Category Archives: Constitution

Tennessee Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey urges Christians to arm ourselves

Joey Garrison reports for The Tennessean, Oct. 2, 2015, that in response to reports that Oregon college shooter Chris Harper-Mercer had targeted Christians in his shooting spree, Tennesse lietenant governor and state senator Ron Ramsey (R-Blountville) yesterday urged fellow Christians to consider getting a gun. (See “Oregon shooter singled out Christians for slaughter“)

Tennesse Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey

This is what Ramsey posted on his Facebook page:

As I scroll through the news this morning I am saddened to read the details of the horrible tragedy in Oregon. My heart goes out to the citizens of Roseburg — especially the families and loved ones of those murdered.

The recent spike in mass shootings across the nation is truly troubling. Whether the perpetrators are motivated by aggressive secularism, jihadist extremism or racial supremacy, their targets remain the same: Christians and defenders of the West.

While this is not the time for widespread panic, it is a time to prepare. I would encourage my fellow Christians who are serious about their faith to think about getting a handgun carry permit. I have always believed that it is better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it.

Our enemies are armed. We must do likewise.

Ramsey’s comments elicited a written statement from Tennessee State Rep. John Ray Clemmons (D-Nashville), who said Ramsey’s comments “reek of fear-mongering and religious crusading.”

John Ray Clemmons

Clemmons, a pro-abort Demonrat who voted against two Tennessee laws putting restrictions on abortion, accused Ramsey of publicity-seeking and of choosing “the road most traveled by the radical right” and, in so doing, impeding “the General Assembly’s bipartisan efforts to improve public safety by removing guns from the hands of criminals.” Clemmons then pontificated that, “Things have never ended well when any leader has asked people to take up arms in the name of their religious faith.”

So according to state Rep. Clemmons, upholding the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment is “the road” of the “radical right”!

Thank you, Clemmons, for confirming what I’d always thought: America’s Founding Fathers are today’s Conservatives.


California weighs banning concealed handguns on campuses

What could possibly go wrong?


Sacramento Bee: Already praised by many gun control advocates for having the strictest firearms laws in the country, California is once again considering a move to tighten its restrictions with a ban on the concealed carry of handguns at colleges and schools.

Last year, California was the first in the nation to let families and police act to temporarily remove weapons from those considered at risk of violence. This time, it would follow dozens of other states that previously put similar prohibitions in place – and a growing number moving in the opposite direction to expand gun rights on campuses.

The concealed carry legislation, now on Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk, puts California in the midst of a policy debate gaining prominence as gun advocates such as the National Rifle Association, having won significant victories guaranteeing the right of ownership, turn their focus to the right to carry and the status of firearms in public spaces.

“There’s no question that the power of the NRA is at its height today,” said John Donohue, a professor at Stanford Law School who studies the effects of gun laws on public safety. “People who want guns don’t want to have restrictions that impede them going about their daily lives.”

Current California law makes it illegal to possess a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school or on a college campus without permission from administrators, but it includes exemptions for retired law enforcement and concealed carry permits.

Lois Wolk

Lois Wolk

Senate Bill 707, by Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, would expand the prohibition on school and college grounds to include concealed weapons, while keeping the same rules in place for the 1,000-foot zone surrounding schools and for law enforcement. On a nearly party-line vote, with Democrats in support and Republicans opposed, lawmakers approved the measure in early September; Brown has until Oct. 11 to act.

The idea for the bill came from university and college police, who say school officials should have more control over campus safety. Concealed handgun permits, which require residents to show “good cause” that they are in immediate danger, are handed out by county sheriffs, who vary in their interpretation of the policy.

Lurking on the periphery are two federal developments that could seriously undermine California’s restrictive law: Legislation proposed in Congress would require states to recognize concealed carry permits issued anywhere, though it has not yet advanced, and a lawsuit now at the appellate level has already seen one judge strike down the “good cause” requirement as unconstitutional. “If the decision of the 9th Circuit affirms the lower court, that will open the floodgates for people to get concealed carry permits,” Donohue said.

