Are militia fanatics a real threat to America?

“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.”

That’s the 2nd Amendment, and although it is in grave need of updating, is nevertheless a part of the Constitution.  And the Supreme Court now says that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.  The question arises over just how far private militias can go in enforcement.

About half the states maintain laws regulating private militias.  Wyoming forbids them entirely.  In states that do not outlaw them, private militias are limited only by the criminal laws that apply to all of society.  In other words, many states and the federal government believe that these militias are not necessary for the control of law and order and discourage their formation.  Unfortunately, this doesn’t dampen the enthusiasm of these self-proclaimed gun-totin fanatics.



Schaeffer Cox



In Alaska three of these wingnuts are on trial for compiling a huge arsenal of weapons and plotting the murder of government officials.  Isn’t Alaska where another gun freak by the name of Sarah Palin comes from?  The leader is Schaeffer Cox and his two henchmen on trial with him are Coleman Barney and Lonnie Vernon. 

Their organization, Alaska Peacemakers Militia, was preparing to “…take up arms against the government, and ‘be sufficiently armed and equipped to sustain a take-over of the ‘government’ or become a new government in the event of a ‘government collapse.’”

In the process they would kill two government officials for every one militia member killed, or as they expressed it, “241” (2 for 1).  In the trial there’s the typical defense of ensnarement using an informant.  The three were portrayed as devout Christians only trying to defend their family and themselves.  And they have supporters such as Norm Olson, founder of the Michigan Militia, who finds nothing wrong with what the gang of three is doing.

Norm Olson

The next question is just how many of these lunatic groups are currently loose in the U.S.?  According to a special report, there are some 411 with the largest group the Michigan Militia with over 10,000 members spread out over almost all of the state’s 88 counties.  Now that’s scary for local residents when you consider the Michigan Militia agrees with the tactics of Schaeffer Cox and his Alaska Peacemakers Militia.  Cox also has a group called the 2^nd Amend. Task Force.          

In 2010 Cox was accused of choking his wife and in the weeks following was arrested during a police interview with the residents of a home where he attempted to force his way in with a knife and a .380-caliber semiautomatic weapon.  During his pretrial hearing Cox “denied the legitimacy of the Alaska state court system.”  His statement was: “I am a sovereign, a man of peace, but capable of war.”  These people are completely off the spool.

Crackpot Schaeffer supporter:

In more twisted antics, Cox tried to serve papers on a Judge for being a criminal by serving the state, then told a state trooper that his (Cox) militia “troopers” being “outmanned, outgunned and we could probably have you all dead in one night.”  He took on the sovereignty position again claiming that according to the Constitution, he was now required to resist all means against him in order not to be a supporter of the government.  This is so far in right field it is chilling.

NRA militia

Last but certainly not least, where does the National Rifle Assn. (NRA) stand on militias like the above.  Brady Campaign V.P. Dennis Henigan says, “The militias' view that the Second Amendment protects our other rights, by ensuring the potential for armed insurrection against the government, is indistinguishable from the long-held constitutional ideology of the National Rifle Association.”

Henigan quoted an NRA official as saying, "the Second Amendment . . . is literally a loaded gun in the hands of the people held to the heads of government."  Not to be outdone, the NRA Executive Director Wayne LaPierre exclaimed to last year's Conservative Political Action Conference that our rights as Americans mean little unless we are ready to defend them against the government by force of arms.  This is even beyond terrifying.

GAY MARRIAGE: do you want it or not? The Bible doesn’t oppose it

Caitlin Stark of CNN has “done the numbers” on gay marriage and has come up with the following results:

• 11 countries worldwide have legal same-sex marriage
• There are 646,000 same-sex couple households in the U.S., as of 2010
• 3.5% of Americans identify themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual
• Same-sex couple households have grown by 80.4% from 2000 to 2010
• Only 48% of Americans oppose gay marriage in 2012, compared to 68% in 1996
• 115,064 same-sex couple households in the U.S. have children
• The District of Columbia has the highest percentage of same-sex households in the U.S. at 1.8%

These numbers all come from qualified sources like the Gallup poll.  And the most significant findings in relation to the November elections are the facts that there has been a surge of same-sex couples since 2000, and the opposition to gay marriage has dropped by 20 points.  That’s almost 30 percent.  That would seem to indicate that either the religious right has lost much of its influence over the issue, or just a lot of Americans have finally opened their minds.

