Guns, Drugs, And Booze: The Bipartisan Support For Prohibition

It’s been noticed more than a few times that there aren’t many substantive differences between the Republicans and Democrats. While this is true in many ways for the parties themselves, the Left and Right certainly differ on a range of issues from welfare to abortion to gay rights.

What they have in common — at least the mainstream varieties — is a desire to use the state to shape society in whatever way they see fit. As Andrew Napolitano put it, “We have migrated from a two-party system into a one-party system, the big-government party. There’s a democratic wing that likes taxes and wealth transfers and assaults on commercial liberties and there’s a republican wing that likes war and deficits and assaults uncivil liberties.” And both parties love prohibition, just of different things.

Alcohol Prohibition

There aren’t many people left who believe the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s was a good idea. Interestingly enough, it was the progressives of the time that pushed for that. As historian William Leuchtenburg noted, “It was a movement that was embraced by progressives.” On the other side, in the words of historian Daniel Okrent, were the “… economic conservatives who … pushed so hard for repeal.”

Prohibition turned out to be a disaster. A report from the Cato Institute found that after Prohibition passed in 1920, homicide rates increased, corruption increased, alcohol-related deaths were unchanged, and after a short dip in 1921, alcohol consumption returned to what it had been before the law was passed. Furthermore, in the midst of this chaos, Al Capone and organized crime came to power. Indeed, black markets and prohibition go together like peas and carrots.

Drug Prohibition

In the past, it was usually the progressives who wanted to use the state to tell people what they could and could not put in their own bodies. However, something must have changed among conservatives as the Right has generally been at the vanguard of the War on Drugs (although, with plenty of help from many on the Left). In 1971, Richard Nixon decided to try prohibition all over again, but this time with cocaine, heroin, and marijuana.

And of course, it has failed in every way imaginable.

According to the National Institute of Drug Abuse, “Illicit drug use in America has been increasing.” In 2012, “9.2 percent of the population” had used illicit drugs in the last month, “… up from 8.3 percent in 2002.” So drug use has actually gone up despite spending over a trillion dollars on this massive boondoggle.

Meanwhile, the United States has the largest prison population in the world. Despite having only 5 percent of the world’s population, the United States has 25 percent of the world’s prison population. A large percentage of these prisoners are in prison for nothing more than non-violent drug charges.

Some think this is counterproductive and immoral. Others, like Michael Gerson, believe that those who want to legalize drugs have “second-rate values.” First-rate values include locking drug addicts in cages. So in accordance with Gerson’s first-rate values, instead of trying to help these poor addicts rebuild their lives, the government declared war on the substances, and thereby, the addicts themselves.

And to wage this war has required a massively invasive police state. “Victimless” crimes don’t leave many witnesses (or at least not many who want to talk about it). So the government must use more bellicose means. According to the ACLU, there are an estimated 45,000 SWAT raids every year, and only about 7 percent are for hostage situations. The vast majority are for drugs. These raids sometimes end tragically. For example, David Hooks was shot twice while face down on the ground in one raid, and a baby was put into a coma when a flash bang was dropped in another.

The evidence also shows that legalization works. Glenn Greenwald notes that “Since Portugal enacted its decriminalization scheme in 2001, drug usage in many categories has actually decreased when measured in absolute terms”; and Forbes points out that “drug abuse is down by half.”

And despite some haranguing from conservatives, Colorado has done just fine since decriminalizing marijuana in 2014.

Gun Prohibition

While conservatives have taken some notes from the progressives of old, progressives certainly haven’t given up on the idea of molding society through prohibition. Fortunately, in the United States, most of the debate about guns has to do with regulation and not prohibition. This is not the case in many other countries. And it has also not been the case in several US cities, until Supreme Court decisions overturned the gun bans in Washington, DC and Chicago. Still, many US cities have extremely arduous gun laws on the books.

John Lott did an extensive study and noted that,

The odds that a typical state experiences a drop in murder or rape after a right-to-carry law is passed merely due to randomness is far less than 0.1 percent. … The average murder rate dropped in 89 percent of the states after the right-to-carry law was passed. … There was a similar decline in rape rates.

Further, to make sure he controlled for every variable imaginable (or didn’t control for variables that would incorrectly skew the data) he ran “20,480 regressions” using every imaginable arrangement of possible criteria and concluded,

… all the violent-crime regressions show the same direction of impact from the concealed-handgun law. The results for murder demonstrated that passing right-to-carry laws caused drops in the crime ranging from 5 to 7.5 percent.