In a statement, Wolk said SB 707 “would put California more in line with most states that already forbid concealed firearms on school or college campuses.”

“This is one of the unusual cases where California law is more lax than other states,” she said. “Most people I hear from are astonished that someone could legally carry a concealed firearm on to school grounds.”

The 2007 shooting at Virginia Tech – still one of the deadliest in history with 33 casualties, including the perpetrator, and another 17 wounded – generated intense controversy over gun policy and brought the question of campus carry to the national stage. Eight years later, it continues to echo.

In a national address Thursday, President Barack Obama decried the lack of legislative effort to prevent further mass shootings, like the one that day at Umpqua Community College in Oregon, where a gunman killed nine people before dying in a shootout with police. The Oregon higher education board had previously banned guns from college campuses, but a court overturned that policy in 2011, stating that only the Legislature had the authority to regulate firearms.

California has faced recent incidents like the 2014 Isla Vista rampage that claimed the lives of six UC Santa Barbara students and their killer, and a confrontation at Sacramento City College last month that left one dead.

gun free zone

Much of the fight over campus carry boils down to whether guns make us more or less safe. Advocates argue that students with firearms may be able to help prevent crimes such as mass shootings and rapes.

Shannon Grove gets it

Shannon Grove gets it

Speaking against SB 707 on the Assembly floor, Assemblywoman Shannon Grove said carrying concealed weapons could offer a “sense of protection” to young women. “If I’m walking down the street at night, my Glock puts me on even footing with anybody that would ever try to come and hurt me,” the Bakersfield Republican said. During a Senate deliberation, Sen. John Moorlach, R-Costa Mesa, suggested it could be “a very strong way to curtail some of the nonsense that’s going on” with campus sexual assaults.

Laura Cutilleta

Laura Cutilleta

Gun control supporters counter that throwing firearms onto a campus with young people, alcohol, mental health issues and strongly-held beliefs on controversial topics is a dangerous mix. “It’s a fairly volatile environment,” said Laura Cutilleta, senior staff attorney for the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which advocated for SB 707. “To add guns to that is just alarming.”

It’s a debate that’s not likely to be settled any time soon. At least 14 states have introduced legislation to allow guns on campus in each of the past three years, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. “We think it’s a really important issue,” NRA spokeswoman Amy Hunter said. “The right to personal safety doesn’t disappear the second you step on a campus.”


Oregon shooter singled out Christians for slaughter

Yesterday, a lone gunman killed 9 and wounded 7 people in Umpqua Community College (UCC), a picturesque campus in Roseburg, Oregon. In a shootout with police, the shooter himself was killed. Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, however, said 13 people died.

Here’s what we are told about the massacre thus far:

1. The killer singled out Christians

Stacy Boylen, whose daughter was one of the wounded, told CNN that the gunman started “asking people one by one what their religion was. ‘Are you a Christian?’ he would ask them, and if you’re a Christian stand up. And they would stand up and he said, ‘Good, because you’re a Christian, you are going to see God in just about one second.’ And then he shot and killed them.”

A twitter user named @bodhilooney tweeted that according to her grandmother, who was at the scene of the carnage, if victims said they were Christian “then they were shot in the head. If they said no, or didn’t answer, they were shot in the legs.”

Student Kort­ney Moore, 18, said she saw the teacher of her Writing 115 class get shot in the head at the college’s Snyder Hall before the gunman started asking people to state their religion and opening fire.

The killer’s disdain for religion was evident in an online profile, in which he became a member of a “doesn’t like organized religion” group on an Internet dating site.

2. The killer

Myspace Chris Harper-Mercer, 26 gunman in the Umpqua Community College in Oregon

His name is Chris Harper-Mercer, 26. He carried 3 pistols and a rifle.

It is believed Harper-Mercer was the anonymous poster on the chat forum, 4chan, who wrote this ominous comment the night before: “Some of you guys are alright. Don’t go to school tomorrow if you are in the northwest. happening thread will be posted tomorrow morning. so long space robots.”

