Posts Tagged → jail
June 27th, 2022
Few events have highlighted the sweaty, crusty butt crack separating America’s Left from the Normal people like the few recent US Supreme Court holdings over the past week. These holdings on Second Amendment rights, improper judicial legislating from the bench (Roe v. Wade), and religious liberty fly in the face of decades of Leftist activism and common establishment media narratives, and have elicited wonderfully violent public statements, violent actions, and promises of more violence from the Left and its Sinn Fein, the Democrat Party.
If the Democrat Party can’t control Americans with freedom-crushing iron-fisted laws, then they intend to control us through more murder, destruction, and mayhem.
As a long-ago former member of the Democrat Party, I am mystified how more Americans don’t walk away from this corrupt and morally bankrupt organization. How can it be that people are loyal to this lawless anti-America movement when its leaders:
- cannot tell us what is a woman, but then say that women’s rights have somehow been diminished by allowing the fifty states to determine among themselves when a child can be killed by its mother
- tell us that the death of a living, breathing child is “healthy” or is “healthcare”
- say that a wide-open southern border over which child traffickers and deadly fentanyl pour daily unchecked and undocumented and uncontrolled is “fair”
- catch and release violent criminals back into society, instead of jailing them, so they can continue committing violent crimes against innocent people
- demand civilian disarmament to prevent citizens from keeping legal firearms close to them for protection because armed law-abiding civilians are “dangerous”
- say that the practice of religion by just one person in public is the equivalent of establishing an official religion
We could easily have this list go on and on, but anyone paying attention to what is happening around our homes and families and businesses already knows that there is a significant percentage of Americans who do not identify as Americans, and who are attempting to use our collectively owned government to destroy America from the inside. This is not a what the f*ck (wtf) thing, it is a crystal clear philosophical separation between two different groups of humans.
These two groups could easily be associated with groups from the past, like the Democrat Party slave owners of 1861 and their Republican Party abolitionist (anti slavery) opponents. I think the choices facing Americans today are easily as stark as they were in 1861, except that instead of controlling a few million African slaves like in 1861, the Democrat Party is now trying to enslave all of America. All of us. You and me.
August 15th, 2019
Now new information (but not all of the information that would normally be obtained and available in a murder investigation) is released that child trafficking pedophile and ultra-Democrat Party insider Jeffery Epstein was probably murdered. No surprise.
- his neck and throat bones were broken through tremendous violent force. On the other hand, self-hanging is a slow suffocation process, especially with a soft bed sheet, which at its tightest twist is still wide, relatively gentle, and would take a long time to shut off air to the body and kill a person. A self-applied bed sheet cannot break those neck and throat bones.
- the security camera trained on his cell was mysteriously turned off
- his cell mate was relocated, against prison protocol, so that Epstein was alone and vulnerable, and no witness was present to say what happened to Epstein
- his prison guards are said to have fallen asleep
- one of the sleepy prison guards is not even a prison guard and was not qualified to be there, and no one knows how he got there
You do not have to be already pre-inclined to be easily persuaded to believe in various conspiracies to see that this way-too-many-coincidences situation is beyond a conspiracy; it is a murder. All of the circumstantial and much of the physical evidence here points to a hit, a purposeful and targeted murder of a person who knew too much about too many wealthy and powerful people, who could not afford to have him talk about what he knew. The beneficiaries of Epstein’s death are Bill Clinton and a whole bunch of other politically powerful and wealthy people. Bill Clinton is known to have flown some twenty-four times on Epstein’s private jet to his “orgy island,” where little girls were raped and sexually abused.
The big question is how on earth this brazen murder was carried off under the nose of so many watchful eyes. Yes, it happened in New York City, where criminal mayor Bill de Blasio runs things like a mafia boss. That is a first step in understanding the Epstein murder. But so much more had to happen so quickly for the hit to work the way it did.
Another consideration is that Epstein’s prosecutor is James Comey’s daughter, Maurene. Yes, that James Comey, the disgraced former FBI director who has engaged in openly partisan political advocacy from the time he was in the FBI until just days ago. His daughter Maurene is the same radical leftist activist as her father. So did Maurene Comey play a role in having Epstein killed before he could talk?
