Over 40 Years of Discrimination Corrected, Despite Question of Mootness

It is amazing what excuses can be used to "justify" institutionalized discrimination.  Although one often hears arguments of "it wasn't really discrimination" or "that's how society was back then- but society has since changed," using an argument of "mootness" to allow the discrimination to continue causes one to question the very nature of "justice."

However, after 42 years, this injustice was finally corrected.

This issue is one that began over 42 years ago.   Three individuals were involved in a military operation of some significance.  One individual was the pilot of a single seat craft, while the other two were pilot and co-pilot/gunner of the second craft.  The two pilots were honored; medals were conferred.  The third individual, who was in-fact a different race than the two pilots, received some honors, but no medals were awarded.

When the question of  why the copilot had not been awarded a medal first came up, the General Officers involved stated there was an old order they were following that allowed them to award medals directly and immediately, in cases where the act of heroism was obvious and there would be no doubt that the Senate Committee which would eventually review the endorsement for the medal, would approve (this was an older order that had been put in place to reduce the number of medals being awarded posthumously-sometimes these men would have to wait years for the medal to be awarded due to the time it took items to work through the Senate).  The General Officers argued that the pilots' actions were clear cut .  The General Officers then argued that although normally the endorsement of the award of the medal would be sent to the Senate Committee for their endorsement, that committee had been dissolved, and therefore there was no one to award the medal.  Therefore the award of the medal was now moot.  They argued this had nothing to do with the race differences.

Fast forward 42 years.  Both men the copilot flew with and fought with have since died in action.  Quite literally, the copilot is perhaps the only one from the original mission left.  For years he had to put up with comments that can be best worded as discriminatory because of who he is.  But just before Christmas, we found out that everything changed.

General Chewbacca was finally awarded a medal for his actions at the Battle of Yavin 4.  I had a chance to have a short interview with General Chewbacca. 

Carden: General Chewbacca, first I want to thank you for your time.   I wanted to talk to you about what some might think is a sore subject, you not being awarded a medal after the Battle of Yavin 4.  What were your thoughts at the time?

General Chewbacca:  Rarrr, Rarr, Grrr Rrarr! Wa, Rrra Grrr. Warrr Rrr. Gerrr Rrar Wrar Rurrr. 

Carden: I definitely will agree that Luke and Han deserved the medal, but many of us felt you did as well...

General Chewbacca: Arowrk Raarghh Yawrrrk Waaaaarrk Nrawwwwk Nowrrrrragh Rawrrk Vowarrrk Narowrrr Aowwww Awwrk Growwk Vaaarrk Waaark Raarghhh

Carden:  Again, you make a good point, but historically, there has been some very pointed discrimination because of your race- I mean, calling you a "big walking carpet."

General Chewbacca:  Raarghhh Waaark Growwk Varowrk Raarghh Yawrrrk Waaaaarrk Nrawwwwk Nowrrrrragh!

Carden:  Absolutely not, General, I would never say anything or imply anything about, the Princess, General Leia Solo.  So your opinion is that was "taken out of context?"

General Chewbacca:   Growwk Raarghhh Waaark Varowrk Raarghh Yawrrrk  Waaaaarrk Nrawwwwk Nowrrrrragh! Warrr Rrr. Gerrr Rrar

Carden:  Yes, General, I do like my shoulder joints in the place they are.  If I may be so bold, though perhaps the "idea" that Wookies have been known to pull arms out of sockets when they are upset, is one of the symptoms of the public views of Wookies?

General Chewbacca: Varowrk Raarghh Yawrrrk Waaaaarrk Nrawwwwk Nowrrrrragh Waaaaarrk Nrawwwwk Nowrrrrragh Rawrrk Vowarrrk Narowrrr Aowwww Awwrk Rawrrk Vowarrrk Narowrrr Aowwww Awwrk Growwk Vaaarrk Waaark Raarghhh

Carden: That is my point exactly, if we look the number of arms that Jedi removed... Take a look at General Kenobi, he cut off people's arms from Coruscant to Tatooine, but we never see you removing someones arm from their sockets.  Yet people always bring up "not upsetting a Wookie!"

General Chewbacca: Aowwww Awwrk Rawrrk Vowarrrk Narowrrr Aowwww Awwrk Growwk Vaaarrk Waaark Raarghhh Varowrk Raarghh Yawrrrk Waaaaarrk Nrawwwwk Nowrrrrragh Rawrrk Vowarrrk Narowrrr Aowwww Awwrk Waaaaarrk Nrawwwwk Nowrrrrragh Waaaaarrk Nrawwwwk Nowrrrrragh Rawrrk Vowarrrk Narowrrr 

Carden: So with that, I suppose the question is what is next for you?

General Chewbacca: Nrawwwwk Nowrrrrragh Rawrrk Vowarrrk Narowrrr Aowwww Awwrk Waaaaarrk Nrawwwwk  Aowwww Awwrk Rawrrk Vowarrrk Narowrrr Aowwww Awwrk Growwk

Carden: Of course, General, the issue of "body hair shaming" is one that you are uniquely qualified to address.  We all wish you luck with this important issues. May the force be with you.

General Chewbacca: Waaark Growwk Varowrk Raarghh

Over 40 Years of Discrimination Corrected, Despite Question of Mootness

SCOTUS Case of the Term: NYSRPA v NYC

Today the Supreme Court will hear what may be "THE CASE" of this term, and perhaps the case of the decade: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. New York City.  The issue before the

The Right to Arm Bears

Court? What does the Second Amendment mean when it says the right to "bear arms?"  This question was not specifically addressed in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) nor in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).  Without a doubt, this will be one of the "most watched" cases this year.

For those that do not have immediate recall of the exact text of the Second Amendment, the text reads,"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  The Heller case specifically dealt with the question, "Does the Second Amendment 'right to keep and bear arms' only apply to the 'militia' (or National Guard)."   In the majority opinion, Justice Scalia went through the history of the "Right to Defend One's Self."  In summary, the majority opinion of the Court stated the Second Amendment did not only apply to the militia, but rather, the "militia" as it was understood at the time, meant "all" citizens who would be called to defend the state in time of war or extreme civil unrest.  It was also explained that in essence, the clause "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" in modern English (as opposed to 18th century English) meant "Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."   The ruling in this case however, only applied to the Federal Government, as the District of Columbia falls under Federal jurisdiction. 