John Lott found twenty-six peer reviewed studies on concealed-carry laws; sixteen showed a reduction in crime, and ten were inconclusive. Not one showed that crime rates increased.

We can all mourn tragic events such as the recent mass shooting in Charleston. But what is obviously problematic about restricting civilian gun use is that only law-abiding citizens will comply; criminals will not. (Like many other such massacres, the Charleston shooting took place in a “gun free” zone.) Indeed, criminals will likely have no harder a time getting guns then they do getting drugs, which means that restricting guns just disarms potential victims. A survey by Gary Kleck made him conclude that there were approximately 2.5 million incidents of defensive gun use each year. Although that number is almost certainly way too high, defensive gun use is still relatively common. For example, during a school shooting in Oklahoma, Mikael Gross and Tracey Bridges retrieved the guns from their vehicles and stopped the shooter before he could kill anyone else.

As stated above, while there are some in the United States who call for extreme restrictions on guns, or bans altogether, for the most part, outright prohibition is only an issue in other countries. Many will point to the higher murder rates in the United States than Britain as proof that gun prohibition stops murder (interestingly, they don’t point to the property crime statistics as they are actually higher in Britain than the US).

But there are major problems with this simplistic analysis. For example, gun ownership has been increasing rapidly in the United States, while gun crime has been falling. In addition, most guns are owned by people in rural areas, then suburban, then urban. Crime rates are exactly the opposite. Further, as Thomas Sowell points out in Intellectuals and Society,

Russia and Brazil have tougher gun control laws than the united States and much higher murder rates. Gun ownership rates in Mexico are a fraction of what they are in the United States, but Mexico’s murder rate is more than double that in the United States. Handguns are banned in Luxembourg but not in Belgium, France or Germany; yet the murder rate in Luxembourg is several times the murder rate in Belgium, France or Germany.

And what about that lower murder rate for Britain? Well, Thomas Sowell again, “London had a much lower murder rate than New York during the years after New York State’s 1911 Sullivan Law imposed very strict gun control, while anyone could buy a shotgun in London with no questions asked in the 1950s.” What matters are the trends, not simplistic and vulgar comparisons. Instead, an international study done at Harvard noted,

To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world.

Finally, when it comes to gun bans, the results are predictably terrible. John Lott again, “Every place around the world that has banned guns appears to have experienced an increase in murder and violent crime rates.” This includes Washington, DC, Chicago, Britain, Ireland, and Jamaica. One British newspaper ran the darkly humorous article “Gun Crime Soaring Despite Ban.” Change the “Despite” to “Because,” and you have an accurate article.


Penn Jillette has half-joked, “If you can convince the gun nuts that the potheads are ok and the potheads that the gun nuts are ok, then everyone’s a libertarian.” Arguments about whether these things should be regulated and how much so would be the subject for a different article. But it’s hard to understand why many liberals think that prohibiting drugs creates black markets with drugs, but that it wouldn’t happen with guns. Does one really think that drug cartels couldn’t add guns to their list of products to push? And the same goes for conservatives in the reverse.

It’s really quite simple; prohibition doesn’t work. Freedom does.

This commentary originally appeared at and is reprinted here under a Creative Commons license.

My Thoughts On The Paris Attacks

Paris, France: Muslim terrorists took the lives of over 120 people. Here are my observations:

I am aghast and flummoxed at the number of Americans who just cannot seem to comprehend the culpability that the U.S. government has in all of this. This only makes sense when one takes into account that the vast majority of Americans only know what the mainstream media tells them. And, without question, our mainstream media is nothing more than a propaganda ministry for Washington, D.C. Without a doubt, the controlled major media in America rivals the controlled major media of Hitler’s Germany or Stalin’s Soviet Union.

Make no mistake about it: the wars in the Middle East are Washington’s wars. The refugee crisis is the direct result of Washington’s wars. G.W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and the continued violent attacks by the Obama administration throughout the Middle East–not to mention, the direct intervention of, and supervision by, the CIA, British intelligence, the Israeli Mossad, and the governments of Turkey and Saudi Arabia–created ISIS. Furthermore, these governmental entities have all helped to arm, sustain, equip, supply–and medically care for–ISIS terrorists.

One needs to understand that violent Muslims have been killing other Muslims for centuries. In fact, the vast majority of the people killed by violent Muslims are other Muslims–NOT Christians and Jews. What happened in Paris happens routinely in Syria.