In another Gallup survey taken the first of May, 50 percent of respondents want same-sex marriage compared to 48 percent who don’t.  And although the Dems. were solidly for and the GOP was mostly against, Independents approved at the rate of 53 percent with 44 percent against.  Interestingly, 40 percent of Americans said that President Obama’s decision to back same-sex marriage will have an effect on their vote in November. 

The President will accept the Democratic Party’s nomination in North Carolina in September.  That state just approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.  The much needed Independent vote indicated 23 percent less likely to vote for Obama, 11 percent more likely.  However, overall 60 percent of Americans were unfazed.  Yet on the other side of the aisle, the Republican Party chairman claims most Americans agree with Mitt Romney’s stand against.

Barack Obama is the first U.S. President to come out in favor of the ultimate right for gays.  It will no doubt garner the gay vote, and he didn’t have the conservative religious right anyway.  So what’s the take down?  The question is just where does that 66 percent of Independent voters stand on the matter that haven’t indicated being for or against?  Also, there have been rumbles in the Hispanic community of dissent but probably won’t cost him their votes.

“According to a report released in May 2011 by the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association, same-sex relations are still criminalized in 76 countries, and in five of those countries the death penalty can be applied (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Mauritania and Sudan).”  From the GlobalPublicSquare blog, the Netherlands was the first to make it legal followed by countries like Canada, Norway, Sweden and Spain.

President Obama on gay marriage:

But in many issues such as this, whether you are a devout Christian or a confirmed atheist, in the U.S. it ultimately comes down to what is in the Bible.  Say what you want but we do put a lot of faith in the “good book,” regardless of our interpretations.  The Bible is well documented and if you ignore the reworking from generation to generation, the original substance usually survives.  So many will be surprised that, “Nowhere does the Bible actually oppose homosexuality.”

Shocked?  Southern Baptists are probably clicking off my blog right now, if I didn’t already lose them with the headline.  The above is a quote from Daniel Helminiak, who was ordained a priest in Rome, is a theologian, psychotherapist and author of “What the Bible Really Says about homosexuality.”  He is currently a professor of psychology at the University of West Georgia.  He says the Bible is “ho-hum on homosexuality” unless you talk of abuse and injustice.

In the above article link, Helminiak talks about biblical passages re. male-male sex, resulting in their women exchanging “natural intercourse for unnatural.”  Although the apostle Paul called this dishonorable and unseemly, he added that even he was held in dishonor for preaching about Christ.  Also describing homosexuality as an abomination, Paul did not condemn male-male sex, and he never used ethical terms in its description.

Just how the GOP will use Obama’s decision against him in November will say a lot about how low they will stoop to win an election.  I wonder what Karl Rove, whose father was gay, would do with the President’s decision to back same-sex marriage?  Rove recently accused him of politicizing it.  But there is one thing for sure, we know that the Tea Party will do everything in their power to turn this into a nasty attack on Obama.  Like all the rest of their unscrupulous tactics.

Gun nuts claim gun control advocates espouse an American Holocaust

This charge comes from a site called Front Porch Politics who says they believe in America.  Maybe, but as it turns out in this post and others like it, it appears to me that they believe in a dark America shaded by radical conservative causes.  As an example, another recent post was, “Barack Obama’s Lawyer Admits Birth Certificate is forged.”  I Googled the title and came up primarily with a bunch of wacko sites that appear to have little credibility.  Sites like TeaPartyTribune.com.

The blame for this accusation goes to the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) and its Exec. Dir. Josh Horwitz who is quoted as saying: “The concept of a ‘monopoly on force’ might sound foreign or even frightening to Americans that take great pride in our revolutionary beginnings, but it is the fundamental organizing principle of any political entity, including the United States.”  What could anyone find wrong with that with even a minimum trust in government?