In 2010, the McDonald case dealt with the question of whether the Second Amendment applied to the states.  This case specifically looked at whether the Second Amendment applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.   The majority opinion, written by Justice Alito stated that indeed, the Second Amendment did apply to the states.  In both Heller and McDonald the court stated that a state may not impose a ban on firearms, but that provisions such as banning felons from possessing firearms where Constitutional.

Since the Heller and McDonald rulings, there have been no other significant Second Amendment cases heard by the Supreme Court.   Further, the Heller and McDonald opinions have left a great deal of confusion and conflict on how Second Amendment challenges should be ruled on, leaving a patchwork of conflicting rulings from the Courts of Appeal.   Additionally, one phrase, written by Justice Scalia in the Heller majority opinion has created confusion on the scope of the Second Amendment. 

In his majority opinion in Heller, Justice Scalia wrote:

As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. 

Unfortunately, many in the media, the public and some of the lower courts have viewed the statement that "the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute" means that the Second Amendment only applies to the home.  However, this is not what Justice Scalia stated.  He stated that the need was "most acute" in the home.  Justice Scalia was merely pointing out that because a person spends more time in the home, than in any other place, and because the home is the place where one expects to feel most relaxed and most secure, the need to be able to defend one's self in one's home is highest.  This, however, does not mean that the need to defend one's self in public, does not exist or is not important.  The "misreading" and "misinterpretation" of the Heller and McDonald cases, as well as the Court's failure to hear any substantive Second Amendment cases since 2010, caused Justice Thomas to write a scathing dissent on the Court's decision not to hear a challenge to a gun control law in California.  Justice Scalia went so far as to call the Second Amendment a Constitutional Orphan.

This brings us to New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. New York City  The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association has asked the Supreme Court to hear a challenge to New York City regulations that prohibit an individual, with a license to have a pistol in their home, from taking that firearm outside of the home.   The NYC regulations required that an individual with a home pistol license ONLY use one of SEVEN shooting ranges inside the limits of the City of New York.  The law further prohibited an individual from transporting a firearm licensed to a home in New York City from transporting that firearm to a second home (a vacation home on Long Island for example).  Finally the regulations even prohibited the individual from taking that firearm to a Gun Smith within the City of New York, without written permission from the Chief of Police.

On appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, the appeals court, using "intermediate scrutiny" ruled in favor of New York City, stating that the Governmental need to reduce crime and ensure public safety outweighed the individual's Second Amendment right.   There was no explanation on how a firearm that was locked in a gun case, and locked in an individual's vehicle truck away from any passengers and separated from any ammunition (requirements to transport a firearm from point A to point B by New York law) would increase crime or decrease public safety.  Further the Appeals Court stated that since the individual would be transporting the firearm outside the home, there was no "acute" need for self defense.

The NYSRPA appealed to the Supreme Court.   After the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, and well after all written arguments were presented to the Court, New York City and the State of New York both decided that the last thing they wanted was for the Supreme Court to hear this case.   This opinion was expressed by other states with strict gun control laws.   New York and other states are all in fear that the Supreme Court will rule that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to BEAR arms as well.

In an effort to keep the Supreme Court from hearing this case, in July 2019, NYC and New York both changed regulations to allow some transport of firearms outside the city limits of NYC.   The City of New York then sent a letter to the Supreme Court asking the Court to dismiss the case as moot.  The fear of a "pro-gun" ruling by the Supreme Court is so great, that Sen. Whitehouse (D- RI) filed a brief more or less "threatening" the Court if they did not dismiss this case as moot.   The Court did reject the NYC letter asking the case be dismissed, but did order both parties to be prepared to argue why this case is not moot, when the Court hears the case this morning.

There are three possible outcomes for this case.   The first possible outcome is that the case will be found to be "moot."   It is likely that Counsel for both sides will try to convince Chief Justice Roberts in particular on the issue of mootness.   The belief on both sides of the argument is that each has four Justices in their corners so to speak (although predicting what the Court will do is dangerous).  Each side believes that Chief Justice Roberts will be the deciding vote.  The other two outcomes are the apparent ones. If the Court decides the case is not moot, then the Court will have to decide what the Constitution means by "bear arms."   This will likely end up being a 5-4 ruling, regardless of the direction the Court takes.

Currently, there are several dozen cases that have been put on hold pending the outcome of this case, and this case may end up having an impact for generations to come. 

(The transcript from the oral arguments that were held this morning will be available by close of business today, and the audio recordings of the arguments will be available at end of this week.)

SCOTUS Case of the Term: NYSRPA v NYC

Stop the Vaping Ban!!

So SMOKING POT is OK- but VAPING IS BAD?????  And now the AMA is calling for a BAN on vaping! This is the BIGGEST Crock of $4I+ I have EVER seen.   The UK equivalent  of the CDC (Public Health England) says VAPING is safe- 95% safer than smoking and they ENCOURAGE people to vape to quit smoking- AND IT IS WORKING!!!!   And Great Britain does NOT have the "vaping illness" that the US does -- HINT- ITS CAUSED BY BLACK MARKET THC & Vitamin E cut fluid!!!!

The fact is, research in the UK has said not only is vaping FAR safer than smoking, but it also has NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER of "second hand vaping issues."

This ANTI-VAPING CAMPAIGN MUST stop.   What has the CDC and the US Government learned since prohibition? NOTHING!    All that banning Vaping will do is drive more people to smoking and climate a safe way to STOP SMOKING.

We have LAWS that say marijuana (and its active component THC) is ILLEGAL.  We have SUPREME COURT that has said State Laws that legalize pot DO NOT supersede Federal Law and the 10th Amendment issues have been superseded by the Commerce Clause (see Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005))  And yet the FEDS CHOOSE not to enforce the law.  Instead we are hearing that VAPING must be outlawed.  

THIS MUST STOP NOW!!

Contact your Representatives and Senators.  Tell them to STOP THE VAPING BAN!

Stop the Vaping Ban!!