Reportedly, other posters on 4chan cheered him on.

Harper-Mercer’s online profiles indicate he had a fascination with the terror tactics of the Irish Republican Army, and bought Nazi memorabilia. In a blog post, he wrote this about Vester Lee Flanagan, who murdered a Virginia newswoman and cameraman live on air: “Seems like the more people you kill, the more you’re in the limelight.”

Update: Harper-Mercer described his ethnicity as “Mixed Race”; his religion as “Not Religious, Not Religious, but Spiritual”; his ideal woman as “Pagan, Wiccan, Not Religious, but Spiritual” with “vampire, piercings, psychic, tattoos”; his hobbies as including “Killing Zombies”; and his favorite food as “Always Dieting, BRAINS!”. He had “connections” with two people, one of whom is a Muslim named Mahmoud Ali Ehsani who says he loves Allah and the Quran, and has a many photos of Muslim terrorists.

3. The gun-free college has only one unarmed guard

Joe Olson, a former president of Umpqua Community College, said that it has only one unarmed security officer and that the community decided against armed guards last year.

4. Obama immediately called for gun control

When news came about the shooting, despite the fact that reports that UCC is a gun-free zone and had only one unarmed guard, Obama immediately and illogically called again for gun control, bemoaning that America is “the only advanced country on earth [that] sees these kind of mass shooting every few months.”

Sources: New York Post; CNN


Someone really should ask the POS in the White House about Chicago — a gun-control city where every weekend is marked by multiple gun shootings and carnage.

Chicago is the poster child for how gun control does NOTHING to stop gun violence, as chronicled every week by our DCG. See her latest post, “Gun control, Chicago style: More Than 50 People Shot for the Second Weekend in a Row in Chicago.”


Obama threatens Christians: “Gay rights” come before your constitutional right to religious freedom

A couple of months ago one Sunday morning, I arrived early at church and found the presiding priest — an orthodox and reverent priest — graciously standing outside to greet parishioners. There was no one around, so we began chatting.

Father X spontaneously said something very interesting. He said that, after the 2016 elections, Catholic priests will be imprisoned in the United States for defending their faith.

I questioned his timing. Referring to the creature occupying the White House, I said, “He won’t wait till the 2016 elections. He still has one and a half years to wreak more destruction on this country.”

Then I quoted — a quote with which Fr. X was even more familiar than I was — what the late Archbishop of Chicago Cardinal Francis George said in 2010 about the perilous state of religious freedoms in the United States (and across the western world):

“I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square.”

Cardinal George’s prophesy isn’t so far-fetched given what Obama recently proclaimed.

Barely hours after Pope Francis emphasized the importance of religious freedom in his speech to the United Nations, as Francis was en route in his flight back to Rome, Obama delivered a “F-you” by declaring a war against Christianity and against the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, declaring that homosexual “rights” come before any rights to religious freedom.

Obama at LGBT fundraiser in NY, Sept. 27, 2015.

Charlie Spiering reports for Breitbart that in a speech at a LGBT fundraiser in New York City on Sunday (Sept. 27, 2015) night, Obama praised the progress made on “gay rights” under his administration. He crowed:

“We affirm that we cherish our religious freedom and are profoundly respectful of religious traditions. But we also have to say clearly that our religious freedom doesn’t grant us the freedom to deny our fellow Americans their constitutional rights.”

Obama then accused Republicans of using the religious freedom issue just to earn more votes, as they did in 2004, and boasted that “America has left the leaders of the Republican Party behind.”

He then singled out three GOP presidential contenders for ridicule:

  • Dr. Ben Carson, for suggesting that “prison turns you gay.”
  • Sen. Ted Cruz, for saying he would introduce a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
  • Gov. Mike Huckabee, for saying that Americans should just disobey the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage. Obama mocked Huckabee, “I’m sure he loves the Constitution — except for Article III. And maybe the Equal Protection Amendment. And 14th Amendment, generally.”

