Each day at just after midnight Eastern, a post like this one is created for contributors and readers of this site to upload news links and video links on the issues that concern this site. Most notably, Islam and its effects on Classical Civilization, and various forms of leftism from Soviet era communism, to postmodernism and all the flavours of galloping statism and totalitarianism such as Nazism and Fascism which are increasingly snuffing out the classical liberalism which created our near, miraculous civilization the West has been building since the time of Socrates.
This document was written around the time this site was created, for those who wish to understand what this site is about. And while our understanding of the world and events has grown since then, the basic ideas remain sound and true to the purpose.
So please post all links, thoughts and ideas that you feel will benefit the readers of this site to the comments under this post each day. And thank you all for your contributions.
This is the new Samizdat. We must use it while we can.
For those interested, please check out https://vladtepesblog.substack.com/ as an another avenue of expression.
This would be funny for its stupidity if not for its insidiousness:
https://www.rmx.news/article/switzerland-violated-human-rights-by-not-tackling-climate-change-quickly-enough-rules-echr-in-landmark-case/
American patriot Alex Jones describes his situation, our situation, and their situation:
https://youtu.be/U8vRJ47hwTU?si=GPwDm6lPseq6AH_P
This goes with the Alex Jones interview:
https://youtu.be/JsX34jd7sas?si=RehUm0HDOEGpdt0-
Dr. Suzanne Humphries – Totality of Evidence
https://totalityofevidence.com/dr-suzanne-humphries/
Shattering The Vaccine Paradigm With Dr. Suzanne Humphries
The HighWire with Del Bigtree – 11 days ago
https://rumble.com/v4mayzh-shattering-the-vaccine-paradigm-with-dr.-suzanne-humphries.html?mref=15ngam&mrefc=4
On one hand this is good for precious metals because they are a hedge against inflation. On the other hand it means the Fed may be compelled to raise rates to combat inflation, which is theoretically bad for PMs. On the other-other hand raising rates would ensure more destruction of the banking system, and kill Obiden in the election because they won’t be able to bribe the electorate with cheap money. On the other-other-other hand it is the American public who will suffer most in the coming economic shit show, and this is what really matters.
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/obviously-very-bad-news-biden-wall-street-reacts-todays-red-hot-inflation-print
Another Leftist Insurrection: Screaming Anti-Israel Protestors Shut Down Senate Cafeteria
by Margaret Flavin Apr. 10, 2024 9:45 am28 CommentsAnother Leftist Insurrection: Screaming Anti-Israel Protestors Shut Down Senate Cafeteria
by Margaret Flavin Apr. 10, 2024 9:45 am28 Comments
On Tuesday, an anti-Israel mob with faux-bloodied hands swarmed and shut down the cafeteria in the Dirksen Senate Office building.
The group sang and chanted, “Senate can’t eat until Gaza eats!”
Demands from the protesters include the Senate endorsing a ceasefire, the restoration of UNRWA funding, and an end to military aid to Israel.
According to Fox News, at least 50 people were arrested and removed.
The U.S. Capitol Police confirmed to Fox News that those arrested inside the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C., were charged with Crowding, Obstructing, or Incommoding.
“It is illegal to demonstrate inside any of the Congressional Buildings,” Capitol Police said in a statement.
A video obtained by Fox News shows demonstrators walking through the hallways of the building, raising their hands and saying, “Children are starving in Gaza” and “People are dying in Gaza.”
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/04/insurrection-shouting-anti-israel-protestors-shut-down-senate/
Part 1: Despots, Spooks, and Goons — Unconstitutional Intelligence Gathering Abuses and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)
by Guest Contributor Apr. 10, 2024 9:30 am29 Comments
PART I. America’s Recurring Nightmare: Unconstitutional Intelligence Gathering Abuses and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)
FISA’s section 702 and other components that permit and govern warrantless intelligence gathering on foreign targets located abroad were originally set to expire on December 23, 2023.
Only months prior, a fresh scandal broke that the FBI had abused the warrantless search tool yet again by weaponizing it against American citizens for their activities while on US soil.
According to the well-established doctrine of the exclusionary rule in this country, this intelligence and all subsequent evidence gathered from these illegal, warrantless searches is tainted and inadmissible.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/04/part-1-despots-spooks-goons-unconstitutional-intelligence-gathering/
Radical Democrat Congresswoman Suggests Exempting Black People from Paying Taxes (VIDEO)
by Cullen Linebarger Apr. 10, 2024 9:00 am353 Comments
A far-left Democrat Congresswoman has suggested she is supportive of one the most shocking forms of racial discrimination: exempting black people in America from having to pay taxes as a form of reparations while other racial groups have to fork over money to Uncle Sam.
Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) made the suggestion to host Jehan “J” Carter on ‘The Black Lawyers Podcast’ last week, as the Daily Mail reported.
When Carter asked Crockett about reparations for black people, she told the host, “I don’t know, that’s not necessarily a bad idea” and that it may not be as objectionable to simply handing out money to people.
She goes on to argue that reparations in some form are necessary. “We end up being so far behind,” she whines.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/04/radical-democrat-congresswoman-suggests-exempting-black-people-paying/
Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2024/04/the-second-amendment-staying-well-regulated/#ixzz8X0dMKMGt
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook
The Second Amendment & Staying Well-Regulated ~ VIDEO
Ammoland Inc. Posted on April 10, 2024 by F Riehl, Editor in Chief
Editors Note: In this older video by Mark Smith he deftly explains the wording of our Second Amendment.
YouTube video player
In the heart of the ongoing fight to preserve our Republic lies the Second Amendment—a cornerstone of American liberty that has been subject to misinterpretation and controversy by the Deep State Left. The essence of this historic amendment is not just about owning firearms but embodies the fundamental GOD-given right to self-defense, both within and beyond the confines of one’s home. This crucial understanding of the Second Amendment was eloquently explained by Mark Smith, a respected AmmoLand News contributor, in his insightful commentary.
The Second Amendment explicitly states, “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
This simple yet profound statement affirms that individuals have the inherent right to own and carry weapons. Critics and anti-gun advocates often narrow their focus to argue that this right is confined to the home or tied strictly to militia service. However, this interpretation blatantly ignores the broader context and the very wording of the amendment.
Legal precedents, including the landmark District of Columbia vs. Heller case, underscore the individual’s right to possess firearms unconnected to militia service, emphasizing self-defense as a core principle. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the notion that the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are not merely for collective security but extend to personal safety and freedom.