HR 1186 - IT REALLY WONT "Keep America Safe Act"

The naming of bills and laws has always amazed me.   Congress always seems to come up with such inspiring names or catchy acronyms:  HIPAA, PATRIOT Act, and now the "Keep America Safe Act."

Of course, sometimes the names are rather misleading- or they pro-port to do something that they really will never do.  HR 1186- the "Keep America Safe Act" is a perfect example.  The fact is this bill should be amended to title it the "It Really Won't Keep America Safe Act."

This act is of course a knee-jerk reaction to recent shootings. Unfortunately, this act is gaining traction in the Senate, with some GOP Senators now saying they would support this measure.

What the "[It Really Won't] Keep America Safe Act" Actually Says (in short), after this bill is passed it will be illegal to possess, make, sell, etc any firearm magazine that holds more than ten rounds.  But it will NOT be illegal to posses a large magazine (eleven rounds or greater) if that magazine was produced prior to the date of the bill passage.   Further, this law bans magazines larger than 10 rounds for .22 Rifles - unless that magazine is a tubular magazine affixed to the rifle (say goodbye to any large magazines for your Ruger 10-22 in the future if this were to pass).   The penalty for illegal possession will be 3-10 YEARS in prison (possibly longer depending on circumstances).

So why do I contend that this WILL NOT "Keep America Safe?"  Who will obey this law? As usual, people who are already predisposed to obey the law.   Further it will potentially make inadvertent criminals of some, as the law states its not illegal to posses a pre-passage magazine with more than ten rounds, it does not say it is legal to transfer a pre-passage magazine.   For example, a relative leaves an individual a World War II era M1-Carbine to an adult relative in their will.  A strict reading of this law would make that transfer illegal if it included the magazine.

Another reason this bill will not "Keep America Safe" is that it will limit law abiding citizens in their ability to defend themselves against criminal intruders.    According to the FBI Extended Homicide Data, more than 400 times a year, a private citizen is forced to kill another human in self defense.  This does NOT include the number of times a private citizen is forced to fire in self defense but misses or only wounds a perpetrator.    As a law abiding citizen and gun owner, if I were ever forced into that situation, where I had to defend my home, my property and my loved ones, I would want to have MORE firepower than the "bad guy"- not be limited by the number of times I could fire in self-defense while the bad guy, who obviously is not going to obey the law (he just broke into my home, or threatened a family member with deadly force) uses a high capacity magazine and can wait until I have to thumb a magazine release, insert a new magazine, and close the action. There have been numerous situations over the years where a home owner has fired more than ten rounds to stop an assailant.   Adrenaline is high.  Hands are shaking.   Personally, I have received training on how to do this quickly with a speed loader (yes, with a revolver) or magazine, but that does not guarantee perfection in an extremely tense situation.   Not everyone has this training. 

With all the other things Congress COULD do to protect citizens (improving mental health care and services for one), this appears to be the route they want to take; a law that will make people "feel good" but actually does nothing- just like the 1994 Assault Weapons and High Capacity Magazine Ban.

Then again, if Congress says no one gets more than ten rounds before they must reload, the bad guys will respect that right?

HR 1186 - IT REALLY WONT "Keep America Safe Act"

The RACISM of Gun Control

The Presidential Election year is fast approaching, and to be sure, Gun Control will be an issue.   At some point next year, the GOP will likely adopt a plank in the party platform will be adopted in support of the 2nd Amendment, Protecting Heller and McDonald, SHALL issue laws- basically a plank against arbitrary gun control.  The GOP took the position back in the late 1860's that the 2nd Amendment applied to ALL Americans and States could not interfere.  Why then? Because the GOP wanted freed slaves to be able to protect themselves and stay free.   

Next year at the Democratic Party Convention, the DNC will likely propose a plank supporting Gun Control.  Southern Democrats started passing gun control laws in the 1860's and 1870's to strip former slaves of their 2nd Amendment Rights- along with a host of others.   

Gun Control Laws, beginning with those passed by Democrat controlled state governments at the end of the Civil War, Gun Control, have an origin in Racist Ideology.    

"A man's rights rest in three boxes: the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge [ammo] box." -Frederick Douglass, 1867

It was because of the "black codes" passed after the Civil War that the 14th amendment  was proposed and then passed.   One of the stated goals of passage was to protect the right of African-Americans to possess and carry firearms for their own defense.  

'The black man has never had the right either to keep or bear arms,' and that, until he does, 'the work of the Abolitionists was not finished.'"  -Frederick Douglass, May 10, 1965 

Now, according to  a Pew Research Study, 54% of African-Americans view gun ownership in a positive light.  It is also being viewed as a matter of Civil Rights 

Gun Control advocates continue to encourage MAY ISSUE Concealed Carry Laws. Under MAY ISSUE, if an individual meets all the criteria to qualify for a Concealed Carry Permit, authorities "may issue" the permit if they so choose.  Currently,  nine states are either completely or partially "MAY ISSUE" states. Six completely "may issue." They are: California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts. New Jersey and New York.  The remaining three states- Connecticut, Delaware and Rhode Island- have laws that are partially "may issue."

"May Issue" laws are flawed.   "May Issue" laws allow the opinion of the issuer to enter into the decision of whether to issue a permit.  Racism has played a factor in this decision.  Dr Martin Luther King Jr. applied for a concealed carry permit in Alabama in 1956 after his home had been bombed.  At the time, Alabama was a "may issue" state.  Although Dr. King was otherwise qualified, his concealed carry permit application was denied.  The best argument for SHALL ISSUE laws is it helps remove human  factors- such as racism - from the process.   If you are old enough and meet the requirements, you cannot be denied- as Dr. King was.

It is well worth reading Associate Justice Clarence Thomas' opinion in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) on the Second Amendment, its history, and racism.   The Washington Post called it "...a scorcher of an opinion that reads like a mix of black history lesson and Black Panther Party manifesto..."  

(I am not going to cite MTV as a source here, but I am going to provide a link to an interesting article on MTV on the Racist origins of Gun Control).

The bottom line is Gun Control has origins in post-Civil War racism.  But, the Constitution, and our laws as American must and should be absolutely color-blind or there will never be real Freedom and Justice for all.