UPDATE: JANUARY 6, 2020: Newly released photos from Epstein’s autopsy clearly show strangulation marks from a wire garrote, which professional assassins use, not a bed sheet. Epstein’s hyoid bone was shattered, and his body showed marks from being held down. A two-man hit-job in a modern prison…unbelievable, but really powerful people absolutely had to have Epstein dead. Read this article to see more photos and analysis.
This is Epstein’s neck on the autopsy table. The ligature marks are from thin wire, like a professional hitman uses. The angular marks are from Epstein’s fingernails clawing at the wire around his neck. Epstein was murdered in plain view. Who did this, why did they do it, and will there be accountability?
Epstein’s painting of past president Bill Clinton, wearing a Monica Lewinsky dress and saying “I did not have sex with that woman.” Clinton and Epstein were partners in sexual crime
Maurene Comey at the sore losers against democracy pink hat parade, with her hippie mom. Notice Maurene’s shirt: Hillary Clinton, Ruth Ginsburg, and Elizabeth Warren are visible; Nancy Pelosi appears to be the fourth face. Maurene Comey is no professional prosecutor. She is a dedicated leftist activist who apparently used her central role in the Epstein case to have him murdered, so that he could not damage a bunch of Democrat Party biggies.
May 6th, 2014
If the rule of law requires both mutual consent and contention between America’s three branches of government, our modern inclination to simply look to an authority to tell us what to do, what we may do, is a sign that Americans have grown tired of the hard work of running a republic.
The US Supreme Court has little authority but what moral authority it can muster through reasoning based on our Constitution. Yet increasingly, the court is used as a policy center to impose laws that otherwise failed in Congress.
This week the court held – gasp – that prayer is allowed in government meetings. Never mind that America’s founding fathers prayed together before working on governance. Never mind that for at least 200 years, Congress convened in prayer before convening in policy. In chambers. Never mind that our federal and most state founding documents recognize God, not government, as the source of human rights. In other words, Americans have been invoking and praying to God as part of official duties since our founding. There’s nothing new here. There’s nothing to question.
If it was done then, then yes, it can (and should) be done now.
Today’s general legal wranglings involve questions that ought not even be asked. But because there’s a group of people at war with America’s culture, institutions, and Constitution, these questions get asked as if they’re serious, legitimate, worthy. They’re none of those. But they serve the Left’s purpose of advancing an anti American agenda.
The Court also declined to hear a contested New Jersey law prohibiting the carrying (“bearing”) of handguns in public without proof of necessity. The Second Amendment means what it says, the court has held twice that it means an individual right, and since our founding Americans have, like prayer in government, been carrying guns in public.
There’s nothing new here except the liberals in NJ, whose war against America goes unchecked.
Here’s the thing: Laws are only as good as the potential to force their adherence by threats of force, incarceration, fines etc. It’s one of the great ironies of the pacifist Left that they enjoy, nay, require, the full coercive force of government to achieve their policy goals.
But citizens can disobey. And citizens can challenge authority. Will the Left feel bad for jailed gun-bearing conservatives, or government leaders invoking God before sitting down to business, as the Left felt bad for civil rights protestors once jailed by anti- black police and politicians?
Don’t count on it. Logic, consistency are not hallmarks of the Left. But we can overcome, nonetheless.
March 8th, 2013
By Josh First
March 7, 2013
Just over a week ago, newly minted New York State Representative Didi Barrett (NY-106th) twice called police in a thinly veiled attempt to have an inquisitive citizen intimidated by Red Hook police for exercising his Constitutional right to petition the government. Nope, this is not made up, folks; it is real and it is real-time. It illustrates that the gun control debate is not about guns. It is not even about crime. It is about controlling citizens; that is its purpose and the goal of its proponents. When the police show up at your door or pull you over because someone in an official position said something about you, anything could happen.