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL DOWN TO CONTINUE READING
The argument surrounding the “well-regulated militia” is frequently cited by those opposing the individual right to bear arms. Yet, historical context and legal analysis clarify that “well-regulated” referred to the proficiency and readiness of citizens, not to government-imposed restrictions. The term “militia” itself, understood as the body of ordinary citizens capable of bearing arms, further solidifies the individual nature of these rights.
Will Noty Comply American Flag Militia Confiscation AdobeStock_Tomasz Zajda 110451903
AdobeStock_Tomasz Zajda 110451903
Moreover, comparing the structure of the Second Amendment to other constitutional rights reveals a consistent theme: the protection of individual freedoms.
The inclusion of the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights, alongside other rights explicitly designed to safeguard individual liberties against government overreach, is no coincidence. It is a clear declaration of the founders’ intent to empower individuals, not restrict them.
The war on our gun rights and the ever-changing attempts at restrictions are multifaceted and continue to evolve. However, it is paramount that discussions are anchored in a factual and historical understanding of the Second Amendment. Misinterpretations and misconceptions only serve to undermine the Bill of Rights’ foundational principles of freedom and self-defense, which are as relevant today as they were over two centuries ago.
As we move forward, it is crucial for the public discourse to respect the Second Amendment’s original meaning and the rights it protects. The attempts to redefine or restrict these rights ignore the wisdom and foresight of the founding fathers, who recognized the importance of an armed citizenry in safeguarding liberty. Let us not be swayed by arguments that seek to diminish our freedoms under the guise of modern reinterpretation. Instead, let us stand firm in our conviction and knowledge of what the Second Amendment truly represents: an enduring testament to the right of every individual to defend themselves, their families, and their freedoms.
And above all else, stay well-regulated, meaning heavily armed, well-supplied, and very dangerous.
======================================================
Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2017/06/militia-clause-second-amendment-unfortunately-still-loggerheads-rkba/#ixzz8X0dkSkvI
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook
Militia Clause In The Second Amendment
Ammoland Inc. Posted on June 3, 2017 by Roger Katz
By Roger J. Katz, Attorney at Law and Stephen L. D’Andrilli
KOLBE VS. HOGAN:
PART EIGHT
Cuffed Hands
Does it matter whether it is the State that constrains the individual or the State that constrains the individual on behalf of and at the behest of the Federal Government, or the Federal Government that constrains the individual on its own behalf and at its own behest?
Arbalest Quarrel
Arbalest Quarrel
New York, NY -(Ammoland.com)- Those lower federal district courts and higher federal circuit courts of appeal that seek to disarm Americans, do so in clear denigration of the core of the second amendment and in clear defiance of the U.S. Supreme Court decision and reasoning in Heller.
When deconstructing the history of Kolbe, (Kolbe vs. O’Malley, 42. F. Supp. 3d 768 (D. Md. 2014); vacated and remanded, Kolbe vs. Hogan, 813 F.3d 160 (4th Cir. 2016); rev’d en banc, Kolbe vs. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114 (4th Cir. 2017)), legal commentators and laymen generally ignore the issue whether the prefatory militia clause still constrains the right of the people to keep and bear arms. They do so for an obvious reason. After all, the U.S. Supreme Court held, in District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570; 128 S. Ct. 2783; 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008), that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with an individual’s service in a militia. Thus, one might reasonably assume that a sacred shibboleth of the antigun movement and of the antigun movement’s benefactors in Congress, in the media, in finance, and in several of the Courts, may finally be laid to rest.
Yet, that isn’t true at all.
Those opposed to Heller’s rulings maintain the case was wrongly decided and must, at some point, be overturned. Those jurists who share the antigun establishment’s sympathies thereupon render rulings as if Heller never existed. The influence of old dogma sets in and pervades judicial opinions. One, though, should not be surprised about this. After all, the Heller case was decided narrowly, sharply demarcated along liberal wing/conservative wing lines.
Those Justices opposed to the Heller rulings made clear their disagreement of and, indeed, their disdain for the methodology employed by, the positions embraced by, and the legal and logical conclusions deduced from the premises accepted by the Court’s majority in reaching their conclusions. For, the Heller Court majority accepted, as axiomatic, and, in the first instance, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a natural right, preexistent in man and not a privilege bestowed on man by the State, through Government. It is Government that is an artificial construct, not the rights and liberties, codified in the Bill of Rights. This sacred principal, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a natural right, preexistent in man, is consistent with the framers’ belief concerning the concept of natural rights, inherent in man. Such rights and liberties, preexistent in man, forever rest beyond the power of the State, through its Government, to intrude upon and to destroy. This sacred precept, the dissenting Justices, in Heller, would not accept, could not accept, would never accept. Thus, the conclusions they reached in Heller were the opposite to, diametrically opposed to those conclusions drawn by the Court’s majority. The philosophical differences dividing liberal wing and conservative wing Justices are much ingrained, and marked. Those philosophical differences manifest in the Court’s majority opinion and in the two dissenting opinions. Those differences continue to play out in the rulings and reasoning of the judges who sit on the lower U.S. District Courts and on the higher U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal. The differences cannot be reconciled. They will never be resolved. The differences are deep set, visceral, as well as intellectual. Surely, the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court were aware of the nature of and extent of the philosophical differences that lay between them, that informed their notions of the individual’s relation to Government. They pushed back and pushed back hard against the majority opinion in Heller, written by Scalia. But the dissenting opinions in Heller, penned by Justices Stevens and Breyer, who also concurred in each other’s opinions, in Heller are legally and logically weak. The reasoning of the dissenting Justices is logically faulty, often internally inconsistent, incoherent, and clearly antithetical to the framers’ ideas concerning the fundamental rights and liberties of Americans.
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL DOWN TO CONTINUE READING
But the dissenting Justices, unlike the majority in Heller, whose conclusions follow from sound premises, cannot overcome a singular hurdle. It is a hurdle that weakens their position and ultimately makes their position untenable, ultimately reducing their argument to a reductio ad absurdum. The dissenting Justices must accept one premise that is a basic assumption of the Heller Court majority, namely that the right of the people to keep and bear arms can, at least in theory, under the dissenting Justices’ thesis, be vindicated. This is critical. For, if the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be vindicated, then the right does not exist, and the right codified in the Second Amendment reduces the Second Amendment to a nullity as the right sits empty in the Second Amendment, as a bald face lie. Of course the dissenting Justices hold contempt for the right embodied in the Second Amendment. But, they dare not say that. They cannot say that even as inconsistencies in their position illustrate that the right codified in the Second Amendment simply cannot, under their thesis, be vindicated.