ISIS is composed of mostly radicalized Saudi Arabian Sunni Muslims. The goal is to dispose of President Assad’s government in Syria as a stepping stone to conquering both Syria and Iran, thus turning those Shia Muslim nations into Sunni Muslim nations. The result of which means Saudi Arabia’s King Salman will become the de facto king of the entire Middle East. It would also mean that King Salman (already the richest man in the world) would single-handedly control the oil of the entire Middle East. And as everyone should already know, King Salman is in the harlot’s bed with virtually the entire western banking and petroleum worlds.

In addition, please understand that Washington’s wars have created hundreds of thousands of grieving Muslim mothers who have watched Bush and Obama’s bombers and drones take the lives of their sons and daughters–AND THEY ARE MAD! The families of these deceased grandfathers, grandmothers, fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, and cousins have made ISIS recruitment EASY. These people know that the western alliance is behind these deaths, and they want justice. Tell me we would react differently if the deaths were members of our families.

Neocons and globalists in Washington, D.C., are using the Shia Muslim people as the proverbial straw man to topple the governments in Iran and Syria, because those Shia Muslim nations care absolutely nothing about getting in bed with the international traders who want to further enrich themselves from the profits that can be made in those countries. The only one who is seriously making war against ISIS is Russia’s Vladimir Putin. And his efforts against the Sunni terrorists began but just weeks ago.

The refugee crisis is a tool of globalists to destabilize the West and help usher in a global Police State. Again, the goal is a global economic system. The Federal Reserve has taken the U.S. and European economies to the brink of collapse. The only thing that globalists can do to circumvent this inevitable collapse is create global panic, global war, and a global Police State. A Europe and America invaded with angry Muslims is just the antidote.

Please understand that the vast majority of refugees are NOT terrorists. They are persecuted Muslims and Christians (and others) who are literally fleeing for their lives. But there is no question that CIA-backed Sunni terrorists have infiltrated these refugees.

Ask yourself, why would refugees seeking safety and protection in other countries want to murder hundreds of citizens within those countries? They know this would completely alienate the country against them and only serve to further endanger the lives of their families. The attacks in Paris were NOT committed by refugees; they were committed by CIA-backed, Saudi-backed, Mossad-backed, Turkey-backed, MI6-backed ISIS terrorists.

Even though the majority of refugees are doubtless harmless people who did not want to leave their homes and did so only for their very survival–and with the knowledge that western operatives have created a radical Muslim Frankenstein–and given the fact that our federal government is making no attempt to vet these refugees, it is foolish for states to accept them. Governors are right to refuse. (If the U.S. government was truly behaving in the interests of peace and was not an active participant in creating war and instability in the Middle East–and thus creating the refugee crisis to begin with–it would be a different story.)

In addition, how did those terrorists successfully pull off these coordinated attacks? How did they get fully-automatic rifles and bombs into Paris? These sand people are NOT that sophisticated. They do NOT have those kinds of connections. Do you think you could successfully get a group of people together and smuggle dozens of automatic weapons and explosives into a European country–and then successfully coordinate a large-scale attack in a high-security major downtown city? The only people capable of such a thing are Special Ops military personnel. In other words, ISIS had help, folks–a LOT of help.

Furthermore, I believe the mainstream media and Washington politicians are setting America up for another 9/11-type attack. Following the Paris attacks, CIA director John Brennan wasted no time saying that ISIS was preparing more attacks against the West. He also criticized America’s privacy protections–meaning the Fourth Amendment and similar impediments to government encroachment of our liberties.

See the report:

CIA Chief Criticises Recent Surveillance Rollbacks In Wake Of Paris Attacks

Really, Mr. Brennan? If you are truly concerned about future terrorist attacks in the United States, why are you not using the power of your agency to help secure America’s borders? After 9/11, the U.S. government did NOTHING to secure our borders. And to this day, our borders are an open sieve. And you, Mr. Brennan, helped to create thousands of additional terrorists; you helped arm them, supply them, and sent Special Ops to help train them. And all you can say to the American people is that we must surrender whatever protections against governmental encroachment we have left? Do you take us for fools?

And when this next terrorist attack against the U.S. occurs, Washington politicians and their toadies in the mainstream media–along with thousands of Christian “leaders”–will blame Islam. They won’t give a second thought to who the real war-makers are.

A well-traveled friend from Germany wrote this in a private email: “The propagation that Muslims in general are thriving to take over the world is mostly radical Christian propaganda and paranoia with the clear intent to pursue their own political agenda and capitalize on fears in the general public. For instance, if you travel through Iran today, the general public is very pro west. The majority of the Iranian people seem to regard their religious leaders with great skepticism. Also, just look at the numbers: there are worldwide about 50% more Christians than Muslims. Militarily, Christian countries outnumber Muslims countries in weapons and forces easily by 20 to one–and this is not even assessing the quality of the weapons. The United States alone has more fighter jets than all Muslim countries put together by a wide margin. And most of the Muslims countries are allies of the Christian west.