Beginning in early January and extending into late February, Chris Stehling, a plumber from Red Hook, NY, visited Barrett’s local office several times to explain his opposition to her position on New York’s anti-gun SAFE Act, and then her recent vote in support of that law. This new law is so restrictive that even most on-duty police officers are non-compliant and potential felons. The heavily rushed and highly defective law must now be “fixed,” and it is already going through a new amendment process, facts that in Stehling’s view indicated a flawed legislative process begging a few more changes.
Stehling tells me that he was respectful and professional when he first visited Barrett’s office, requesting a meeting with her. Asked by staff what the subject was that he wished to discuss, Stehling explained his opposition to his state representative’s vote for the flawed law. Barrett was unavailable, he was told, and “Don’t call us, we will call you” was their parting response.
Several days after he left, a town detective, Tom D’Amicantonio, knocked on Stehling’s door, saying that Barrett had called the police because her office “had concerns” about him.
“I asked Tom ‘What concerns?’, says Stehling, who is a steady, jovial, and articulate guy on the phone, and on a friendly first-name basis with the small-town local police.
After a forty-minute “amicable” conversation, and taking a statement from Stehling, who wanted to see his representative face-to-face, the detective departed, and left Stehling with a feeling of now being victimized twice by Representative Barrett: Once by her careless vote for the poorly written law, and now by her attempt to persecute and intimidate him for daring to ask her about it.
Stehling called a friend, and they returned to Barrett’s office the next morning, calmly seeking both to schedule a meeting and requesting an explanation about why the detective had been called. In addition, Stehling had a friend on the phone who could hear the conversation in the office. Apparently while they were talking to a staffer, someone else in the office was on the phone, calling the police again, because when Stehling returned to his car outside and began to drive away, the town’s police sergeant, Patrick Hildenbrand, pulled him over.
“The sergeant came over to my truck, and he asked me what was going on with Representative Barrett, and we explained our experiences visiting her office, including my First Amendment right to talk to my elected officials,” says Stehling.
After talking with Stehling and taking statements from both of his friends, Sergeant Hildenbrand reportedly later called Barrett’s office, explaining that Stehling was well within his Constitutional rights to petition his elected officials, to visit their offices, and request a meeting with his representative. Is that not the role of an elected official in a representative democracy, after all? The US Constitution’s First Amendment gives citizens the right to petition their government, and to speak freely.
Eventually Stehling was granted a meeting with NY Representative Barrett at her distant Albany office, which he conveniently visited after a pro-Constitutional rights rally at the NY state capitol that same day.
“She was dismissive about our concerns, even when we presented the fact that the new law criminalizes most on-duty police officers [because of their higher capacity guns] and it punishes law-abiding citizens but not criminals,” says Stehling.
Three weeks ago I debated Shira Goodman of CeaseFirePA (http://video.witf.org/video/2335658815), a gun prohibitionist group, on a WITF live call-in TV show. Several times during the debate Shira earnestly exclaimed her avid support for Second Amendment rights, which she is working overtime to destroy. It is now a common tactic to proclaim support for something you obviously despise and undermine. And thus America spawns people like Representative Didi Barrett, the Cuomo-endorsed New York State “Assemblyperson” who believes in getting elected to office, but not in being accountable to the citizens whose consent places her there; in fact, she evidently believes in using the police to intimidate or jail her political opponents.
Gun rights advocates have long worried that their opponents were seeking domination and control of the citizenry, and not control of crime. Representative Didi Barrett’s actions just showed us that concern is valid and true. But Didi Barrett tilted her hand too soon, though, because this kind of heavy-handed response from government should be more common only after Americans have been disarmed, and not before. Those citizens on the fence about this issue can now make an even more informed choice about which way to vote. Vote for freedom, folks, not for the un-American abuse of power that motivates people like Didi Barrett.
Listen to Chris Stehling’s other interview, on Sheryl Thomas’s radio program, at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/sherylthomas/2013/02/28/ny-gun-owner-harassed-by-assemblywomans-office
Stay involved in the conversation at www.joshfirst.com and on our Facebook page