It is a painful thing to see–and their contempt for the right codified in the Second Amendment lurks, like some hideous beast, just beneath the surface of their legal opinions.
Justice Stevens, in the first paragraph of his dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer, says, “The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a ‘collective right’ or an ‘individual right.’ Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.” District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. at 636; 128 S. Ct. at 2822; 171 L. Ed. 2d 684. Yet, Justice Stevens lays out this odd gambit, proclaiming unconvincingly and, in fact, inconsistently, that, the individual right of the people to keep and bear arms can be vindicated, notwithstanding that the right is tied exclusively to one’s connection with and service in a militia. But, is not the right of the people to keep and bear arms, then, as argued by Justice Stevens, a collective right, after all? If so, the right cannot be an individual right. It is one or the other, not both; and it must be one or the other. But, the two are mutually exclusive. But, if the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a collective right, after all, then, how is the right ever to be vindicated? We constantly get back to the same problem with the dissenting Justice’s thesis. Justice Stevens’ opening paragraph does not set forth a vehicle through which he might argue, soundly, that a right exists under the Second Amendment that can be vindicated. And, the point that he puts forth in the opening paragraph of his dissenting opinion, namely, that the distinction between individual rights and collective rights is not a critical question before the Court is false.
Justice Stevens attempts to conflate the concept of individual rights and collective rights, ostensibly to support the notion that the right of the people to keep and bear arms that he proclaims to be tied solely to one’s connection with a militia, can be vindicated. He knows that collective rights cannot be vindicated. So, he posits that the reader can and should dispense with the individual right/collective right distinction in the context of the Second Amendment. He dismisses the importance of the distinction as irrelevant, when, in fact, it is critical to an understanding of the import and purport of the sacred right embodied in the Second Amendment. Still, he posits, up front, that the reader can and should dispense with the individual right/collective right distinction. We should not dispense with the individual right/collective right distinction, from the legal standpoint, because doing so is an affront to the framers’ idea of the right of the people to keep and bear arms as a natural right, governed by natural law–that the right is not, then, man-made, and, therefore, ought not be constrained by man-made laws. And, we cannot dispense with the individual right/collective right distinction from a logical standpoint, because doing so, in the context of the import of the right of the people to keep and bear arms would, then, be incoherent. Justice Stevens presents this assertion as an assumption to be accepted, as reasonable. It isn’t. It is a proposition the truth of which must be proved. He does not prove it. Justice Stevens asserts it anyway, as a given, as a naked assumption, and then proceeds on his merry way with his argument that the right to be vindicated does exist; and that the right can exist within the notion of connection with one’s service in a militia–a collective right, after all, a collective right that does not and cannot exist legally, and, more importantly, a right that does not and cannot exist logically. Justice Stevens thereupon, negates, tacitly, at least, the truth of the assumption he makes, and his argument, existing as it does on that single false assumption, collapses in, on itself. But, Justice Stevens continues with his faulty logic, undeterred. After surmising that the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be vindicated in the context of an individual’s connection with a militia, Justice Stevens continues with the crux of his thesis, namely that the Second Amendment’s dependent clause, that he refers to as a “preamble,” carries the force of the right. Justice Stevens argues that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is conditioned by, limited by the “preamble.” Justice Stevens claims that the preamble is critical to an understanding of the meaning of the right established. He emphasizes the importance of the “preamble” to the Second Amendment when he should know that, in law, a preamble never carries, within it, a legally enforceable right at all.
Justice John Paul Stevens
Justice John Paul Stevens : Justice Stevens must have known of the disingenuousness of his remarks in Heller. One can forgive Justice Stevens’ intellectual fallibility. But one cannot forgive, nor should one forgive, blatant hypocrisy.
Enforceable rights do not exist in the preambles to contracts, laws, or even constitutions. Rights exists in the operative portions of contracts, laws, and constitutions. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is not conditioned by the dependent, antecedent clause of the Second Amendment. The right is contained solely in the independent, operative clause of Second Amendment. And, in that operative clause of the Second Amendment there is no qualification or condition, limiting the extent of the right. Moreover, as an embodiment of a natural law, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be conditioned anyway.
Nonetheless Justice Stevens emphasizes the importance of the antecedent clause, the preamble. He opines, “The preamble to the Second Amendment makes three important points. It identifies the preservation of the militia as the Amendment’s purpose; it explains that the militia is necessary to the security of a free State; and it recognizes that the militia must be ‘well regulated.’ In all three respects it is comparable to provisions in several State Declarations of Rights that were adopted roughly contemporaneously with the Declaration of Independence.” District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. at 640-641; 128 S. Ct. at 2824-2825; 171 L. Ed. 2d 686-687.
Were Justice Stevens correct—an opinion still held erroneously by many lower U.S. District Court judges and higher U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judges as well—a question arises whether there is anything left to the right of the people to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed. For, if the right of the people to keep and bear arms extends merely to one’s service in a militia, does not that interpretation essentially destroy the right embodied in the Amendment? It does; and, in fact, that is the point Justice Scalia was getting at in Heller when taking Justice Stevens to task, and it is a point that Justice Stevens was never able to effectively counter, try as he did.
Justice Stevens was, apparently, astute enough to recognize the problem with his position. It’s a problem that transcends legal considerations. It is one that rises to the level of a logical defect in his thesis. He therefore felt compelled to respond to it, albeit he did so in a footnote. But Justice Stevens response is confusing and ultimately logically unsatisfactory.
Attempting to circumvent Justice Scalia’s point, Justice Stevens asserted in his typical roundabout, fashion that, “The Court assumes—incorrectly, in my view—that even when a state militia was not called into service, Congress would have had the power to exclude individuals from enlistment in that state militia. See ante, at 600, 171 L. Ed. 2d, at 662. That assumption is not supported by the text of the Militia Clauses of the original Constitution, which confer upon Congress the power to ‘organiz[e], ar[m], and disciplin[e], the Militia,’ Art. I, § 8, cl. 16, but not the power to say who will be members of a state militia. It is also flatly inconsistent with the Second Amendment. The States’ power to create their own militias provides an easy answer to the Court’s complaint that the right as I have described it is empty because it merely guarantees ‘citizens’ right to use a gun in an organization from which Congress has plenary authority to exclude them.’ Ante, at 600, 171 L. Ed. 2d, at 662.” District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. at 655 fn 20; 128 S. Ct. at 2833 fn 20; 171 L. Ed. 2d 695 fn 20.