“The uprising of ISIS is a direct result of Bush’s [and Obama’s] war on terror. Terrorism is always a type of guerrilla warfare. It cannot take over western countries for lack of organizational structure. It rises in an area of power vacuum as a structured opposition is lacking. The goal of terrorism is to initiate fear, to taunt powers and destabilize existing political structures. They succeed if radical groups spread the fear of the Muslim religion. This then destabilizes the political structure in western countries with radical parties rising. Since ISIS, the neo-Nazis have gained popularity in Germany. The attempt of Muslim terrorism is not to take over the USA or Germany. It is to create enough fear and political opposition in these countries that weakens their resolve to interfere on the ground in countries like Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq.

“Also when thinking of Islam as a religion with world conquering ambitions: there have been major Christian communities all over the Arab world since Islam was founded. Lebanon is mostly Christian. Parts of Turkey, Iraq and Syria are Christian settled and have been for a thousand years or more. The Muslims had centuries to get rid of them but they haven’t. Some of the Christians communities are enclaves totally surrounded by Muslim groups that have peacefully coexisted for hundreds of years. That speaks more for religious tolerance than the reverse.”

I bet the vast majority of readers have never heard nor read about the fact that Christians and Muslims are fighting side-by-side against ISIS in Syria, have you? You haven’t read that NO ONE in the West or in Israel is helping the Assyrian Christian Army in Syria, have you? You haven’t heard that Iran is helping to provide medical assistance and support to the Christians fighting ISIS in Syria, have you? You haven’t heard that Assad’s army in Syria is assisting the Christians in their fight against ISIS, have you? No, you haven’t. The U.S. media and Washington politicians don’t want to tell you about that. It might undermine the anti-Muslim, anti-Iran, anti-Syria propaganda that they have been dishing out 24/7 for the last fourteen years.

See these reports:

Christians, Muslims, Assad Troops Fight As One To Defend Biblical Town From ISIS

Exclusive: Christian Army Fighting ISIS Pleads For U.S. Support: ‘We’re Done’

Note that even though Breitbart should be credited for publishing the above reports, they continue to regurgitate the anti-Assad, anti-Iran propaganda. However, this bias doesn’t change the truth of the efforts of Christians and Muslims fighting together in Syria against ISIS that Breitbart admirably reports. You didn’t hear about this on FOX News, did you?

Then there is this: the first thing the president of France did following the terrorist attacks in Paris was to close the French borders. DUH! I think the fox is already in the henhouse.

Folks, let’s get real: if it wasn’t for Donald Trump, there would not even be a national discussion about America’s illegal immigration problem. However, the one disturbing element to Trump’s rhetoric regarding immigration is his statements that, as president, he would seriously consider closing mosques.

Again, Islam is NOT the problem. We have had mosques in the United States since at least 1929. And there are nearly 3,200 mosques currently in the United States. And none of them has been identified as producing terrorist attacks in America. The terrorists that did participate in the attacks on 9/11 were not even from the United States. They were from SAUDI ARABIA. If we were going to attack a Muslim nation in retaliation for 9/11, why didn’t we attack Saudi Arabia? Come on, folks. Are things not starting to add up?

Either we have freedom of religion for all, or we have it for none. The problem with the rise of Islam in America can only be laid at the doorstep of the Christian Church. If our pastors and churches were doing the job they should be doing of making Christianity relevant to life today (including our political life), the American people would not be losing interest in Christianity; and the spiritual void that other religions (including Islam) are filling would not even exist. THAT problem is NOT an immigration problem or a political problem at all. THAT problem is a spiritual problem. And only our pastors and churches can solve that problem, but they refuse to do it.

Plus, America’s churches are more glorified social clubs than they are anything else. Far, far too many of America’s pastors are more concerned about being politically-correct CEOs or Joel Osteen wannabes than they are about being watchmen and shepherds. It has been a long, long time since a majority of America’s churches were a “pillar and ground of the truth.” (I Tim.3:15) The rise of false religions is merely God’s judgment on the Church for abandoning truth. When truth is abandoned, does it really matter which version of error takes its place? Christians need to look themselves in the mirror and stop blaming the country’s ills on Muslims.

If a president can close mosques, he can close synagogues and churches. Talk about opening Pandora’s Box!