Reference Links:

http://www.mtv.com/news/2900230/the-really-really-racist-history-of-gun-control-in-america/

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/crime/article89859017.html

https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/articles/2016/1/28/freedom-fighters/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/29/AR2010062905329.html

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

The RACISM of Gun Control

Guns and Autos: Explaining the Problems of Many Gun Control Proposals

There are "constants" in the Universe.

Gravity is a "constant" in the universe.  The speed of light is a "constant" in the universe.  Unfortunately, "Knee-Jerk Reaction" gun control proposals and arguments after a mass shooting event are also "constants."  Within the scope of "Knee-Jerk Reaction" gun control proposals,  there are other "constants" as well.  One of those "constants" is that eventually someone will argue, "we make people get licenses and insurance for cars, why shouldn't we make people get a license and liability insurance before they can own a gun?"

The fact is, the vast majority of those that push for increased gun control have no idea of what current laws already exist, the extent of those laws or how they apply to gun ownership, or what the process is for purchasing a firearm. A number of those that are "pro-gun control" believe that anyone can go to a store and buy "fully automatic" firearms over the counter, or that one can go to a website, pick out a gun, type in their credit card number, and the gun will just be mailed to them. Many gun control advocates give the impression that a gun show is a "free-for-all," full of individuals who could never pass a federal firearm background check and intend to go on a shooting rampage the moment they leave the show.  If one listens to some gun-control advocates, gun shows exist solely to provide a location to avoid back-ground checks for firearm purchases.

Sadly, there are a great many people who listen to these "pro-gun control" advocates, despite the fact that many of those who are "pro-gun control" have limited knowledge of guns at best.  The public hear phrases like "background checks," "keep military weapons out of civilian hands," or "assault weapons ban" and cannot help but think the proposals are reasonable.

Perhaps the best way to show why some of these proposals are unreasonable is to compare guns and automobiles.  Let's take current gun control proposals and laws and see what they look like when applied to automobile ownership, operation and licensing:

1. We must ban all Jeeps and Hummers- they have a military appearance and we can't have that.  A military appearance makes things more dangerous.  Suburbans and other quasi-military looking vehicles also should be restricted.

Firearms reality: Many so called "assault weapons bans" restrict the sale and ownership of a firearm simply because of the "looks" of the gun. These laws may ban one firearm but say another is a "common hunting firearm" and therefore permissible to own in the view of some gun control advocates. This despite the fact that both of the firearms use the same caliber of round (bullets) and both are semi-automatic.  It should not be a valid reason to ban a firearm because it "looks scary"

2. All vehicles must be limited to a tank quantity of less than 10 gallons.  That way you can't drive as much.   You must stop to reload (the tank) more often.

Firearms reality: A constant proposal from gun control advocates is limiting the size of firearm magazines (incorrectly often referred to as "clips").  If I am in a situation where I have to use my firearm to defend my life or the life of another, I don't want to run out of ammunition (personally, I am a decent shot, so I might not run out of ammo, but there may be others who don't shoot as well).  Another reason why a person may wish to have a high-capacity magazine may be that a person might not want to spend all their time at the shooting range re-loading.  The "gun-control advocate" view is that no one needs more than eight to ten rounds of ammo.  That view is false.

3.  We must place an breathalyzer interlock on ALL cars and trucks- regardless of whether the person had ever had a DUI- they might try sometime even if they NEVER drink.

Firearms reality: I have lost track of the number of times when a certain firearm is used in a crime, and "gun-control advocates" immediately want to ban everyone from having that type firearm.  The criminal actions of a single individual should never dictate the rights of millions of law abiding citizens. 

4. All states should adopt "MAY ISSUE" laws instead of SHALL ISSUE.  It should be up to the whim of local sheriffs to decide who gets to drive and who doesn't.  With the Shall Issue law if a person passes the Drivers License test and has a clean record, the state MUST issue a drivers license.  Obviously this is bad.

Firearms reality: There are nine states with either strict or partial "may issue" concealed weapons permit laws.   The most egregious jurisdiction in the eyes of many is San Diego County.  It is nearly impossible to obtain a concealed weapons permit in San Diego County. The San Diego County Sheriff's website states that to obtain a Concealed Carry Weapon Permit you must demonstrate "a set of circumstances that distinguishes the applicant from other members of the general public and causes him or her to be placed in harm’s way. Simply writing "self defense" or "personal protection" on an application does not provide the requisite proof of good cause." Other jurisdictions, such as the District of Columbia have been told by the United States Court of Appeals that a nearly identical "good cause" requirement is unconstitutional.   This issue has yet to be heard by the United States Supreme Court.  Rulings from the Court of Appeals only apply to those places where the individual court has jurisdiction.

5. One state should not be required to accept another's Drivers License.  Places like New York, California, DC etc should be allowed to ban drivers from other states from driving in their states.  To hell with the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that interstate travel is a right.

Firearms reality: Although most states accept the Concealed Carry permit of other states, places like California do not.  In fact, because California does not allow for the open carry of firearms, and in California only a California resident may obtain a Concealed Carry permit, it is in effect illegal for a non-resident to carry a firearm.  The general belief of the public is the Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms.  The United States Supreme Court has never ruled on this issue.  Therefore, for now at least, in California, the Second Amendment does not apply to those who are from any of the other 49 states.

6.  All automobile purchasers should be required to have a background check-- UNIVERSAL Background Checks- even in the case of someone being willed grandfather's old car.  The person buying could have a background of speeding or DUI

Firearms reality: Every firearms sale through a firearms dealer requires a background check by Federal law.  The information from the purchaser is run through NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System).  This also includes sales from dealers at gun shows, as well as so called internet sales.  The fact is "internet sales" don't really happen.  A person may go to a website, such as Gunbroker.com to purchase a firearm, but the firearm does not go to the purchaser directly.  The firearm gets transferred to a licensed firearm dealer.  That dealer then performs all required background checks as will as any required state checks.  This also is a check against violation of state law, in that if the firearm is illegal in the state of purchase, the transfer to the purchaser does not take place.  The gun control lobby seeks to expand background checks past this point.  Under the "pro-gun control" proposals, if I were to purchase a firearm as a gift for my spouse (I have done this on several occasions, and the "gift" is greatly appreciated) not only would a background check be performed on me as the purchaser, but then my spouse would have to go to the store and have a background check run as well.  This is an inconvenience with little gain.  Background checks do not stop crime.  Criminals generally do not go to gun stores to purchase a gun before committing a crime- they get those guns on the street, or by theft.