Justice Stevens argues in his dissenting opinion that Congress cannot exclude one’s right to keep and bear arms. But, suppose a State should decide to exclude one’s right to keep and bear arms. What then does that make of the individual right of the people to keep and bear arms and in what manner would a person be able to vindicate that right against one’s own State? But, there is a more serious problem. For, even as to Congress, if one surmises that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is bound up in the notion of a militia, Congress may very well have plenary power to disband a State militia. In fact, it has done so, and has emphasized its power over a State’s militia even during the infancy of this Nation. That means the right of the people to keep and bear arms either exists within the context of a man-made construct–a militia–and, if so, the right, then, does not exist and never existed at all, or the right exists, quite simply, independently of, and always did exist independently of, one’s connection with a militia. The right must exist, then, in the individual.
A State’s militia, as an organized body of men simply no longer exists. Congress has seen to that. Congress itself has essentially destroyed the organized militia of every State through legislation in which a State’s National Guard is essentially a component of the United States Army, while the Air National Guard of a State is a component of the United States Air Force. “Today, the states’ security personnel are not militiamen, but principally are the members of local law enforcement—and the bulk of counterterrorism work will fall to them.” “The Security Constitution,” 53 UCLA L. Rev. 29, 141-142 (October 2005), by Jason Mazzone, Professor of Law, Brooklyn University Law School.
The National Guard is Not the Old Militia
Expanding upon the point, the author says, in a footnote, “In thinking about modern translations and applications of the Constitution, one error must be avoided: equating the National Guard with the old militia. The National Guard claims to be the direct descendant of the militia. See National Guard Website, History, https://www.arng.army.mil/history (last visited July 27, 2004). In fact, the National Guard originated in the early twentieth century as a part of the national military. See Act of Jan. 21, 1903 (the Dick Act), ch. 196, 32 Stat. 775 (promoting the efficiency of the militia, and for other purposes and forming the Organized Militia as the ‘State National Guard,’ in accordance with the organization of the Army, and with federal funds and army instructors); Act of June 3, 1916 (National Defense Act), ch. 134, 39 Stat. 166 (making the National Guard part of the Army). Moreover, the National Guard is nothing like the old militia. The cornerstone of the Constitution’s militia was universal service (by adult white men), whereas the National Guard is an entirely voluntary corps. The militia originated as a local institution under the authority of the states, but the National Guard is, by law, part of the national military, run by, paid for, and mobilized by the national government. See Uviller & Merkel, supra note 425, at 142-43. Indeed, ‘the militia . . . was designed and supported as an alternative to the professional standing army of the central government. The modern National Guard, then, is not just different from the militia referred to in the Constitution, it is in many ways, its antithesis.’ Id. at 153-54 (concluding that there is today no functionally equivalent entity of the old militia). The militia was not only separate from the national army, it was meant to outnumber and overpower it. (Recall Madison’s claim about what a half million militiamen could do to twenty-five or thirty thousand regulars. See supra text accompanying note 177.) Today, though, more than 1.4 million troops belong to the regular United States military establishment – the Army National Guard has about 360,000 members. Uviller & Merkel, supra note 425, at 143. The distinction between the old militia as an alternative to a standing army and the National Guard as the army itself is symbolized by a further difference: who takes care of the weapons. Militiamen kept their guns at home because they might need them at any moment to rise up in arms against oppression. Weapons for use by National Guardsmen are kept under lock and key in federal armories. Further, the only armed fighting Guardsmen do is at the direction of the government itself. See id. at 143-44. (Without pressing the point too far, police officers today keep and maintain their own weapons; it is also a fair assumption that to the average citizen, seeing a police officer, gun in holster, patrolling a street, is less startling than seeing a Guardsman in fatigues with an M16.) For all of these reasons, it is wrong to read the Constitution’s militia provisions as referring today to the National Guard. At the same time, the federal government can, of course, deploy the National Guard – as part of the national military – for homeland security purposes.” 53 UCLA L. Rev. 29, 141-142 fn 621 (October 2005), by Jason Mazzone, Professor of Law, Brooklyn University Law School.
To tie the right of the people to keep and bear arms into the notion of a “militia” or into the descendent of the militia–the National Guard, which is essentially a part of a “standing army”–the very thing the framers sought, in the codification of the right in the Second Amendment to be a guard against–turns the right into a blasphemous, ludicrous caricature. Justice Stevens must have known of the disingenuousness of his remarks in Heller. One can forgive Justice Stevens’ intellectual fallibility. But one cannot forgive, nor should one forgive, blatant hypocrisy.
Eleven years prior to Heller, Justice Stevens wrote his dissenting opinion in Printz vs. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 117 S. Ct. 2365, 138 L. Ed. 2d 914 (1997). This was a case where, as in Heller, not incidentally, Justices Souter, Breyer, and Ginsburg concurred in Justice Stevens’ dissenting opinion. Justice Stevens’ dissenting opinion in Printz may be perceived as a precursor to his dissenting opinion in Heller, in which the Justice elaborates on his desire for a strong federal Government to thwart the excesses of the public–where excess means the existence of an armed citizenry. Justice Stevens’ contempt for the Second Amendment–a contempt shared by the liberal wing of the Court that concurred in his opinion–is on full display in Printz. Again, as in Heller, Justice Stevens’ twists his words, arguing, in Printz, essentially that the Federal Government must require the individual States to clamp down on an “armed citizenry.” This according to Justice Stevens, in his usual twisted logic, serves as a guard against tyranny. For, if the Federal Government should, on its own, simply create a vast bureaucracy to clamp down on an armed citizenry, that would certainly lead to tyranny. But, does there exist a difference?
In Printz, a case cited by the author of the aforementioned law review article, the U.S. Supreme Court—in an opinion penned by Justice Scalia, for the majority—invalidated a portion of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act that prohibits the Federal Government from commandeering State Executive Officials from enforcing Federal law. Justice Stevens and the other liberal wing contingent of the high Court took exception to that. Justice Stevens argued that Congress was well within its power to compel a State’s assistance in fighting “the epidemic of gun violence”—which, Stevens felt the Brady Act was enacted to combat.