But there is another element to the Paris attacks: remember that France–and most of Europe–is a giant gun-free zone. Think about it: a handful of armed terrorists sent tens of thousands of French males into panic like kitty cats in a thunderstorm. European governments (except for Switzerland) have successfully stolen the manhood from the male citizens of that continent. The Natural instinct of men is to FIGHT for their families, their friends, and their communities. But for more than a half-century, socialist governments have indoctrinated men to believe that they must depend on government to protect their families, friends, and communities. Men are not allowed to defend themselves. They are stripped, not only of the means of self-defense, but of the mindset of self-defense. They are like a thousand Wildebeests running away from a half-dozen lions. And that’s exactly what globalists want to see happen in the United States. And in many respects, it has ALREADY happened in the United States.

For all intents and purposes, many states and cities in America are gun-free zones. Men and women are not allowed to defend themselves. The media constantly bombards the minds of the American people with the philosophy that we must depend on government to defend us. Government personnel are always called “first responders.” They are NOT first responders. Private American citizens at the scene are the first responders. By the time government employees show up, most of the damage is already done.

Had the French government not stripped the French people of their ability to defend themselves–and had the males of Paris not lost the mental awareness and mental toughness necessary to defend themselves–the loss of life in Paris would have been much less.

At about the same time that a disarmed Paris was being turned into a bloodbath, the Greensboro, North Carolina, Police Department was teaming up with Destiny Christian Center to ask residents to sign a “Pledge of Non-Violence” and to turn in their guns. Once again, we find American police agencies and state churches (via their 501c3 non-profit organization status) teaming up to try and disarm the American citizenry. No doubt, the pastor of this so-called church quoted Romans 13 to justify this Hitlerian conduct.

Here is the report:

Greensboro Police Asks Residents To Sign Pledge, Turn In Guns

So, here would be my response if a police agency requested that I ask my fellowship to participate in such an activity (ha ha):

“First, Mr. Police Chief, will your department take a ‘Pledge of Non-Violence’ and turn in its guns?

“Every day, policemen throughout America commit acts of violence including the use of firearms. Let’s assume for a minute that violence was justified in every single instance (which it’s not). Why is it right and proper for a policeman to violently use a firearm in self-defense and not a citizen? Does not the Natural Law of self-defense apply equally to every human being, regardless of profession? Are policemen a privileged class?

“Second, Mr. Police Chief, do you really expect the criminal class in our community to sign a ‘Pledge of Non-Violence’ and turn in their guns?

“It is proven beyond all reasonable doubt (by reasonable people) that a disarmed society only encourages violence. Asking non-violent people to disarm doesn’t discourage violence; it invites it.

“These pledges of non-violence and appeals for citizen disarmament are NOT intended to reduce crime; they are intended to make the populace more dependent on government. It’s not about crime; it’s about control.

“Mr. Police Chief, I respectfully decline your invitation. In fact, I think I will encourage the attendees of my fellowship this Sunday to go out and purchase a firearm. Oh, and I don’t advise that your police department disarm either.”

The Paris attacks, the refugee crisis, ISIS, a world on the verge of global war: it’s all a manipulated contrivance of the globalist elite to eviscerate freedom and usher in Huxley’s “Brave New World,” aka George H.W. Bush’s “New World Order.” Folks, get your eyes off of the Wizard and start looking for the man (men) behind the curtain, because that’s the real enemy.


P.S. Once again, I invite readers to order James Jaeger’s brand new film, “Midnight Ride: When Rogue Politicians Call For Martial Law.” Distinguished patriot luminaries such as Pat Buchanan, Larry Pratt, Ron Paul, G. Edward Griffin, Sheriff Richard Mack, Stewart Rhodes, Edwin Vieira, Jr., and several others are featured in this film. I am honored to also be featured.

I invite readers to go to my website and order the DVD of this brand new film. And please tell your friends. Order “Midnight Ride” here:

Midnight Ride: When Rogue Politicians Call For Martial Law

© Chuck Baldwin

If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link.

What If We Encouraged ‘Victims’ To Shoot Back?

Here is a scenario which should be food for thought in light of ISIS attacks in Paris and various nutcase shootings here in the United States.

What if some towlheaded representative of the religion of death stands up at a high school football playoff game with his weapon of choice—usually a Kalashnikov AK-47—and starts shooting? Only instead of the mass carnage they expect to wreak, one or two members of the crowd calmly reached into their waistband holsters, drew their Glock 26 semi automatic pistols and used two of their 10 rounds to double tap the shooter, aiming for center body mass? Or maybe their Kimber or their Sig Sauer?