7.  Ban the private sale or transfer of autos, and all internet sales. The person buying the car MUST have a background check.   This includes all "car shows" - OK so even though all car dealers at car shows may be licensed  dealers AND they would already do a background check, who cares.   You can buy parts at shows and that means a bad driver "could" get a hold of a car at a show.

Firearms reality: There are proposals to ban the private "transfer" of firearms.  This would include firearms transferred by Will and Testament.   As already discussed, these type checks do nothing to stop crime.  These checks are about tracking who owns what guns.

8.  Require a background check for the purchase of gasoline at the state level.  Allow for an "instant check" for those who have bought a car in the last year (will help speed up gasoline sales). However, individuals who have not purchased a car in the last year will have to wait until they are "in the system" before a gasoline purchase can be approved.  Additionally, out of state visitors will be unable to purchase gasoline.

Firearms reality: California has recently enacted a background check requirement ammunition purchases.  The only persons approved immediately are those who have purchased a firearm since the state started tracking purchases.  The state wants to be sure you only buy ammunition for a gun you personally own.  If you haven't made a recent firearm purchase, you must wait for processing to be completed on your application before the state will approve your ammunition purchase.  If you are not a California resident, you would not have a firearm purchase registered with the California system and therefore you would not be able to purchase ammunition.  For those who believe that people from outside of California would have no need to purchase ammunition, there are people who travel to California to compete in shooting competitions.  There are also those who travel to California to hunt.  Regardless of the reason, these restrictions are unreasonable and have been challenged in Federal Court.  To date, this law has yet to be reviewed by any court higher than Federal District Court- however, the Federal Judge has stated he believes these laws will be found to be unconstitutional, but there currently is no injunction in place, and the ammo purchase laws are in effect.

9.  We must limit AAA.   The problem is they are to powerful.  EVERY TIME a multiple vehicle accident occurs it is because of their members and the lobbying power they have.  If it wasn't for their political influence and stranglehold on Congress and State Legislative bodies there would not be such a problem.

Firearms reality: The media and politicians love to paint the National Rifle Association an enemy of civilization.  They paint the NRA as an organization that actively tries to recruit people to carry out mass murders.   The fact is the NRA has been around since the 1870's.  And while the NRA does lobby on behalf of gun owners for "reasonable" laws, the primary task the NRA performs is education.   The NRA provides safety training. The NRA provides training for Range Officers and provides standards for firing range safety.  Millions have been taught firearms safety through courses taught by the NRA, or using NRA approved curriculum.

10. A 5 day waiting period on all car sales.  

Firearms reality: As much as some politicians like to talk about how anyone can walk into a gun store, put down a credit card and walk out with a gun, every gun sale from a firearms dealer does require a background check that may end up requiring a waiting period.  Unless a firearms dealer is told to "proceed" with a firearms sale, and assuming there has not been a "denied" issued, a firearm sale is subject to a hold.

These are just a few examples of what gun control advocates call "reasonable" proposals.  However, the public would be furious if, for example, a drunk driver hit a school bus, killing several students, and then politicians started shouting that we need a law to require Breathalyzer Ignition Interlocks on every single vehicle sold.  Rightfully the general public would be outraged and stress that just because one person got drunk and used their car to cause a tragedy, the rest of the driving population should not be punished.  However, the same general public is not concerned when politicians discuss banning a firearm from millions, because one "nut" decided to use that weapon in a murder.  The People would be outraged over restrictions to the purchases of automobiles, yet driving is not a Constitutional Right; keeping and bearing a firearm is.


**** To be sure you see the latest discussion and commentary, please follow Carden Chronicles on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/CardenChronicles/), Twitter (@CardenBlog) or subscribe to email or RSS Feed updates at The Carden Chronicles website.  ****

The Carden Chronicles is against the #GunControlNow Campaign

Guns and Autos: Explaining the Problems of Many Gun Control Proposals

CLASSIFIED: The Jeffrey Epstein Conspiracy - Or Not (Satire Saturday)

Written by: [Name Redacted]

BREAKING NEWS - Jeffrey Epstein has been found dead in his jail cell. This was an “apparent suicide.”

CEO’s, Politicians, Royalty, Former US Presidents and Members of Congress, who had spent time at Epstein’s  “Rest and Relaxation” Sex Island all let out a huge sigh of relief.

Bad conspiracy theories are already spreading at the speed of light. These bad theories are part of a disinformation campaign-maybe like the article you are reading now - to provide a cover story for both the real conspiracy and the fake conspiracies.

Since Facebook is as secure as Hillary Clinton's email server a secure platform, and I know and absolutely trust every single person who reads this, I believe it appropriate to document the proof of the conspiracy. I will ask everyone who reads this to keep this highly sensitive information absolutely private. PLEASE make sure you share ONLY the disinformation. We cannot have people believing the truth because it will cause too much confusion.

How do we know there is a Conspiracy here?  Because every single piece of evidence says there is no conspiracy.

All the powerful people implicated were rich and therefore they could afford to send in an elite Hashashin Assassin to make it LOOK like a suicide. The proof here is that not a single guard at the detention facility saw the assassin. The assassin was NOT seen on camera, and NO ONE saw an assassin enter the cell, kill Epstein, create the “suicide” evidence with a fake body, and smuggle the REAL Epstein’s body out of the facility.

Only an extremely well funded and trained assassin could pull that off - and the only the mega-wealthy can afford that level of skill and efficiency. This also means the Government was involved. The mega-wealthy after all are the TRUE government - most politicians are really just “puppets” that follow the orders of the mega-wealthy.

We also know the Government was involved because of the aircraft that was used in this conspiracy. Not a SINGLED frame of all the security footage shows a highly classified US Special Operations Silent Supersonic VTOL (Vertical Take Off and Landing) aircraft - the SR-71/2 bringing in the Hashashin. Not a single video frame shows the Hashashin leaving the area in the aircraft.  Further evidence that the SR-71/2 was used comes from the fact that no one reported hearing a "sonic boom" as the aircraft arrived and departed.   If any other aircraft had been used, the "sonic boom"  would have been heard.  Because no "sonic boom" was reported, we know that only the Special Operations Silent Supersonic VTOL Aircraft could have been used.