With his proclivity to contort ideas through verbal legerdemain, Justice Stevens argued, in Printz, that tyranny is less likely to occur in our Nation when the Federal Government can and ought to compel the States to act in its behest than were the Federal Government simply to “create vast national bureaucracies to implement its policies.” Printz vs. United States, 521 U.S. at 959, 117 S. Ct. at 2396, 138 L. Ed. 2d at 959 (1997).
Extrapolating from Printz, one might reasonably argue that Stevens makes a similar case in his dissenting opinion in Heller. Tyranny, for Stevens is less likely to occur when the Federal Government can compel the States to constrain possession of firearms in the citizenry than were the Federal Government to create a vast National bureaucracy to do the job itself. But, in terms of the result, this is truly a distinction without a difference. If the militia is identified with the National Guard and the National Guard is essentially an adjunct of the United State Army and if the individual’s right to keep and bear arms is a function of one’s connection with a State militia qua a State’s National Guard, wherein is the right to keep and bear arms, existent in the individual, to be vindicated? If the threat, as Justice Stevens sees it, as evidenced in his dissenting opinion in Printz, is found in the very existence of an armed citizenry as situated apart from that armed citizenry’s connection with a State’s militia qua National Guard, as merely an adjunct of the Federal Government’s standing army, then wherein is one to envision anything left of the Second Amendment as a right to be vindicated?
Does it matter whether it is the State that constrains the individual or the State that constrains the individual on behalf of and at the behest of the Federal Government, or the Federal Government that constrains the individual on its own behalf and at its own behest? Tyranny is the end result in any event, however one chooses to look at it.
About The Arbalest Quarrel:
Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel’ website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.
For more information, visit: http://www.arbalestquarrel.com.
Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2024/04/prohibitions-lasting-effect-on-the-criminal-justice-system/#ixzz8X0edmbbP
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook
Prohibition’s Lasting Effect on the Criminal Justice System
Ammoland Inc. Posted on April 10, 2024 by F Riehl, Editor in Chief
Opinion By Matthew Mangino
SFPD officers patdown black american man in San Francisco stop and frisk search iStock-chameleonseye 509849326.jpg
SFPD officers iStock-chameleonseye 509849326.jpg
In the thick of Prohibition, Justice Benjamin Cardozo famously lamented that, under the exclusionary rule, “the criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered.” While Prohibition lasted from 1920 to 1933, it left an indelible mark on the criminal justice system.
Zealous government officials feverishly worked to stop the flow of alcohol, often trampling the rights of individuals in the process. Police often engaged in lawlessness, pursued illegal methods of gathering evidence, and engaged in questionable investigative tactics. It took more than 30 years to reset the criminal justice system.
In the 1960s, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren, and his fellow justices, began to reinfuse the Constitution into investigatory criminal procedure. In 1961, the Warren court adopted the exclusionary rule to control police misconduct.
If the police violated a suspect’s rights while investigating a crime, any evidence obtained would be excluded from trial. Justice Cardozo would have been displeased, but the exclusionary rule created an atmosphere of deference to individual rights, better training, and ultimately better police work.
The Warren court brought the American criminal justice system Miranda (being informed of one’s rights); Gideon (right to counsel); Mapp (the exclusionary rule); Katz (illegal wiretaps); and Terry (reasonable suspicion).
However, in the years since the Warren court, these very important rights have been increasingly dismantled by courts through the aggressive advocacy of prosecutors nationwide.
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL DOWN TO CONTINUE READING
As Vida B. Johnson wrote in “Whom do Prosecutors Protect?” for the Boston University Law Review;
“People are less secure from governmental intrusions than ever before because prosecutors have repeatedly asked judges to give individual law enforcement officers passes when they have crossed previously drawn constitutional lines.”
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons — against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.”
One decision by the Warren court that has had a lasting effect was originally perceived as an effort to protect individuals from unlawful intrusion by police. Prior to the decision in Terry v. Ohio, police could only conduct interrogation on the street with probable cause. However, those interrogations often happened without probable cause. The high court in Terry created a level of suspicion, less than probable cause, but more than a hunch — reasonable suspicion.
Instead of individuals being stopped on the street at the whim of police, the officer had to articulate some level of suspicion. In addition, when a detention based on reasonable suspicion was being executed, a police officer could pat down the detainee for officer protection — the dawn of “stop-and-frisk.”
In Terry’s lone dissent, Justice William O. Douglas warned that “to give the police greater power than a (judge) is to take a long step down the totalitarian path.” The decision in Terry is still being felt today.
Stop-and-frisk became a law enforcement tactic to remove illegal guns from the street. The tactic had a dramatic effect on individual rights, particularly in urban areas and particularly against young men of color.
According to the Center for Constitutional Rights, in 2011, the NYPD reported a 685,724 stop-and-frisks. Eighty-four percent of those stopped were Black or Latino, and 88% of the people stopped were neither arrested nor received summonses. Despite the stated purpose of the policy, weapons were recovered in less than 2% of stops.
Three years later, New York Judge Shira A. Scheindlin ruled that NYPD’s stop-and-frisk tactics violated the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.
That was not the end of stop-and-frisk. Scheindlin ruled that the way the NYPD was applying stop-and-frisk was unconstitutional; she did not rule that stop-and-frisk was unconstitutional. Terry remains the law and stop-and-frisk remains and integral part of police work.
Saint Louis Mayor Seemingly Wants to Crack Down on Victims
By Tom Knighton | 8:31 PM | April 09, 2024
AP Photo/Brittainy Newman, File
Saint Louis is a rough place. Because it’s rough, I get why local officials desperately want to do something to reduce violent crime. Unfortunately, far too often that means trying to restrict people’s rights.
Advertisement
In Missouri, though, that’s not happening.
So when the mayor of Saint Louis sought to network with other black mayors, it’s likely that she was definitely looking at what she could do without the state getting involved. I can respect this, more or less. I don’t like racial segregation–it’s not like there aren’t white mayors dealing with similar challenges, after all–but I get the desire to find a solution at least.
Unfortunately, Mayor Tishaura Jones may have stepped in it hard with her comments.
Mayors and leaders from Jackson, Los Angeles, Washington D.C., Atlanta, Durham, St. Louis and more met Wednesday and Thursday to talk about crime and solutions.
St. Louis Mayor Tishaura Jones says she’s taking back strategies used in Atlanta for nightclub owners and eyeing ways to reduce crimes around convenience stores.