But the Front Porch fanatics do by calling Horwitz’s statement “foreign” and “frightening,” then proceeding to rewrite the Revolutionary War to show why every individual in America should be allowed to own and carry a gun, anywhere they want, and with absolutely no training whatsoever.  With the gun worshippers it always comes down to that.  Don’t you brain dead people understand that we are no longer fighting for our freedom.  Like the Civil War, it’s over.

However, the National Rifle Assn. (NRA) has managed to embed in these peoples’ minds the fact that we are once again fighting the U.S. Government in a 21^st Century reenactment of the Revolutionary War.  We aren’t.  As an example, FP compares Josh Horwitz’s citing of Max Weber, a German political economist and sociologist as an example of extreme right politics because of Weber having been associated with Karl Marx.  So has Barack Obama which is also absurd.

If you want to see who Max Weber was, see it here on Wikipedia.  According to Wikipedia, Weber is often cited, with Emile Durkheim and Karl Marx as one of the three principal architects of modern social science.  The gun craze phenomena can certainly be considered an integral part of modern social science.  Horwitz is focused on his belief that if the Constitution is working, and we must admit it is except when we consider Congress, peaceful means should be used.



Arizona immigration sweeps



Horwitz’s opinion was in answer to a tweet that asked the question: “So govt rounding up citizens based on relig/ethnic id would not warrant armd resistance if courts bless as constitutional”  They do this every day in Arizona, at least pertaining to Hispanics, and so far I don’t see the gun lobby’s militia coming to their defense.  FP, quoting an Examiner.com writer by the name of Kurt Hofmann, would have Latinos in Arizona take up arms to fight their battle.

Arizona’s anti-immigration mess is tragic, but at least so far they have elected to take the peaceful way.  And that is in spite of the Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s and Russell Pearce’s who alone could provoke a revolution.  FP states that we have a “sacred” duty to check our government; there goes that biblical connection again.  We do and if we don’t like what it does, we vote to change things.  That’s where the Constitution works and if you don’t like it, change it. 

And of course no article about guns could be complete without waving the 2^nd amendment in our faces.  FP says, “we possess a Second Amendment for a reason and it isn’t for hunting. It is for self preservation, for the protection of life and property and to keep tyrants in check.”  The last time I looked, we had a police department and the U.S. military to do that.  And where I come from they do it very well.

But here is a Front Porch statement that is alarming: “When they step outside of their bounds we must hold them accountable.  This is not that we take up arms against them every time they violate the Constitution. On most occasions, we simply seek to do it peacefully at the ballot box.”  It almost sounds like the initiation speech for a group of militants bent on overthrowing the U.S. Government.  Probably not but they bear watching.

Arizona competes with the Indy 500 in its race to ridicule

Laurie Roberts

Laurie Roberts, columnist for the Arizona Republic, said it best: “Aaaaaaaaand we're off to the races once again,” referring to Sec. of State Ken Bennett’s recent move to demand President Obama’s birth certificate before guaranteeing him a place on Arizona’s November election ballot.  Bennett says he is not a birther and actually thinks Obama was born in Hawaii.  What we’re talking about here is a group of crackpots called the Tea Party that have Bennett by the b*&%s.

Bennett just so happens to be the co-chairman for Mitt Romney’s Republican presidential campaign in Arizona, and Romney must be wondering now about his judgment in this matter.  Unfortunately, he’d have a hard time finding an un-looney Republican in Arizona.  On an Arizona looney scale, Bennett would come in around a 5 compared to the likes of Gov. Jan Brewer, Joe Arpaio, Russell Pearce and former county attorney Andrew Thomas.

Ken Bennett, Pres. Obama

It is so pathetic that it is hard to figure out how the average Arizonan can live with this demeaning treatment by their friends across the country, yet still elect the same group of idiots to run the state government.  Just combine an inept and clueless Gov. Brewer with a bunch of Republican legislators who are only interested in lining their pockets, re-election, and loose guns and you have inane government.  Some of you Arizona residents must be smart enough to see this.

