Saturday, July 28, 2007
'Little Chucky Schumer,' as he is known on The Liberty Sphere, indicates that no matter who Bush may send up for confirmation should there be a vacancy on the Court, he will personally see to it that the nominee is blocked from consideration.
Such obstructionism has been the modus operandi of Democrats in Congress ever since Mr. Bush took office. Even while they were the minority Party, Congressional Democrats would utilize a procedural maneuver to prevent Bush nominees from even receiving an up or down vote.
The Democrats did not, however, use this tactic on Supreme Court nominees, fearing negative publicity.
Now that they are in the majority, it appears that the under-the-table tactics of the Dems will be turned up a notch, as Little Chucky and others vow to block nominations for the Supreme Court.
It seems that Little Chucky is irate that Bush appointees to the Court have committed the unpardonable sin of adhering to Constitutional law rather than to the judicial activism of Breyer, Ginsburg, and Stevens.
Contrary to the presumption of liberals in legal circles and various law schools across the country, precedent is NOT the most important issue in rendering decisions. Little Chucky wants the Bush appointees to adhere to precedent over all other matters, such as that tiny, unimportant issue of adhering to the Constitution and the original intent of the Framers.
Politico.com quotes Little Chucky as stating the following: 'The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.'
Thus, in the process of decrying ideology on the part of the President in choosing nominees, Little Chucky insists that nominees adhere to ideology--his, and that of Stevens and Ginsburg.
What kind of convoluted logic is that?
Further, Little Chucky states, 'There is no doubt that we were hoodwinked,' a reference to the fact that in Schumer's view, Roberts and Alito have refused to place court precedent above every other consideration, such as the Constitutional principle of human liberty.
It is to be remembered that at one time the assumption of the legality of slavery was a 'court precedent.'
Any thinking person knows that there are often much weightier issues that take precedence over precedent. If this were not the case, then women would have never been given the right to vote.
Perhaps Little Chucky should remember that the tactics which he and his colleagues have used over the past seven years will surely come back to haunt them. In the event of a liberal Democrat being elected to the White House in 2008 (and every single one of the nominees are liberals), Republicans can choose to shut down the process of confirming judicial nominations.
If Little Chucky persists in his obstructionism, he will face a Republican block of all judicial nominees should his Party win the White House.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Hazleton had enacted the new regulations to address a growing problem in the city. Illegal aliens came flooding into town in droves and now compose 10% of the population. With the massive increase of illegals, there was a simultaneous increase in crime.
The city overwhelmingly supported laws that prevent businesses from hiring illegal aliens and landlords from renting them housing.
Today's ruling by an activist judge flies in the face of the U.S. Code, which states that the aiding and abetting of illegal aliens is a felony.
How is giving an illegal a job and renting them housing NOT aiding and abetting their committing a crime?
On a related note, a Sheriff in an Arizona county has implemented strict measures in enforcing the laws against illegal aliens. He even set up a hotline so that citizens could report to law enforcement their suspicions about undocumented workers.
Yet on Thursday he was urged to discontinue the hotline by certain persons within government and by certain religious groups who seem to take a rather dim view of their country's security and its laws.
My friends, this is not about playing politics, although it is most assuredly a political issue. Democrats and Republicans both have a vested interest in NOT following this nation's laws on immigration. Democrats buy the loyalty of illegals by catering to their criminal activity in breaking the law entering the country illegally. Republicans buy the loyalty of certain business interests by catering to their criminal activity as well--that of knowingly and willfully committing felonies in order to save a few bucks on cheap labor.
Thus, both Parties have their hands stuck down into this cookie jar. They both have been caught red-handed. Still, nothing is being done about it.
The question is, does the rule of law mean anything at all anymore in the United States of America?
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Red's Trading Post manager Ryan Horsley was featured on Larry Pratt's daily radio program on Wednesday. Pratt is with Gun Owners of America, which is an avid supporter of Horsley in his fight against the ATF:
The War on Guns reports that the story of Ryan Horsley's fight against the ATF and the Feds was featured Wednesday on legendary conservative radio commentator Paul Harvey's broadcast:
Snow Flakes in Hell blogs that citizens have the right to photograph law enforcement agents doing their jobs, provided the agents are not working undercover. This fact is crucial given that the ATF is trying to prevent citizens from filming them while they conduct their harassment against Red's Trading Post:
The Volokh Conspiracy has an interesting post on the firing of extremist professor Ward Churchill:
Nicki at the Liberty Zone is on a roll since her return from a brief absence. She minces no words in this post concerning gun-free zones on college campuses:
Nicki also alerts us to a CBS News hit-piece against guns in a special report on the rising crime rate in Philadelphia:
One more from Nicki at the Liberty Zone. She weighs in on the Joe Biden slam against a questioner concerning his right to own and possess a gun:
The Bitch Girls also opine on the Joe Biden comment. As bad as Biden was, let's not let Bill Richardson off the hook so easily. In his answer to the question, he is the one who initially broached the subject of mental instability, implying, though not directly, that the questioner was not mentally fit to own a gun:
Alphecca has the reaction of the questioner to Joe Biden's flippant remarks about gun owners:
Alphecca also provides information on a town in New Hampshire where the city GOP is holding a 'machine gun fund raiser':
Say Uncle reports that San Francisco is proposing new stringent gun control laws:
The Buckeye Firearms Association posts a good op-ed written by NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox:
The so-called 'Flying Imams' who were booted from a U.S. Air flight are attempting to sue the individual citizens on that plane who reported their suspicious behavior.
A key provision in a previous security bill passed by the Republican Congress prior to 2006, however, prevented such a lawsuit from going forward.