In short, what would happen if one could reliably expect some of the “victims” to shoot back?

What if we stopped our government’s (at nearly all levels) obsession with gun control and started to encourage people to arm themselves, carry those weapons everywhere and use them in situations where it was called for?

Why do we automatically assume that we cannot trust law abiding Americans with their own defense?

Where is it written that we must depend on armed police to defend us in every situation?

Do you have any idea what might really happen if we removed every legal impediment to carrying a concealed weapon and, instead, encouraged it?

My guess is that we would have far fewer mass shootings because even terrorists don’t want to get their butts shot off.

Criminals and terrorists almost always go for the path of least resistance.

If there’s a better than even money chance that when you go into an arena and start shooting, someone who has some level of skill will shoot back, they might rethink their MO.  At the very least, fewer people will get mowed down because when people shoot back, they will shorten the carnage.

Instead of being horrified by people who carry weapons, what if we should encourage it and assist in the training of those people?

I know that you have heard this before, but it is true: Criminals and terrorists really don’t care about gun laws. Only law abiding people do.

Did a single person shoot back in Paris?

Of course not. There is no right to bear arms for the French; and to own a gun, you need a hunting or sporting license which needs to be repeatedly renewed and requires a psychological evaluation. Kind of like the way Michael Bloomberg would like the United States to be.

As a result, when seconds counted, the police were only minutes away. And well over 120 law abiding citizens of France were shot dead. By people who knew they would face little or no opposition.

It all gets down to a matter of trust.

I actually trust my fellow citizens to do the right thing.

Our government and the French government do not. They both think that if nobody has guns, there will be no gun violence.

How’s that working out for us?

What if, here in the United States, we simply changed our attitude? What if we accepted the obvious fact that what we are doing is simply not working?

What if we eliminated all legal impediments to concealed weapons and allowed citizens to defend themselves and each other?

Would gun violence increase or decrease?

I’m betting that the more guns there are, the less violence there will be.

And I’d like to know from the Brady campaign just how many more people have to die before they will discover the flaw in their thinking?

Oregon County Stands To Defy Federal Gun Laws

The People of Coos County, Oregon, are standing up against unconstitutional federal laws! However, according to an interview in World Net Daily, The Heritage Foundation​ says they are wrong to do so. So let’s see what the founders of the Constitution say…

Coos County, Oregon, has passed an ordinance that says that the Sheriff is not to enforce any unconstitutional laws in their county. But the Heritage Foundation says:

… the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution leaves “no question that federal law trumps state law”…(Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation)

No, Mr. von Spakovsky, you are wrong. The Supremacy Clause says the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and federal laws are ONLY supreme if they are made in compliance with the Constitution. The Supremacy Clause (Article VI sec 2) is a very simple statement, and it doesn’t need complicated legal analysis. It says what it means and means what it says.

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; …shall be the supreme law of the land.”

That means that if federal law is contrary to the Constitution, it is NOT the Supreme Law of the Land. Not only that, Alexander Hamilton tells us that any law that is contrary to the Constitution is NO LAW at all.

“No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.  To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” Federalist #78

The Heritage Foundation then claims that the sheriff is an “agent of the state” and has to abide by Oregon law; if the state passed a law that requires its officials, including the sheriff, to violate the Second Amendment, individual citizens could pursue a lawsuit, or he could resign from his job. (Andrew Kloster, Legal Fellow at The Heritage Foundation)

No, Mr. Kloster, you are wrong about a couple very important things. First the Sheriff is NOT an agent of the State. He is an elected representative of The People. The State does not hire a Sheriff; the People elect him, and they expect him to keep his oath to the people. Inherent in that oath is the requirement of the Sheriff to protect the people from all who would take their property in violation of their rights. We expect that our Sheriff, as much as he is able, will help to protect our homes, our property, our lives, and our families from the acts of those who would violate our rights. But what happens when it’s the government itself that takes up the role of one who would take our rights, the role of the criminal?

James Madison wrote in 1792, “In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.” If you would want your Sheriff to protect your home from criminal invasion, Madison is simply reminding us that we should also want our Sheriff to protect us from having our Rights criminally invaded. Is the Sheriff bound to uphold the law even when that law violates his oath to the Constitution and seeks to deprive the citizens of their Liberty? Of course not! The duty and the obligations of the Sheriff do not change, even when the violator of our Liberty is the government itself. To fail to protect our Liberty from all unlawful activity is a dereliction of duty. Remember, our Right to keep and bear arms is NOT a 2nd Amendment Right; it is a Natural Right. It is not there for hunting, sport, or just for robbers and rapists. It is there to oppose ALL forms of government that would deny us of our Rights.

