either (a) take Bin Laden into custody or (b) kill him, and Clinton chose both times not to do anything."
—Lt. Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson





October 13, 2005


San Francisco's Gun Ban--Bad Law Hurts Good People
Michael Nevin

The San Francisco Gun Ban Initiative, Proposition H, will appear on the next election ballot in November. Several supervisors have touted the ban as a step in curbing violence and increasing public safety. A bold law with such high expectations merits a closer look.

The Handgun Ban

The proposed ordinance would prohibit San Francisco residents from possessing any handgun, and they would have 90 days to relinquish their property. The sale, manufacture, and distribution of firearms would be prohibited. Visitors to the city would not be subject to the ban if they are in compliance with applicable laws. Police officers and members of the military would also be exempt while "carrying out the functions of his or her government employment." What does this mean for off-duty law enforcement residing in San Francisco?
The role the police department will play in any door-to-door gun confiscation scheme is cause for concern. Nearly 22,000 handguns have been purchased by residents since 1996, according to the state attorney general's office. But there is no way to determine how many total guns exist because local governments are forbidden under state law from requiring firearms to be registered or licensed. It is unclear what database the city would utilize to track San Franciscans who have lawfully purchased handguns.
National Statistics and Studies Do Not Favor the Handgun Ban Argument
• According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, conducted from 1993 through 2001, violent crime declined 54%; weapon violence was down 59%, and firearm violence decreased by 63%.
• A study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control released in 2003 found no proof to support the claim that gun-control laws are effective in preventing violence. The task force found firearms-related injuries declined since 1993 despite approximately 4.5 million new firearms sold each year.
• In December of 2004, the National Academy of Sciences released the findings of a study: "Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review." "Current research and data on firearms and violent crime are too weak to support strong conclusions about the effects of various measures to prevent and control gun violence," according to the panel.
• Guns are used defensively, according to some estimates, more than 2 million times annually-- four times more than the estimated use of a gun in commission of a crime.

Case Study—Washington D.C.

Washington D.C. provides a glimpse into gun prohibition after it banned handguns in 1976. How successful has our nation’s capital been in reducing violence? D.C. has consistently been dubbed "Murder Capital U.S.A.," dating back to the early 1990s. The Department of Justice found that guns accounted for 80 percent of Washington D.C.'s homicides between 1985 and 1994. With a murder rate nearly 8 times the national rate, it is clear that something is not working.
Washington D.C. had a homicide rate of 44.2 per 100,000 in 2003, while San Francisco had a homicide rate of 8.9 per 100,000 in 2003. D.C. had more than double the overall violent crime rate when compared to San Francisco in 2003.

FBI Uniform Crime Report—San Francisco

• In 1995 San Francisco had a population of 738,371. There were 99 homicides and 10,903 violent crimes.
• In 2003 San Francisco had a population of 772,065. There were 69 homicides and 5,725 violent crimes.
• From 1995 through 2003, the homicide rate decreased by 33.3% and the violent crime rate decreased by 49.8% in San Francisco.
• Although San Francisco had an unusual number of homicides, 88, in 2004, the city has averaged 71 homicides each year over the past decade. 63 of the homicides in 2004 involved a firearm.

Societal Problem Not a Gun Problem

We need to look no further than across the bay in Oakland to find anecdotal evidence highlighting the need for citizens to have lifesaving options when facing violent encounters. Patrick McCullough has spent a decade reporting drug dealers to police. He is the face of the law-abiding citizen who lives with urban terror. When McCullough shot and wounded someone he believed was posing a threat to him, the Alameda County D.A.'s office found that McCullough acted in self-defense. McCullough may not live in a gated community or be able to afford armed bodyguards, but he has an unalienable right to defend himself and his family.
Jeff Weise, 16, killed his grandfather, who happened to be a retired police officer, before stealing his guns and going on a killing spree on the Red Lake Indian reservation in Minnesota. "Everything that kid did that day, practically from the moment he walked out of his bedroom, was a felony," said Joe Olson, a Hamline University law professor and president of the Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance. Olson concluded, "I don't think any gun-control laws would have made a difference."
To believe that the proposed handgun ban would have an impact on handgun violence, one would have to assume that criminals would actually abide by the new law. After all, criminals are undoubtedly responsible for the high crime rates involving firearm violence. Considering the very definition of a criminal, it would be hard to imagine that such enlightenment would occur. In fact, both reason and empirical research suggest that most criminals are attracted to places where they meet less resistance.