“We have a lot of violence around convenience stores and gas stations,” said St. Louis Mayor Tishaura Jones. “So how can we hold those business owners accountable and also bring down crime? Some of the things are already doing, we’re finding other mayors are doing as well.”
Now, I get the nightclub argument. There are things nightclub owners can do to mitigate the problems and failure to do so tends to suggest a certain degree of culpability. A lack of security for the club itself and it’s parking lot, coupled with a refusal to do anything about loitering outside of the club, may well lead to problems with violence, for example.
But gas stations and convenience stores are the center for a lot of violence because they’re the targets of a lot of violence.
Advertisement
There are a few places that are notoriously targets for armed robbery. Liquor stores, gas stations, and convenience stores are right up there, particularly because they do a lot of cash business and don’t have massive staff on hand.
What’s more, most gas stations and convenience stores aren’t really keen on a lot of people loitering around them, either. One or two people standing there waiting for a ride or something is one thing, but not crowds, especially rough crowds. Those actually deter customers from coming in and spending money.
So I fail to see how convenience stores and gas stations are remotely responsible for being robbed.
Of course, that’s not all the violence that happens as such places, but how many of those occasions are just because the target happened to stop at such a place?
It’s one thing to hold a place responsible for its failures to properly handle security. It’s quite another to outright blame them for stuff that really looked to be beyond the business’ control.
I hope that Jones will clarify her comments in the coming days, because a lot of people are seeing this and trying to figure out how your neighborhood stop-and-rob is actually responsible for being robbed.
I really thought we were done with victim-blaming. It seems that it’s not going anywhere, though.
https://bearingarms.com/tomknighton/2024/04/09/saint-louis-mayor-seemingly-wants-to-crack-down-on-victims-n1224453
“Would Be Unbearable” : Xi Jinping Warns No One Can Stop China’s Family Reunion” With Taiwan
by Jake Smith, Daily Caller News Foundation – April 10, 2024
https://thelibertydaily.com/would-be-unbearable-xi-jinping-warns-no-one/
Ma, Xi say both sides of Strait are Chinese
by Chen You-fu and Jake Chung – April 11, 2024
https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2024/04/11/2003816257
Have the Communists Fooled the West About Communism?
J. R. Nyquist – April 10, 2024
+ 1 Podcast (Jimmy from Brooklyn), 2 Videos & Comments
https://jrnyquist.blog/2024/04/10/have-the-communists-fooled-the-west-about-communism/
Video #1 – Itw JR Nyquist
Jean Robin1 – Streamed 2 days ago
PRESIDENT TRUMP DROPS BOMBSHELL Letter From Stormy Daniels…”I am denying this affair because it never happened”
by Patty McMurray Apr. 10, 2024 5:00 pm96 Comments
This afternoon, President Trump shared an image of a 2018 letter from Stormy Daniels on his Truth Social Account.
Above the image of the letter from the porn star, turned darling of the Democrat Party, President Trump wrote:
“LOOK WHAT I JUST FOUND!”
He asked, “WILL THE FAKE NEWS REPORT IT??”
Here is what the 2018 letter that Stormy Daniels allegedly sent said, which should be the end of yet another lie that was told over and over again by the media in their effort to destroy him.
Official Statement of Stormy Daniels
January 30, 2018
To Whom It May Concern:
Over the past few weeks, I have been asked countless times to comment on reports of an alleged sexual relationship I had with Donald Trump many, many, many years ago.
The fact of the matter is that each party to this alleged affair denied its existence in 2006, 20011, 2016, 2017 and now again in 2018. I am not denying this affair because I was paid “hush money” as has been reported in overseas owned tabloids. I am denying this affair because it never happened.
I will have no further comment on this matter. Please feel free to check me out on Instagram at @thestormydaniels.
Thank you,
(signed) Stormy Daniels
Here is a screenshot of the Truth Social post by President Trump:
The Gateway Pundit reported about the Stormy Daniels story last month, but with a new twist from a whistleblower who claimed that according to the dirty lawyer Michael Avenatti who defended Stormy Daniels in her so-called “hush money” case against Trump, the affair with Stormy Daniels was not with Trump, but instead, with Trump attorney Michael Cohen, who was trying to extort money from Donald J. Trump before the 2016 election with a fake scheme he cooked up about an affair the then-top GOP presidential candidate had with the porn star.
The Gateway Pundit also reported about a 2018 letter from Michael Cohen’s lawyers admitting President Trump knew nothing about the Stormy Daniel’s “hush money” transaction he was accused of ahead of his ridiculous civil trial where Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has charged President Trump with 34 felony counts related to the Stormy Daniels ‘hush payment’ transaction.
Costello blasted Michael Cohen as a “convicted perjurer” in remarks to reporters in New York last March.
The prosecutors “cherry-picked” 6 emails out of more than 300 emails, Costello said.
read more at
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/04/president-trump-drops-bombshell-letter-stormy-daniels-i/
BREAKING: Mass Shooting in Philadelphia at Ramadan Event…Hundreds Were In Attendance…Several Arrests Have Been Made [VIDEO]
by Patty McMurray Apr. 10, 2024 2:40 pm637 Comments
A mass shooting is being reported in West Philadelphia, reportedly at or near Clara Muhammad Square, at an Eid al-Fitr event, celebrating the final day of Ramadan, a holy month of fasting celebrated by Muslims around the world.
The cause of the shooting or the names of the suspects have not yet been released.
In Philadelphia, PA, only moments ago, it’s being reported that multiple people have been shot at an event celebrating the final day of Ramadan.
read more at
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/04/breaking-mulitple-people-have-reportedly-been-shot-philadelphia/
DEVELOPING: Yazoo County, Mississippi Sheriff Warns Residents That Levees Are About to Break: “Evacuate IMMEDIATELY!”
by Cristina Laila Apr. 10, 2024 2:20 pm237 Comments
Strong storms moved into Mississippi on Tuesday evening leaving one person dead and another person injured.
Dozens of homes were damaged by the storms.