But wait.  There’s another factor involved in the mix of idiocy and incompetency.  Ken Bennett is considering a run for governor in 2014 and in Arizona, if you want to win anything politically, you’d better have the TP fruitcakes on your side.  But interestingly, it didn’t help former state Sen. Russell Pearce when voters booted him out of office.  Russell is running again which just takes Arizona’s comical political climate to a new level that he could still find serious supporters.

Ken Bennett was asked just why he decided to raise the Obama birther issue after it had been verified so many times before.  His answer was that he was acting on behalf of a constituent.  Who was the constituent?  He couldn’t remember.  Ludicrous. 

HILARIOUS Birther Madness in Arizona: The Movie

Can you believe that these people get away with this crap?  It’s been a while since Bennett requested the certification from Hawaii and he hasn’t yet received anything, according to his office.  The last word I heard from Hawaii was that they would fulfill the request but that the Sec. of State had not proved that he needed it.  The man filled out a form he got online and sent his $5 money order, and he still couldn’t get it right?  Based on his predecessor, he’d make a great governor.



Brewer finger wagging on another issue



Gov. Brewer, in one of her few lucid moments, vetoed legislation last year that would have required presidential candidates to confirm that they are a “natural-born citizen.”  She didn’t want to give the Sec. of State—that would be Ken Bennett—the authority to decide a candidate’s eligibility.  Brewer probably had more delusions of doing this herself.  But now we have to decide whether Bennett did what he did for the TPers or is he just pissed at the Gov?   

Laurie Roberts confirmed that Kenny-boy had not asked the other candidates, including his close pal, Mitt Romney, for their verification of citizenship.  But in President Obama’s case she laments: “So if the state of Hawaii decides that the state of Arizona is certifiably insane and refuses to comply, will Bennett refuse to put the president of the United States on Arizona's ballot?

“That’s possible,” Bennett said.

Roberts adds, “Yes, because it's been 10 minutes or so since we were a finger-wagging, militia-loving, gun-toting, sovereignty-seeking circus sideshow on the national landscape.”  God, don’t you love this woman?

And it’s off to the races again!

The NRA’s imaginary world of guns for self-defense

The National Rifle Assn. (NRA) has repeatedly cited the 2^nd Amendment and the need for firearm protection in self-defense issues.  It’s even gone so far as to push its “Stand your Ground” law that allows the cowboys to shoot first and ask questions later.  A recent post I did on these points out the fallacy in the legislation with the result that even more will die unnecessarily from stupid laws like this if the NRA isn’t stopped dead in its tracks.



NRA weapons training



Wayne LaPierre, the wacky head of the NRA, had nothing more to say about the Trayvon Martin killing by George Zimmerman than deriding the American media for “sensational reporting from Florida.”  This bunch of thugs has no remorse for a black teenager who just wanted to be left alone.  Zimmerman has claimed self-defense, and a doctor confirmed that he had a broken nose, bloodied, and had bruises. You can see his police booking video, below:

Dennis Henigan, Vice President of the Brady Campaign, comments on the surveys the NRA uses to prove the “good guys” need their firearms for protection but calls our attention to the ambiguity of their findings.  The Harvard School of Public Health conducted two telephone surveys asking about the self-defense of guns.  This was submitted to a panel for their opinions of the legality of claimed self-defense use.



Brady Campaign's Dennis Henigan



It found that, “…over half were rated as probably illegal by a majority of the judges.”  Further that, “…over two thirds of the self-defense gun incidents were reported by only six respondents, with three respondents claiming fifty, twenty and fifteen self-defense uses of guns each within the previous five years.”  These gun bubbas are so proud of their weapons that they feel obligated to pump up the figures.  But it is an indication of the credibility of what the NRA uses.

Additional analysis of the survey showed that the respondent’s response was suspicious in that it sounded like it might have been aggressive rather than defensive.  And research by the University of Pennsylvania provided the fact that gun-toters were 4 to 5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those without a gun.  Data from the FBI find that less than 3 percent of annual gun homicides are justifiable self-defense killings.