Guns and Violence—A Law Enforcement Approach

The proposed handgun ban initiative states: "The presence of handguns poses a significant threat to the safety of San Franciscans." In reality, the presence of criminals in possession of any firearm poses a significant threat to the safety of all Americans. Guns are nothing more than a tool that if in the wrong hands will hurt innocent people. 9/11, the worst terrorist attack on American soil, proved that box cutters and deadly intentions could be as dangerous as almost any weapon in a military arsenal.
Proactive law enforcement targeting crime-infested neighborhoods has been the most effective method in curbing the violence. The S.F.P.D., in conjunction with federal authorities, has established a gun task force known as "Triggerlock II." A police department bulletin explains: "'Triggerlock II' is committed to disarming violent criminals and reducing gun violence by identifying the most dangerous offenders and referring them for prosecution under state and federal firearm violations."
When homicides in San Francisco surged in the first half of 2004, the Gang Task Force and other specialized units of the police department stepped up and cut the homicide rate by 40 percent in the second half of the year. According to an article in the San Francisco Chronicle: "The most important factor in the decline, police say, is authorities' attempt to take those they consider the most violent, incorrigible criminals off the streets with the help of the federal 'Triggerlock' law, which provides for prison terms of 10 years or more for felons who are caught with a gun."
A targeted response to violent crime coupled with tough state legislation such as "Three Strikes" ensures that predators are not in a position to wreak havoc on society. The District Attorney has made it clear that she will aggressively prosecute anyone using firearms in the commission of a crime and/or found to be in unlawful possession of a firearm.
Cities across the nation that employ a "zero tolerance" approach to violent crime are reaping the benefits. New York City, which leads the way in policing tactics such as CompStat, saw its peak of 2,245 murders in 1990 drop to 571 in 2004. Chicago, the nation's murder capital in 2003 with 598 homicides and a city that banned handguns in 1982, watched as homicides in 2004 fell to 447. Police in the Windy City credited the Targeted Response Unit that saturates areas known for gang violence.
While the handgun ban initiative does a good job in circumventing the Second Amendment, it does little to address the deeper cultural issues of crime and violence. Random or targeted acts of violence personally affect the law enforcement community. Those dedicated to public service understand that we need to support any reasonable effort to stem the tide of violent encounters threatening citizens and law enforcement alike. However, good intentions don’t necessarily make good law. Disarming law-abiding citizens is not the answer.

Guns and Civil Liberties

The Pink Pistols, the largest national Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender organization dedicated to the legal, safe, and responsible use of firearms for self-defense of the sexual-minority community, has a San Francisco chapter and is outraged by the proposed handgun ban. "The idea is to make the people better, so they don't commit the crimes, or if you can't do that, at least stop them when they do. A gun is the law-abiding citizen's best tool to stop the criminal in his tracks," states Gwen Patton, International Media Spokesperson for the Pink Pistols.
San Francisco has a storied reputation as a stronghold of personal liberty. The Bill of Rights explicitly refers to rights of individuals, not rights of government. And most San Franciscans, I suspect, are not in favor of allowing government to be in the business of abrogating civil liberties.

No Constitutional Right to Police Protection

In DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services (1989), the United States Supreme Court held that the state has no constitutional obligation to protect citizens from private violence.
California Government Code section 845 states, in part: "Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise to provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service."
Since even the fastest response times for police calls (9-1-1) are measured in minutes rather than seconds, how does a law enforcement agency explain to victims of violent crime that the agency supported efforts denying them reasonable means of self-defense? That's a tall order.

Conclusion

Italian criminologist Cesare Beccaria wrote in 1764: "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Doesn’t this ring true today?
As a person who takes a gun to work, I support the constitutional right of my neighbors and other law-abiding citizens to choose reasonable means of self-defense. I realize firsthand the danger associated with guns in the hands of bad people. I also realize that law-abiding citizens are a cop's best friend, and the idea of disarming them seems, at best, irresponsible. When we disarm honest, law-abiding citizens, we contribute to empowering criminals and endangering society-at-large.

Michael Nevin Jr. is a veteran California law enforcement officer and freelance writer. He has been a guest on several talk radio programs, including Changing Worldviews with Sharon Hughes and The Right Balance with Greg Allen. In addition to OpinionEditorials.com, Mike's column appears on several Internet websites including ChronWatch.com.
nevin166@comcast.net






"The income tax is not an example of a good idea gone bad. It was bad from the beginning, and it just keeps getting worse." —Chris Edwards



"The solution to poverty...doesn't lie in a collective movement. It lies in the will and discipline of individual people who dedicate themselves to living moral lives, striving to improve their circumstances, and providing greater opportunities for their children." —Mark Goldblatt