Obama proudly told the audience (that included DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Shultz and actor George Takei) that he would not back down in his efforts to make progress for the LGBT community, and called for all of them to remain vigilant to hold the line on important legal gains in the country. “What makes America special is, is that though sometimes we zig and zag, eventually hope wins out,” he said. “But it only wins out because folks like you put your shoulder behind the wheel and push it in that direction.”

See also “Judicial Tyranny: Dissenting opinions on Supreme Court’s ruling on homosexual marriage.”


Gun control, Chicago style: More Than 50 People Shot for the Second Weekend in a Row in Chicago

Chicago has a serious problem and Rahm is finally waking up? He obviously hasn’t read the news for the past year or so.

Yahoo: Four people were killed and 52 wounded during shootings across Chicago over the weekend. After multiple weekends in a row of increased violence in the cityChicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel is urging a fresh and more proactive approach to gun control. The latest incidents, including the murder of a pregnant mother, come on the heels of two weekends in a row with more than 50 shootings in Chicago.

At least 2,300 people have been shot in Chicago this year alone, according to the Chicago Tribune. According to their analysis, that’s roughly 400 more incidents than during the same period in 2014. Homicides are currently up 21 percent in 2015, with the past two weekends pointing to a noticeable increase in gun-related violence.

“Wherever you live, you should be able to get out of your car and go to your home,” Emanuel told reporters on Tuesday after receiving news of the increased violence continuing on Monday evening, leaving six dead and at least eight injured. “You can say this happened in the neighborhood of the Back of the Yards, but everybody (who) woke up this morning, or heard it last night, felt a pain of anguish, and it’s time that our criminal justice system and the laws as it relates to access to guns and the penalties for using ’em reflect the values of the people of the city of Chicago.”

See also:


Washington State Fair bans firearms; workers robbed at gunpoint

Guess the criminals didn’t receive the memo.

gun free zone

KOMO: Puyallup police are beefing up patrols around the Washington State Fair after armed robbers hit three times over the weekend.
No one was hurt in the incidents that happened several blocks away from the fair. The robbers struck Sunday night just after the fair closed and workers were heading home.

The State Fair had been operating only three days when robbers decided to move into the surrounding neighborhoods. Robbery victim Leif Strom was walking in the 1000 block of 7th Avenue Southeast when he got held up. He and another worker at the State Fair were heading east toward home when confronted by four men in a white Buick.

“One of them came up and the other one was behind him and he asked me for all my money and I gave him $6 at first,” Strom said.  But Strom had just finished a 10-hour shift selling items at the fair and had been paid $100 in cash.  “But then he pulled out a gun and he asked me for it all, and so I gave him $100 and just walked away before he asked me for my phone or anything,” Strom said.

Strom said the robber was only 5’8″ tall. Strom stand 6’6″ tall. Strom said the man’s gun made up for the size difference.  “I guess you feel pretty big when you have a gun,” he said.

Just 8 minutes later and a mile away on the complete other side of the fair grounds, two more pairs of State Fair workers were robbed at gunpoint. Police believe they were targeted by the same group of robbers.

“I’d say it was very bold to be doing this, especially this time of year with the fair going on and so many people being out and about,” said Capt. Ryan Portmann of the Puyallup Police Department.

Portmann said the department already have extra police in the area for the fair, and now they’re going to bring in even more to ease growing concerns.  “The Fair is safe,” said Portmann. “This is highly unusual to have this type of a crime series to occur during the fair.”

Residents fear this will hurt the image of the fair, but they’re confident in their police department.  “I think it was just a few incidents and I know our police force is definitely working to catch the guys,” said Puyallup resident Sarah Lawson.

All of the victims were fair workers, but police don’t if they were targeted specifically or just random targets.


More than 1 of 2 U.S. Muslims prefer sharia law to the Constitution


In May 2015, the Center for Security Policy (CSP) commissioned two successive nationwide polls of Muslims living in the United States.

The results of the polls are nothing less than alarming. In CSP’s words:

“significant minorities embrace supremacist notions that could pose a threat to America’s security and its constitutional form of government.”