And in another Huff Post article by Jess Coleman, “How the NRA hijacked America,” he reminds us of all the mass school shootings from Columbine to Oikos University.  He laments that both Congress and the NRA have kept silent.  The White House did react after the Tucson shooting that injured former U.S. representative Gabby Giffords, but then also fell silent.  Americans live their everyday lives in potential fear while lawmakers, including Obama, do nothing.

Coleman reiterates that due to the NRA’s efforts, the United States is home to almost 300 million privately owned guns.  That is close to one for each individual in this country, although we know that many NRA households are more than adequately stocked.  He continues over how the NRA ramrodded the “gun show loophole, which currently makes it possible for criminals and fugitives to purchase guns without a background check.” 

Lee Harvey Oswald

Because there was a period in the past where the NRA was more cooperative, Coleman asks what happened?  He answers this through Jill Lepore’s book, “Battleground America,” and the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was able to buy his rifle through a magazine and have it delivered by the U.S. Postal Service.  This prompted the Gun Control Act and scared the hell out of the NRA.  From then on it was to the trenches led by the 2^nd Amendment.

The Supreme Court has agreed with the right to bear arms but seems to be guarded as to whether that means just in one’s home, or outside that domain.  But it was Chief Justice Warren Burger who said, this interpretation is "one of the greatest pieces of fraud ... by special interests groups I have ever seen in my lifetime."  We’ve all heard the arguments over what James Madison referred to in the creating of a militia for protection.  We haven’t defined just what he meant.

Facebook arrogance re. privacy is reason for concern over stock offering

Mark Zuckerberg, founder and the leader of Facebook, has repeatedly shown his arrogance in the selecting, handling and sharing of Facebook user data.  Take a look at what results from a Google search of “Facebook Privacy Issues.”  In November of 2011, the feds accused the company of engaging in “unfair and deceptive” practices, only settling after ordering the company to respect the privacy wishes of its users, subjecting it to regular privacy audits for 20 years.

That’s heavy stuff for a company some of you trust your most private data to.  But the smart ones don’t and they have finally been heard from in a recent AP-CNBC poll revealing that 57 percent of Facebook users never click on ads or other sponsored content.  The obvious reason, they are concerned it will be used in a way that breaches their privacy.  Another 26 percent hardly ever do this and only 4 percent indicate they often click on ads.

This could be the primary reason that General Motors, the third-largest advertiser in the U.S., will drop Facebook from all its advertising.  Apparently it didn’t sell cars.  Considering the Facebook public stock offering coming this month, it exposes the riskiness of the overall Facebook model, according to Brian Wieser of Pivotal Research on MSN/Money.  And it’s not just Facebook; another large consumer products company thinks it may not be worth the money spent.

Mark Zuckerberg

I did a blog recently, “What U.S. company do you hate the most?”  Guess who came out number 1.  That’s right.  Facebook.  Here’s a quote from the entry: “Facebook has the lowest customer satisfaction score from the American Customer Satisfaction Index.“  Further, “The company’s customer service was described as poor by 25.9 percent of users in 2011.”  In most industries that would spell disaster but fortunately for Zuckerberg, he holds the edge.

He’s giving away a communications vehicle that is absolutely free.  All he asks is that you give him all your private information to use in any way he chooses.  And there lies the problem of this whole mess.  It translates into yet another distrust by users where 54 percent said they would not feel comfortable using Facebook for financial transaction in purchasing goods or services.  Just imagine what that kind of thinking would do to a site like Amazon.com.

Watch this alarming video on your lack of Facebook privacy:

Analysts say this kind of e-commerce is necessary if the company is to survive.  But only 8 percent said they would feel safe in buying through Facebook.  These are all figures that, if they aren’t changed and changed quickly, could provide such a negative picture of this social media that it begins to lose both users and more advertisers. I have followed Mark Zuckerberg on his privacy raids since they first started and he appears completely clueless on the merits of the issue.