By Wednesday morning, the Yazoo County sheriff warned residents to evacuate immediately because the levees were about to break.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/04/developing-yazoo-county-mississippi-sheriff-warns-residents-that/
Post
See new posts
Conversation
Charlie Kirk
@charliekirk11
The buried lede with Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs statement on Arizona’s Supreme Court abortion ruling is that she’s openly admitting she will defy the ruling, suggesting her EO takes priority over the state’s highest court. You don’t have to like the law, you can work to change the law, but you don’t get to pick and choose when you follow law…unless you’re a Democrat.
https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1778112179306438715
Sacramento Bee
Latinos are growing frustrated and angry about migrants and the border. Here’s why
Mathew Miranda
Tue, April 9, 2024 at 5:00 AM CDT·10 min read
2.2k
Xochilt Nuñez is not the typical person who comes to mind when thinking about critics voicing their displeasure with U.S. immigration policy or the influx of migrants.
Nuñez crossed the border into California in 1999. She left her hometown of Morelia in Michoacán, Mexico, in search of a better life. The trip took her just over a week, during which she spent days without food and water.
Days after crossing, still exhausted and dehydrated, Nuñez began working at a carwash in San Diego. Soon after, she took on a second job in construction. Her hope then was to save enough money to own a home — her version of achieving the American Dream.
Today, people from around the world come across the U.S. border, many just as eager to work and potentially reach that dream.
Yet, Nuñez — now 53, a farmworker and a single mother of three — has mixed feelings about the overwhelming majority of these migrants. She uses words such as “anger,” “frustration” and “jealousy,” when asked to describe her feelings toward the migrants. All the while, she shares the same undocumented status and participates in grassroots activism for immigration reform.
“Right now, this immigration is out of control,” Nuñez said. “And now, they don’t come to work. They come to live from the system.”
https://news.yahoo.com/latinos-growing-frustrated-angry-migrants-100000568.html
(Richard: This sounds like one of the fake hate crimes committed to make the Conservatives look bad.)
Local News
Police, FBI investigate bombing at Salem Satanic Temple
SALEM – Police and the FBI are investigating a bombing at the Satanic Temple in Salem.
Salem police said someone threw an explosive device onto the porch of the building on Bridge Street at about 4:15 a.m. on Monday. The damage the device caused was not discovered until approximately 4 p.m. Monday afternoon.
No one was in the building at the time, according to police.
“Horrific act of attempted terrorism”
The Satanic Temple co-founder says luckily the center wasn’t open. “It can’t be overstated that this was definitely a horrific act of attempted terrorism and people could be hurt,” said Lucien Greaves, cofounder and spokesperson for The Satanic Temple.
State Police bomb technicians responded to make sure the device was no longer a danger. The building was swept for additional devices by K9s.
https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/bombing-salem-satanic-temple-massachusetts/
“That B**ch Got Knocked the F**k Out!” – Thugs Brutally Assault Teenage Girl Until She’s Unconscious While Witnesses Loudly Cheer and Record Attack (VIDEO)
by Cullen Linebarger Apr. 10, 2024 8:00 pm148 Comments
Shocking footage has emerged showing a helpless white female Greenwich High School student being brutally assaulted by multiple youths while witnesses loudly cheered and recorded the attack.
The Connecticut Centinal reported the incident occurred in Byram Park in Greenwich, CT, around 8:25 pm on April 9th.
The footage starts with the victim getting beat up by two individuals. They kick, punch, and drag her across the ground while onlookers gleefully yell and start taping the assault.
WATCH:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/04/that-bch-got-knocked-fk-thugs-brutally-assault/
SURPRISE: House BLOCKS Bill to Renew FISA Warrantless Spy Program After Push from President Trump – Here Are the 19 Republicans Who Voted to Defy Tyranny
by Cullen Linebarger Apr. 10, 2024 8:20 pm57 Comments
Jim Hoft previously reported that the House of Representatives appeared poised to pass legislation to continue their FISA warrantless spying on American citizens and even gave themselves a corrupt carveout from surveillance.
As Gateway Pundit readers know, FISA was used to spy on Donald Trump’s presidential campaign illegally.
But in a surprise move Wednesday, 19 House Republicans joined with Democrats to vote the move to start debate on a bill to reauthorize the nation’s warrantless spy program. The move came after Trump urged Republicans to “KILL FISA.”
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/04/surprise-house-blocks-bill-renew-fisa-warrantless-spy/
Post
See new posts
Conversation
Libs of TikTok
@libsoftiktok
Hundreds of illegals arrived at Penn Station in NYC in middle of the night. They are believed to have been originally transported from Texas.
Democrats turned NYC into a sanctuary city. NYC voted for this. Texas should send more!
https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1778064041195491412
(Richard: Most of the illegals in NYC were send by Biden)
Miami Herald
Crime concerns grow as members of a violent Venezuelan gang arrive in American cities
Antonio Maria Delgado
Tue, April 9, 2024 at 4:30 AM CDT·9 min read
692
1 / 2
Crime concerns grow as members of a violent Venezuelan gang arrive in American cities
As thousands of Venezuelans fleeing from the Nicolás Maduro regime seek refuge in the United States, members of a violent gang that has already triggered crime waves in a number of Latin American countries are hiding among them, causing concern among U.S. officials fearing that they now seek to set up shop in major American cities.
Rising from a Venezuelan prison and quickly expanding to become a sort of umbrella organization for other gangs, the so-called Tren de Aragua (Aragua Train) for years dominated crime in vast areas of the South American country, specializing in a long list of crimes ranging from extortion, car-theft and kidnapping to drug-trafficking, prostitution and murder for hire.
As an estimated 7.7 millions Venezuelans left their homes to migrate to other countries in the past 10 years, the gang saw in the exodus an opportunity to grow exponentially, increasing its ranks from the estimated 400 members in Venezuela to an army of more than 3,000 strong reportedly operating now in Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, Peru and Central America, in addition to their country of origin.
And now they are attempting to establish a beachhead in the United States, said Miami U.S. Rep. María Elvira Salazar.
The group “has been associated with a crime wave across Latin America. For example, there has been a 700% increase in kidnappings in Santiago de Chile associated with the presence of this gang. And this major crime threat has now arrived in the United States,” she said, adding that the beating of a police officer in New York City and two recent murders attributed to the gang are just “a taste of what’s to come if we don’t start getting serious about this threat.”
In a letter to President Biden, Salazar and other Republican lawmakers asked him to designate the gang as a Transnational Criminal Organization, arguing that the Tren de Aragua “is an invading criminal army from a prison in Venezuela that has spread their brutality and chaos to U.S. cities and small towns.”