The polls found that U.S. Muslims hold beliefs that are very different than the general U.S. population. Here are the findings of the second poll:

  • 51% of Muslims believe that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.” When that question was put to the broader U.S. population in an earlier national poll, the overwhelming majority (82%) said shariah or Islamic law should not displace the U.S. Constitution.
  • Only 39% of the Muslims polled believe Muslims in the U.S. should be subject to American courts. In contrast, 92% of the broader U.S. population think Muslims should be subject to the same courts as other citizens, rather than have their own sharia courts and tribunals.
  • Nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believe that “It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.” In contrast, 63% of the broader U.S. population say that “the freedom to engage in expression that offends Muslims or anybody else is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and cannot be restricted.”


  • Nearly one-fifth of Muslims polled said that the use of violence in America is justified in order to make shariah the law of the land in the U.S.A.

Center for Security Policy’s president, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., observed:

The findings of the Center for Security Policy’s survey of Muslims in America suggests that we have a serious problem.  The Pew Research Center estimates that the number of Muslims in the United States was 2.75 million in 2011, and growing at a rate of 80-90 thousand a year.  If those estimates are accurate, the United States would have approximately 3 million Muslims today.  That would translate into roughly 300,000 Muslims living in the United States who believe that shariah is “The Muslim God Allah’s law that Muslims must follow and impose worldwide by Jihad.”
It is incumbent on the many American Muslims who want neither to live under the brutal repression of shariah nor to impose it on anybody else to work with the rest of us who revere and uphold the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution in protecting our nation against the Islamic supremacists and their jihad.

Below are 13 differences between sharia and the American court system (from The American Catholic):

1. Sharia courts do not generally employ lawyers; plaintiffs and defendants represent themselves.

2. Trials are conducted solely by the judge, and there is no jury system.

3. There is no pre-trial discovery process, no cross-examination of witnesses, and no penalty of perjury (on the assumption that no witness would thus endanger his soul). Unlike common law, judges’ verdicts do not set binding precedents under the principle of stare decisis and unlike civil law, Sharia does not utilize formally codified statutes.

4. Instead of precedents and codes, Sharia relies on medieval jurist’s manuals and collections of non-binding legal opinions or fatwas, issued by religious scholars (ulama and mufti); these can be made binding for a particular case at the discretion of a judge.

5. Sharia courts’ rules of evidence prioritize oral testimony and exclude written, documentary, forensic and circumstantial evidence, on the basis that it could be tampered with or forged.

6. A confession, an oath, or the oral testimony of a witness are the only evidence admissible in a Sharia court; written evidence is only admissible with the attestations of multiple, witnesses deemed reliable by the judge, i.e. notaries.

7. Testimony must be from at least two witnesses, and preferably free Muslim male witnesses, who are not related parties and who are of sound mind and reliable character; testimony to establish the crime of adultery must be from four direct witnesses.

8. Forensic evidence (i.e. fingerprints, ballistics, blood samples, DNA etc.) and other circumstantial evidence is rejected in hudud cases in favor of eyewitnesses, a practice which can cause severe difficulties for women plaintiffs in rape cases.

9. Testimony from women is given ¼ to ½ the weight of men; testimony from non-Muslims may be excluded altogether (if against a Muslim).

10. In lieu of written evidence, oaths are accorded much greater weight and are used as evidence.

11. Plaintiffs lacking other evidence to support their claims may demand that defendants take an oath swearing their innocence, refusal thereof can result in a verdict for the plaintiff.

12. Sharia courts, with their tradition of pro se representation, simple rules of evidence, and absence of appeals courts, prosecutors, cross examination, complex documentary evidence and discovery proceedings, juries and voir dire proceedings, circumstantial evidence, forensics, case law, standardized codes, exclusionary rules, and most of the other infrastructure of civil and common law court systems, have as a result, comparatively informal and streamlined proceedings.

13. This can provide significant increases in speed and efficiency, but at the cost of the safeguards provided in secular legal systems.