 Israeli Air Force Photo that Does Not Show the SR-71/2

The fact that the SR-71/2 was used, shows just how high this conspiracy goes.  The Department of Defense has gone to extreme measures to cover up and deny the existence of this aircraft.  Not only does the Department of Defense refuse to list the SR-71/2 in any documentation, they have denied the aircraft was even thought of by the late, Kelly Johnson.  The DOD also denies this aircraft was developed in cooperation with the Israeli Air Force. The Israeli Defense Forces also deny any knowledge of, or involvement in the SR-71/2.  Significantly, not a single picture of the aircraft flying over Masada in Israel appears anywhere in Israeli Air Force files. The photo shown in this article shows other US/Israeli Aircraft flying over Masada, but not the SR-71/2; proving the "official" Israeli government stance -"Israel knows nothing of this aircraft"

Proof of how secret even the TESTING of this was, comes from the fact that there is not even ONE photo of the SR-71/2 undergoing flight test at neither Area-51 nor at Edwards Air Force Base.  The existence SR-71/2 is so highly classified, it has also been kept from Congress.   Not a single reference of this remarkable aircraft appears in any Federal Budget.   Because the SR-71/2 does not show up in ANY government document, or budget; and Department of Defense officials completely deny the existence of the aircraft; we know just how secret the SR-71/2 program is. (Note: The DOD website has no reference for the SR-71/2.  This URL (https://www.defense.gov/classified/SR-71-2/topsecret.html) for the SR-71/2 opens to an OFFICIAL Department of Defense web-page that says 'We're sorry, this mission can't be completed! Let's see if we can help you find what you're looking for at Defense.gov, the official source for DOD news, information and resources"- proving that the DOD says this plane does not exist.)

Truly secret conspiracies leave behind no evidence.  Evidence of a conspiracy is proof that the alleged "conspiracy" was poorly executed.  Looking at the total lack of evidence in the Epstein "Suicide," we can clearly see how brilliantly this conspiracy was executed.  In fact, we can conclude that the media and a vast majority of the people on this planet, will believe that Jeffery Epstein was found dead in his jail cell of an "apparent suicide."

Always remember, if you are presented with actual "evidence" of an alleged major conspiracy or cover-up, you should not believe what you are being told.  After all, a perfectly executed conspiracy or cover-up leaves behind no evidence.

CLASSIFIED: The Jeffrey Epstein Conspiracy - Or Not (Satire Saturday)

Why Overstating Mass Shootings May Make Matters Worse

Earlier this week, I wrote an article about politicians and the media saying there had been over 250 “Mass Shootings” so far this year alone. I argued, and continue to argue, that his number is deceptive. I was “questioned” by one reader who implied I was being callus and the victims did not matter to me. The reader asked how many were too many for me.

One murder a year is too many for me. One mass shooting is too many for me. Anyone who knows me (and this reader does know me) should know I believe this passionately.

I am also concerned with the dialogue that is filling the airwaves. When an individual or the media use the term "mass shooting" casually, they are doing a disservice to victims and complicating or preventing the search for real solutions to the problem.

The 253 mass shootings that are listed in the (supposed) “Gun Violence” database represent a multitude of problems with vastly different solutions. Some of the events that are casually lumped together under the heading "mass shootings" include gang related drive by shootings. Other events include "family annihilators" and still others are simple drug related homicides.

The over 250 number is one used by certain politicians and political groups to advance their agenda. They search for a way to make the number as high as possible to create public outrage, hoping to force the changes they desire. But by doing this, we run the risk of creating a "solution" that does not fit the problem. This is a disservice to the public and disrespectful to the victims.

Take the "family annihilators"- these are people who kill their spouse and children or if they do not have a spouse just the children, and often themselves. If an annihilator has four victims, the event goes in the mass shooting database. But, a solution of "gun control" will not stop this type event. A family annihilator is "driven" to wipe out the family. The weapon they use is irrelevant. Sometimes the weapon used is carbon monoxide. The annihilator packs the family in the car in the garage with the door closed and starts the engine. Sometimes it is drowning- they drive the car with the family off a bridge. Or the weapon could be a knife. With these type events, having a gun does not matter. The annihilator becomes convinced they must destroy the family, so they use anything they can to kill everyone in the family. We will never see a decrease in this type event from gun control. However, we may see a decrease if we improve the mental health system and mental health care access. 

Likewise, banning guns will not stop drug related homicides- the murders will happen with knives. For this situation the solutions would seem to need to be treatment for the underlying drug addictions. Addressing the socio-economic issues in areas with high gang activity could be a solution for gang related violence that is lumped in as "mass shootings."

Terrorism related mass murders will also not be stopped by any type of gun control measure, unfortunately. These killers want to create terror. They will use trucks; they will use aircraft; they will use fertilizer and diesel fuel. They will use any weapon that kills as many as possible and creates a huge impact. Terrorists do not quietly kill with poison- unless they are trying to kill thousands at once, nor will they try to kill in a way that no one will detect. They WANT people to see the murders. They WANT people talking about the murders and mostly they WANT the mass terror. Really the murder itself is irrelevant to them- the terror, the fear, the distrust that comes from the event is what they really want.

By looking at the problems as smaller subsets with different solutions, the "Political" picture changes. By pushing the "over 250 Mass Shootings This Year Alone" mantra, certain people and groups try to force the dialogue to a direction they want. So, the question must be asked, is the goal of those politicians who are out there saying "We have had over 250 Mass Shootings this Year- the time to ban assault weapons is NOW” REALLY to save lives, or is their goal to ban guns? Looking at the numbers, it does not seem to be that they want to save lives.

Do we need to stop these mass shootings – ABSOLUTELY! So instead of scaring people into a "solution" that will not work, lets break the numbers down. Let’s talk about Mental Health care reform and increasing access to mental health care in areas where that could make a difference. Let’s talk about improving the socio-economic situation in gang infested areas- if the gangs go away- evaporate- so will the gang violence. Likewise, banning guns will not stop drug related homicides- the murders will happen with knives. For this the solutions would seem to need to be treatment for the underlying drug addictions.