“If left unchecked, they will unleash an unprecedented reign of terror, mirroring the devastation it has already inflicted in communities throughout Central and South America, most prominently in Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, and Peru. The breadth of Tren de Aragua’s operations encompasses murder, drug and human trafficking, sex crimes, extortion, and kidnapping, among other brutalities. It is clear that most state and local law enforcement agencies are not yet prepared to handle the magnitude of this grave threat,” the lawmakers wrote in the March 14 letter.
The designation would give the federal government the ability to impose sanctions on the mega-gang and its members, making it easier to freeze assets and restrict their travel and would also prompt U.S. federal agencies to prioritize the threat posed by the gang.
News reports of the arrival of Tren de Aragua in American cities is alarming members of the Venezuelan community living in the United States, who fear the gang will end up giving a bad name to all migrants from the South American country.
Patrica Andrade, an activist whose organization Venezuela Awareness Foundation has been helping migrants coming to South Florida for years, is quick to point out that gang members do not represent the character of Venezuelans coming into the U.S.
“The Venezuelan community, most of which has been rooted in the United States for many years, is made up of scientists, doctors, bankers, teachers, health care personnel and businessmen, who have made very important contributions to this nation,” she said in a recent statement.
“Because of this, we see with shock and sadness what is happening with some Venezuelans who have recently emigrated to the country and unfortunately have committed serious and atrocious criminal acts that we reject, because their behavior is not what characterizes the Venezuelan community,” she added.
Trouble in Times Square
Public awareness of the gang’s presence in New York was heightened earlier this year by a viral video showing alleged gang members beating up a couple of police officers in Times Square.
The officers, who were telling a group of immigrants gathering on West 42nd Street in Manhattan that they had to move on, were wrestled to the ground and severely kicked. Two of the suspects who were later arrested were identified as Tren de Aragua members, officials later told the New York Post.
The incident scandalized the city, but it is only one example of a series of run-ins between police and asylum seekers living in the streets of New York. According to local media reports, the city received more than 100,000 migrants since the spring of 2022, overwhelming local shelters and prompting a new wave of street crime that includes a sharp increase in pickpocketing and cell phone thefts.
Some of the arrests recently made in relation to the crime wave have been Venezuelan migrants. Although it has not been firmly established if those arrested have Tren de Aragua affiliations, the Venezuelan gang is often blamed by the local media for the heightened sense of lawlessness prevalent in the city.
That alleged gang members are preying on unsuspecting Times Square pedestrians has a simple explanation, said former senior DEA Special Agent Michael Brown, who has been monitoring gang activities in major American cities.
As newcomers to New York, a city that already has 24 active gangs, Tren de Aragua members are likely to have a difficult time in barging into the territories of other groups, he said. “They will not be in a position to launch an incursion into existing gang territory, therefore their source of revenue will have to be the general public through random robberies, assaults in the public space,” he said.
No Fear
And what most concerns U.S. officials is that members of South American gangs, such as the Tren de Aragua and El Salvador’s MS-13, are normally very young and have no fear of the police.
“They really hate the police and they are more than willing to aggressively attack and engage the police,” Brown, global director of counter-narcotics technology at Rigaku Analytical Devices, said.
Ivan Simonovis, a former police officer who served as the Venezuelan opposition’s commissioner for special security and intelligence, has been tracking the operations of the Tren de Aragua for some time and warns that its members have been quietly entering different areas of the U.S., including Florida, Chicago and New York.
“What they are doing now is setting up their networks, scouting the new environment and establishing their work structures, which was the way they entered Colombia, Chile and Peru. Once they identify the opportunities, they then move into recruiting people for their new operations,” he said.
While gang members normally shy away from public attention, Simonovis said he was not surprised by news of the beating of police officers in New York. “These are people that grew up in a country where there is very little respect for the law,” he said. “They don’t quite understand the concept of authority and normally are little inclined to obey instructions.”
Alleged murders
As shocking as the Times Square attack might have been to New Yorkers, a recent murder case in South Florida is the one that best illustrates the violence associated with the gang in Venezuela.
José Luis Sánchez Valera, a 43-year-old retired Venezuelan police officer who lived in Doral, was lured by women into a hotel room in Miami in late November and killed after he was abducted in the parking lot.
According to a Miami-Dade Police report, Sánchez left his home around 10 p.m. on Nov. 27 and went to La Quinta Inn Hotel and Suites, 3501 NW 42 Ave., to meet with a woman in one of the rooms. Four hours later, he left the hotel through a side exit to the parking lot and was abducted by three men upon entering his vehicle.
Hours later, two of the abductors went to the victim’s apartment and demanded jewelry from his roommate. He was told by the armed assailants that they belonged to the Tren de Aragua, according to the police report.
They left after being getting the contents of a small safe belonging to the retired police officer without hurting the roommate, but Sánchez’s body, hands and feet bound with tape, was later found inside his vehicle. The autopsy showed that the cause of death was mechanical asphyxia and the death was ruled a homicide.
Modus operandi
Cases like the Sanchez murder are common in Venezuela, where gang members often abduct victims suspected of having secret fortunes and torture them in order to gain access to the hidden wealth. Sometimes the victims are allowed to go free after the gangs take their money, given the low probability of their going for help to a local police force often seen as corrupt and in alliance with the gangs. But sometimes the gangs kill the victims to eliminate witnesses.
While the link to the gang is not as clear cut as in the Doral murder, the Feb. 22 killing of Laken Riley in Georgia is also being used to describe the threat posed by the gang. The Augusta University nursing student was killed by Venezuelan migrant José Antonio Ibarra, who had entered the U.S. illegally.
Riley, who had disappeared while jogging on the grounds of the University of Georgia, was found dead at Oconee Forest Park near Lake Herrick of blunt force trauma injuries. Ibarra was arrested and is believed to have acted alone, but his brother later grabbed the spotlight after local media reported that had tattoos on his neck of Tren de Aragua symbols.
Brown, the former DEA special agent, agrees that law enforcement officials, particular those overseeing the U.S.-Mexico border, need additional tools in order to check more effectively the background of the migrants coming in.
“We have literally thousands of potentially very dangerous gang members, or young men looking for gang associations, openly walking across the border. Some of them will seek a legitimate stay in the United States, but a large percentage is going to join the gangs because they represent an external fraternity for young men who don’t have anywhere to go,” he said.
“So if you have thousands of young people coming with no job, no opportunity, what are they going to do? They’re not going just to stand in line for welfare cards. They are going to join gangs and join that fraternity,” he added. “That is the danger America faces, especially in sanctuary cities.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/crime-concerns-grow-members-violent-093000448.html