“To vindicate these rights when actually violated or attack’d, the subjects of England are entitled first to the regular administration and free course of justice in the courts of law—next to the right of petitioning the King and parliament for redress of grievances-and lastly, to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence.” Justice Blackstone, as quoted by Samuel Adams, 1769

I suppose the Heritage Foundation would like our Sheriffs to assume the posture that they must simply enforce the laws as they are written, good, bad, and ugly. That is a very interesting position to take, as that is the same defense most Nazis tried to use at Nuremburg. It didn’t work for them, so why would the Heritage Foundation expect our Sheriffs to take up that defense? Can you just imagine what America would be like today if some Sheriffs had followed their oath instead of the law? Rosa Parks would’ve been able to sit anywhere she wanted on the bus. Civil Rights advocates would not have been jailed and beaten. Japanese Americans would not have been forced into internment camps. Dred Scott would not have been deemed property, but a man with inalienable Rights. All of these acts were supported by “laws,” State and Federal, and upheld by the Supreme Court.

The one thing these Heritage Fellows have correct is that this Sheriff and the People of Coos County may be looking at some legal challenges. But that should not dissuade the people in defending their Rights. After all, our framers believed defense of Liberty was worthy of Life, Fortune, and Sacred Honor. It is unfortunate that some Americans have become so fundamentally miseducated about the Constitution that they would actually want our elected representative to uphold laws that take our Rights.

What is more deeply troubling than the wrong education of the people is the lack of understanding of many in the legal system. People must remember, however, that law schools don’t teach the Constitution anymore; they teach Constitutional Law. These classes teach our future lawyers and judges that they know more about the Constitution than the men who wrote it. After all, we are technologically advanced, so we must be intellectually superior. Therefore, our highly educated judges and lawyers need to use their advanced intellect to tell the framers what they meant when they wrote the Constitution because they were too stupid to know for themselves. Law schools will then spend the rest of their legal instruction teaching future lawyers and judges how to circumvent the Constitution to win their arguments.  Law schools have bred generations of lawyers and judges who are completely diseased with the concepts of Federal Supremacy.

I am very concerned by the opinions of these men who claim to represent the Heritage Foundation, opinions that clearly contradict the words and intentions of our framers. We should not be shy questioning these men; after all, they are products of their education. If these two men truly represent the opinions of The Heritage Foundation, it appears that Heritage, too, may have been overcome by Federal Supremacy and may need a course correction.  

Meanwhile, we must educate ourselves on the Truth regarding the application of the Constitution and the proper role and duty of our Constitutional Sheriffs. May I encourage you to support Coos County, Oregon, and their Sheriff as they act in defense of our inherent Right to keep and bear arms? You can contact Sheriff Craig Zanni at or 541-396-7800. Let them know you support them in the defense of our inherent Rights. If you would like to become better educated on this issue, may I suggest chapter 5 of my book Sovereign Duty, titled “A New Sheriff In Town”? Perhaps we could encourage von Spakovsky and Kloster to read it as well?  

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

‘Jesus Wouldn’t Join The NRA’?

This one is rich: Jesus wouldn’t join the NRA, by Abigail Disney. The entire commentary belongs in the realm of other Disney scripts – perhaps a new chapter for Alice in Wonderland.

Right now, white evangelical Protestants are the group most likely to oppose stricter gun- control laws. They stand out as one of the few constituencies where a strong pro-life identity is tied to attitudes against any restrictions on gun ownership. Evangelicals are also one of the strongest constituencies of support for the National Rifle Association.

I think criminals are “the group most likely to oppose stricter gun-control laws”…well, actually, they will just ignore them.

But back to the question that allows one to pretend there is some deep philosophical and moral thinking behind it: What would Jesus do? One more time, we are subject to ignorant speculation on Jesus’ views on some question of the day.

As recently as the Korean War in the early 1950s and the Vietnam War in the 1960s, many evangelicals said they were pacifists and registered as conscientious objectors.

Because, you know, there is no difference between self-defense and the murder of others who never posed a risk to you.

Abigail found a know-nothing-about-the-Bible minister based in Washington, Rob Schenck, who “has begun asking whether pro-life Christians can also be pro-gun. In doing so, Schenck finds himself increasingly alone — way out on a political limb.”

This will take a little more unpacking. Of course, self-defense does not mean the same thing as murder.