"We have had over 250 Mass Shootings this Year- the time to ban assault weapons is NOW" - we have heard this sound bite all week. But not once have we heard that Rifles - ALL TYPES of Rifles- only account for an average less than 320 homicides a year over the period 2013-2017 (inclusive) according to the FBI Expanded Homicide Data (table 8- weapons used in homicides). Less than 320 for ALL TYPES of RIFLES- "assault rifles" account for less than the 320. So, the "SOLUTION" of banning "Assault Rifles" would never solve the problem of "Mass Shootings."

Let's START talking about REAL solutions. Let’s START talking about solving the root causes of violence- rather than grouping all these murders together in an effort to win a political battle, and watching the same number of mass shootings occur next year, and letting more people die.

Why Overstating Mass Shootings May Make Matters Worse

BREAKING: CONCEALED CARRY HOLDER STOPS MAN WITH RIFLE, BODY ARMOUR AT SPRINGFIELD WALMART

August 8, 2019
by Matt Carden

BREAKING - SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI

THIS IS A BREAKING STORY- but at this point there seems to be little doubt that TONIGHT A CIVILIAN WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN LIKELY STOPPED A MASS SHOOTING FROM TAKING PLACE WITHOUT A SHOT BEING FIRED.

Shooter Photo from Fox Springfield Mo

According to the Springfield, Missouri Police Department, and being reported by the local media in Springfield, on the evening of Thursday, August 8, 2019, a male in his early 20's, wearing a tactical vest and carrying an AR-15 style rifle with what appears to be a 30 round magazine in the rifle, and other magazines on the vest, attempted to walk into the WalMart Neighborhood Market on West Republic in Springfield, Missouri.  According to Lt. Mike Lucas of the Springfield PD, "his intent was not to cause peace or comfort to anybody that was in the business."

 A photo of the shooter (with face blurred) was posted on the local Fox affiliate web page and is re-posted on this site. The shooter was stopped and held by an off duty firefighter with a concealed carry firearm.

The firefighter has not been named, however Springfield PD credit the Concealed Carry Permit Holder with stopping the shooter. Speaking of the shooter, Lt. Lucas said, "In fact, he's lucky to be alive to be honest."

SPRINGFIELD PD TWITTER FEED @SGFPolice
🚨UPDATE: 🚨
At 4:10 p.m. SPD were dispatched to 3150 W. Republic Rd. to a Walmart Neighborhood Market. An armed white male in his twenties was detained by an armed off-duty fireman until officers arrived on scene and took the suspect into custody. More: https://t.co/IZcH3Hn8GV

— Springfield PD (@SGFPolice) August 9, 2019

BREAKING: CONCEALED CARRY HOLDER STOPS MAN WITH RIFLE, BODY ARMOUR AT SPRINGFIELD WALMART

BREAKING: ANOTHER MASS KILLING IN CA- 4 Dead, 2 Wounded

This came across the AP from this morning. The murderer killed 4 and wounded 2 in another rampage killing. The individual killed 2 at an apartment complex, then went on to attack an insurance agency and the agent and a bakery. He killed a man at a Subway restaurant. Attacked a man pumping gas at a Chevron (no robbery- just drove up and attacked the man). He followed a Security Officer into a seven eleven and attacked him as well- the officer sustained several wounds and is sidearm was taken by the murderer. The murder had it when police finally captured him.

This event will not get much attention though.   Although the killer took a sidearm from a Security Officer,  he never used it...

This one only used a knife--- I guess its time for knife control

BREAKING: ANOTHER MASS KILLING IN CA- 4 Dead, 2 Wounded

250th Mass Shooting in 2019? No...

August 5, 2019 by Matt Carden

All morning and much of the weekend,  I have been hearing people say Dayton was the 250th Mass Shooting this year. It is not.

The "250" number includes every drive-by, every robbery, ever other instance where more that 3 people have been shot.  A "mass shooting" according to the Congressional Research Service is a shooting were the motive is ONLY the shooting and multiple people are killed.

The media are doing a GREAT disservice by stating this was the 250th Mass Shooting. The ONLY way you get to 250 is if you include a HUGE number of drive-by gang related shootings, drug related shootings and other crimes, including a Baltimore incident on July 15, 2019 where a man attempted to use a gun to demand methadone, then killed one and wounded two before being killed by police in a shootout (Its on the list of "mass shootings"). Or how about an Augusta, Georgia incident on March 17, 2019 where "four people were wounded after an argument, although the shooter claims that it was in self-defense to being randomly attacked" (its also on the list of "mass shootings"). What about an April 11, 2019 incident in the Watts area of Los Angeles. One person was killed and four were wounded when suspects fired at them from a car in the Watts neighborhood.  I always thought this was called a gang-related drive-by?

Most people will NOT verify the facts-- they read what the media say and believe it. They also don't look at where facts are coming from. Are the Media telling the truth? Well, that depends. The Congressional Research Service says no- Wikipedia says yes.

Personally, I say no as well.

250th Mass Shooting in 2019? No...

The Next Supreme Court Gun Case- Either a Landmark or Nothing

It is amazing how a subject can be incredibly simple and incredibly complex at the same time.   The greatest example of this is the United States Constitution- in particular the “Bill of Rights.”  In grade school we are taught of the Bill of Rights; the first ten amendments to the Constitution.   We were taught in very simple terms what these Amendments meant- Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion and so forth.   By high school we learn that although these rights are enumerated, there are

caveats.  We are taught, for example, that Freedom of Speech does not include shouting “fire in a crowded theater.”  By college or early adulthood, for the most part we understand just how “complex” the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are.   Rather than being something that “everyone” can understand, Constitutional Rights have become a subject which lawyers and judges cannot agree on, and deciding what the Constitution means falls to the Nine Supreme Court Justices seated in Washington, D.C.

This fall, the Nine Supreme Court Justices are scheduled to take up a case which may have a profound impact on what the Second Amendment actually means.   This will be the first major case since Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010).   The District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was the landmark decision that held (for the first time) that the Second Amendment was an “individual” right, not a collective right or one which only applied to “the Militia” or membership in “the Militia.”  McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), held that the Second Amendment applied to the States.   These two cases, however, have left a great number of unresolved issues.  Now, the Supreme Court is poised to take up one such issue.