This has all had its effects on the current stock offering with an evaluation of around $100 billion, with half in the poll saying that is overvalued.  That number jumps to 62 percent with active investors.  There is also no consensus whether Facebook would make a good investment which does not bode well for the long term.  And Zuckerberg garners only 18 percent in those who have confidence in him as a leader of the company.  Has he just been lucky so far?

For as long as I can remember, users have been suspicious of Facebook’s use of their personal data.  In the AP_CNBC poll, which was conducted May 3 through May 7, 59 percent of respondents said they had “little or no trust in Facebook to keep their information private.”  Yet the company has grown to 901 million monthly users worldwide.  The answer is really simple, just give the very minimum of information to identify yourself and never your birth date.

Finally, an online survey the pollsters asked readers to respond to asked the following question: Do you trust Facebook to keep your personal information safe?  The results:

Total of 34,564 votes

Yes-2.1%-740 votes

No-93.7%-32,390 votes

Not Sure-4.1%-1,434 votes

More calls to repeal the 2nd Amendment

There is another debate going on re. whether to repeal the 2^nd Amendment with a pro/con between Steve Zorbaugh and Elizabeth Roberts, both Pennsylvanians, and both very eloquent.  However, Roberts places much of her reasoning against repeal in her interpretation of what the Founding Fathers intended in their amendment plus a general distrust in the American government.  Zorbaugh shoots all this NRA malarkey down and makes a very strong case in favor.

But Zorbaugh starts with an interesting statement that I had to research further.  He said: “There are 788,258 words in a standard King James Bible. The word ‘gun’ isn't one of them.”  That would indicate a direct connection between religion and guns, and I found that there is.  At least in the minds of the gun worshippers.  There is a lawyer by the name of Herb Titus who is part of the Gun Owners of America who draws this parallel between the 2^nd Amendment and religion.

The article in the second site, above, exclaims that “…the Tea Party movement emerges out of the confluence of different strands of the far right, including Christian Reconstructionism.”  We all know that TPers are staunch gun rights supporters and gun toters.  Further, “The militia movement and Christian Reconstructionism both contend that our current civil government, most especially the federal government, is illegitimate.” At the very least, scary.

Cass Sunstein, Constitutional Lawyer and U.S. Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs on repealing 2nd Amendment:

Larry Pratt, Exec. Dir. of GOA said: “we’re not really talking about a right but an obligation, as creatures of God, to protect the life that was given them.”  Now we don’t just go back to biblical days where there is a fantasized association between gun and religion, but according to Pratt it came right from the mouth of God.  More on this in a later post.  It is beyond me where these maniacs come up with this crap but of course the National Rifle Assn. (NRA) comes to mind.

Zorbaugh refutes Roberts’ Founding Fathers drivel in one compact, precise statement: “The justification for gun ownership that existed in 1787 no longer exists today.”  But he follows up with a multitude of other refutations that should make a brainwashed NRA membership think.  But it won’t.  He does acknowledge the need then to have protection against the King of England and against unfriendly Native American tribes that we confiscated our land from. 

But that was over two-hundred years ago.  Things have changed.  The only thing outside one’s God worshipped today is guns, not thrones.

Zorbaugh proclaims: “After 225 years, the Second Amendment has clearly outlived its original purpose.”  He is looking for a new Constitutional Amendment that will value the community’s right to being safe over the demands of the gun bubbas that want to carry their weapons anywhere they want to at anytime they want to.  And the only way this can be accomplished is with stronger gun control. 

One good reason for more control is Philip Cook’s statement that the cost our society pays each year to guarantee gun ownership exceeds $100 billion and is growing annually at an alarming rate.”  This comes from Cook’s book, “Gun Violence: The Real Costs.”

There is one solution affirms the pro-repeal author.  Require gun owners to carry insurance on their weapons just like they are required to do on their automobiles, for potential death and injuries.  This would at least mandate registration which we all know would send the NRA into its next aberration.  It would be worth the try just to see Wayne LaPierre, the organization’s CEO and Exec, Vice President, come off the spool…again.