But what is this “pro-life Christian” nonsense. Christians have been voting for pro-death politicians ever since there was such a thing as a so-called Christian vote. Pro-death for foreign interventionism; pro-death for unborn babies; pro-death as criminal punishment.

Who is Rob Schenck?

Robert Lenard “Rob” Schenck (pronounced SHANK; born 1958) is a leading American Evangelical reverend to elected and appointed officials in Washington, DC. Serving as President of the Christian outreach ministry Faith and Action, Schenck is an ordained minister of the Evangelical Church Alliance and was elected its chairman in July 2012.

And what is “Faith and Action”?

Faith and Action in the Nation’s Capital is a Christian outreach organization ministering to top-level government officials. The organizational headquarters is located in Washington, D.C. across the street from the east façade of the United States Supreme Court.

Finally, the “Evangelical Church Alliance”?

The ECA International is an alliance of ministers serving throughout the world. The ministries of ECA members include, but are not limited to pastors, teachers, para church leaders, church executives, missionaries, evangelists, speakers, youth ministers, professors, military chaplains, and fire, industrial, hospice, police, and prison chaplains.

Whatever Schenck is, I know what this minister-on-the-doorstep-of-Washington is not: he most certainly is not “…way out on a political limb.” It would be a career-ending move.

But back to recruiting Jesus for the cause: it is with this ‘pro-death’ group of Evangelical Christians where Abigail finds some hope – a swing vote to ensure universal background checks for gun buyers:

If even a small percentage of those who claim a dynamic association with the life and teaching of the Jesus Christ who gave us the Sermon on the Mount start talking about the contradictory language and ethics of evangelicals and the NRA, a powerful shift could occur.

Christians in the United States living in accord with the Sermon on the Mount? Don’t make me laugh. Yet even if they do live in accord with this creed, what does it have to do with Jesus and self-defense or gun registration?

Now for some libel (for Abigail) and slander (for Rob):

“I’m concerned about the NRA promoting the idea that the best way to solve the most vexing problems in our society is to be prepared to shoot people dead,” Schenck said at a meeting of the Evangelical Church Alliance.

Look, I know that the NRA is not the staunchest supporter of unfettered gun rights, but still…does the NRA suggest that shooting people dead is the best way to solve society’s most vexing problems? Really?

Finally, I know you will be surprised to find a Christian minister ignorant of the Bible that he preaches:

As Schenck demonstrates in the film, if evangelicals can come together in open dialogue, fully informed by the Bible in which they believe, many might well conclude that the logic of unfettered gun rights is incompatible with a life dedicated to following the example of the Prince of Peace.

Many might conclude this, but not the aforementioned “Prince of Peace”:

John 18: 1 When he had finished praying, Jesus left with his disciples and crossed the Kidron Valley. On the other side there was a garden, and he and his disciples went into it.  2 Now Judas, who betrayed him, knew the place, because Jesus had often met there with his disciples. 3 So Judas came to the garden, guiding a detachment of soldiers and some officials from the chief priests and the Pharisees. They were carrying torches, lanterns and weapons.

4 Jesus, knowing all that was going to happen to him, went out and asked them, “Who is it you want?”  5 “Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied.  “I am he,” Jesus said. (And Judas the traitor was standing there with them.) 6 When Jesus said, “I am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground.

7 Again he asked them, “Who is it you want?”  “Jesus of Nazareth,” they said.  8 Jesus answered, “I told you that I am he. If you are looking for me, then let these men go.” 9 This happened so that the words he had spoken would be fulfilled: “I have not lost one of those you gave me.”

10 Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant’s name was Malchus.)

11 Jesus commanded Peter, “Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?”

Is it possible Jesus didn’t know that Peter carried a sword? Not much of a Son of God if true. Did Jesus ask Peter if the sword was registered with the Roman guard? No. Did He ask Peter to throw the sword into a river? No; he said put it away.

Peter’s “sword rights” were both “unfettered” and otherwise unquestioned by Jesus. Jesus recognized that a means of defense is necessary. He stopped Peter because He knew that this time was not the time for the sword; His Father had a specific purpose in mind.

Abigail makes so many mistakes in one compact package: Christians aren’t pro-life; that’s one mistake. Jesus wasn’t for his disciples to walk around like chickens for plucking; that’s a second mistake. Self-defense isn’t the same as murder; that’s three mistakes.

Yet there is more. Abigail’s biggest mistake: assuming that a Christian minister who makes his living bowing to the biggest murderers on the planet knows anything about (or would actually preach anything from) the Bible.

Reprinted with permission from Bionic Mosquito.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by