New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York, New York has the potential to be another landmark decision, or “much ado about nothing.”  Potentially the case could decide the meaning of the words “bear Arms” as used in the Second Amendment.  At issue is a New York City regulation that prohibits any person with a license to keep a firearm in their home from transporting that firearm to any place other than one of the seven shooting ranges within the city limits of New York.   Under this regulation, if one has a second home in New York it is illegal to take the gun licensed to be in one home to the second home- even unloaded, in a locked case with ammunition locked up separately.   Under this regulation it is illegal to take a handgun licensed to a home in New York City to a shooting range outside the city.   Under the regulation it is illegal to participate in a shooting completion outside the City of New York with a handgun that is licensed to be in a home in New York City.    Under this regulation it is even illegal to take a handgun licensed to in a home to a gunsmith- even a gunsmith inside the City of New York- without special permission of the Chief of the Police Department License Division.

The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association (NYSRPA) case states the City of New York regulation is unconstitutional in that it violates the Second Amendment “Right to Keep and Bear Arms,” it violates the Commerce Clause of the Constitution and it violates the Constitutional “Right to Travel” – an unenumerated right, but nevertheless a right guaranteed by the Constitution. 

The “Gun Control Crowd” has weighed in with an interesting set of arguments.   The Brady Foundation is asking the Supreme Court to dismiss the case, stating that New York City will be changing the regulation and therefore the case will be moot.   New York City has yet to make any changes to the regulation.   The second argument- both of the Brady Foundation and the Giffords Law Center states that this case does not deserve “strict scrutiny.” They argue that the City of New York’s concern about having “more guns on the street” outweighs the Constitutional questions involved and “intermediate scrutiny” as applied by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals is appropriate.   However, neither organization nor the City of New York can explain how forcing gun owners to only use ranges in New York City and not take guns out of the city reduces the number of guns on the street.   Logic would seem to indicate that allowing gun owners to take licensed, unloaded, locked guns to homes or ranges outside of the City would reduce the number of guns on the streets inside the City of New York. 

The final argument of the Brady Foundation is that this case could result in the “creation of a new right.”  For some reason, the Brady Foundation believes that the right to “keep AND BEAR Arms” only involves keeping those arms within one’s home.   This argument of course does not hold with Heller or McDonald.   The Supreme Court held that “bearing arms” means to carry those arms outside of one’s home for the purpose of self defense or for other lawful purposes.   Although the Court ruled that the need for self defense was most acute in one’s home, the Court in no way limited self-defense to the home.

It seems this case has several possible outcomes; two of which would place this case into the "much ado about nothing" category.   New York City could actually change the regulation.   Should they change the regulation and allow licensees to travel outside of New York City with their firearms. this case would likely be dismissed. 

The second outcome, one hoped for by the Brady Foundation and Giffords Law Center- is that the Court leaves the ruling of the Second Circuit intact and makes no ruling on the issues of what level of scrutiny to apply to this case.   The court could also state that "intermediate scrutiny" is appropriate- in which case there is very little chance of ever overturning an "anti-gun" law if the state pulls out the "public safety" card.

It is also a possibility that the Court will decide this case by addressing the "commerce clause issues" only.   The Court could invalidate the regulation by saying it restricts interstate commerce by preventing the people of New York from freely using shooting ranges in New Jersey or other areas outside of New York City.  In theory, the Court could "skirt" the Second Amendment issues in the case and make no ruling on whether the regulation violates the right to "bear arms"

The best possible outcome, is that the Court finally states in no uncertain terms, that a political entity cannot ban the ability for an individual to "bear arms" outside the home for self defense.   This would then finally open the door for action against states like California, who so severely restrict the ability to carry a firearm that in effect the bearing of arms is banned. That would make this a "landmark" ruling, while in the other scenarios, the case will fade to "nothing."   Of course, this case will have to be heard.  As of this time, this case is scheduled to be heard in October 2019 and it may be June 2020 before we find out how the Court will rule.

The Next Supreme Court Gun Case- Either a Landmark or Nothing

A Nation Reborn or The Gathering of the Flock

On May 14, 1948 an event occurred that had never happened in the history of the planet- a nation which had been destroyed by Hadrian in 136 AD, and a people who had been scattered to the four winds returned- and declared their Independence.  On May 15, 1948, the British Military lowered the Union Jack throughout the “Mandate of Palestine” (which was not then, nor anytime before then a nation) and turned over forts and arms- not to the roughly 500,000 Jewish Holocaust survivors and immigrants from countries which had slaughtered Jews for centuries, who had bought swamp and desert and turned it into fields of grains and orchards of fruit- but to the 50 Million Arabs who had refused the United Nations partition plan and instead pledged before the UN nothing less than the eradication of all remaining Jews or nothing less than a rebirth of the Holocaust and completing Hitler’s “Final Solution to the Jewish Question.”

On May 15, 1948, the Israeli War of Independence began. 

The Prophet Jeremiah (23:3) had foretold  the Lord “will gather the remnant of My flock out of all the countries where I have scattered them and will bring them back to their own land which I, the Lord, hath given them.”  

The Army’s of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon may have expected “the remnant of My flock” to be like “lambs to the slaughter” - and every military leader and expert in the world expected Israel to we wiped from the map within days or weeks.  Instead of meek and timid “lambs” the united Arab armies encountered a “flock” that was more like “Bighorn Rams” in the autumn rut.  The small bands of Haganah, Palmauch, and Irgun fought to hold every inch of land and in many places fought to the very last man, woman or child.  

The Israelis of course won the War of Independence, and it would be nice to end with “they all lived happily ever after,” but in many ways that war has continued in battles like the Six Day War, or Yom Kippur, or the untold number of times organized armies of Arab states, and terrorist organizations have attempted to complete “the Final Solution.” 

And yet, Israel remains. 

"I will also raise up shepherds over them and they will tend them; and they will not be afraid any longer, nor be terrified, nor will any be missing," declares the LORD. - Jeremiah 23:4

A Nation Reborn or The Gathering of the Flock