Democrats were intent on removing that provision from the new security bill. When the bill was presented before the House, Democrats succeeded in approving the measure without the protection of citizens, over the strenuous objections of House Republicans.
When the bill reached the Senate another major roadblock was set up in its tracks not only by Senate Republicans but also by Senator Joe Lieberman, former Democrat and now Independent Senator from Connecticut.
Lieberman was insistent that any new measure on homeland security contain a provision that protects ordinary citizens from being targets for lawsuits brought by Muslim extremists when those citizens report suspicious activity.
Lieberman was joined by many others, including Republican Representative Peter King, R-NY, to insure that sanity be restored to a bill that purports to make the nation safer. Such a goal is impossible when citizens find themselves in a 'catch 22,' i.e., report suspicious behavior and be sued by Muslim extremists, or remain silent and watch terrorists blow up Fort Dix.
These courageous statesmen were joined by a myriad of voices of outraged citizens who let their voices be heard in Congress. The bloggers, the radio talk shows, and other bands of citizens went to work to inundate Congress with their displeasure over the attempt to make citizens vulnerable when they report possible terrorist activity.
Apparently this time, Congress paid attention.
With the proper protection of citizen watchdogs in place, the new security bill is now set for approval by both the House and the Senate.
But remember who wanted to make citizens vulnerable to being sued by terrorist suspects.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Normally it is the Democrats who are lagging behind in fundraising for the Presidential election.
This raises several uneasy questions for the GOP.
Is George W. Bush now so thoroughly unpopular with the electorate that a Republican will be elected to the White House in 2008 only when elephants fly?
Is the electorate, including most Republicans, terribly unhappy and unmoved by the slate of candidates put up by the Republicans so far?
Are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama so wildly popular with the electorate in general that people are hypnotically opening their wallets and purses to empty their pockets into the coffers of the Democrats?
The obvious fact is that an unpopular President can potentially be a significant liability in an election.
Richard Nixon's standing with the public had so deteriorated in 1974 that the midterm Congressional elections that year proved to be a near-death march for the GOP.
Jimmy Carter was such a joke in American politics in 1980 that Republicans swept to power in the U.S. Senate and succeeded in electing Ronald Reagan to the White House.
And who can forget Harry Truman's dismal approval ratings that nearly cost him the Presidency in 1948 and led to his decision not to run again in 1952? Democrats suffered in Congressional elections during the 50s for the first time since 1932.
The thing that sets this election apart from some of the ones cited above is that President Bush is not running. That fact may not be enough to save the GOP from some losses, however.
It depends on how much the electorate blames Republican Senators and Congressmen for the War in Iraq.
Although the Democrats have worked feverishly to distance themselves from their own votes for the War in 2002, the fact remains that the decision to invade Afghanistan and Iraq were bipartisan decisions.
Thus, if the electorate is intent on fixing blame, it must go to BOTH Parties.
Despite widespread public disapproval of the manner in which the Bush Administration has conducted the War, voters will not necessarily hold that against GOP candidates.
The problem is that so far none of the declared candidates have energized the electorate.
Fred Thompson could change all of that. Rumors swirled that he would announce his candidacy on July 4, but this was merely a rumor. He chose that date to announce that his campaign headquarters would be in Nashville, Tennessee once he declared.
Thompson plans to announce in September, after the next Republican debate. This gives him a chance to stay above the fray and use his campaign exploratory committee to raise funds without the stringent federal regulations imposed on the fundraising of a declared candidate.
Ron Paul is another GOP candidate who could easily energize the electorate if he begins to catch on with the public. As an anti-war Republican, his views may resonate with voters who oppose the War in Iraq. Yet Paul is a dyed-in-the-wool stalwart of liberty that is entirely refreshing in modern politics.
Despite the success of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in raising campaign cash, this is very often no indication of how popular a candidate is with the electorate as a whole. It is not unusual for candidates with the most money to fizzle once the primaries are underway.
And we must remember that 48% of the electorate has an entirely negative view of Hillary Clinton. 50% say they will under no circumstances vote for her. Her negatives are higher than any Republican candidate. And with 50% of voters saying there is no way they would ever vote for her, all the money in the world will do her no good.
The same goes for Obama. He can raise money, turn heads, and attract attention like a Hollywood paparazzi magnet. Yet he barely registers 10% support among the general public.
My hunch is that neither Clinton nor Obama are nearly as popular as their campaign cash suggests.
And this means that elephants may well fly in November of 2008.
Here is today's Second Amendment News Roundup:
Nicki at The Liberty Zone is back after a few days' absence and has commentary on several issues, one being the ineffectiveness of the gun ban in D.C.:
Mr. Completely gives us a run-down on his bowling pin shoot over the weekend:
Red's Trading Post says that the ATF is now using character assassination in their attempt to shut him down (my friends, this man needs our support--he and his family are really being hammered by the ATF):
The War on Guns has vital commentary and info on the latest woes of Red's Trading Post at the hands of the ATF, which is now claiming harassment and intimidation on the part of Red's! Pot, meet kettle (note--this is a MUST-READ!):
The Bitch Girls blog about the latest hate-filled screed against gun owners--a letter that shows more of the ignorance of the writer than anything else:
Snow Flakes in Hell provides commentary on the numerous errors and mistaken notions found on a blog post that questions an armed society:
Alphecca provides info on the latest county in Illinois to defy Chicago by passing a resolution in favor of the Second Amendment:
The Buckeye Firearms Association posts an article that provides much food for thought on the issue on guns on college campuses:
Of Arms and the Law says that the City of Baltimore has proposed a public registry of 'gun offenders' similar to that of state-wide sex offender registries:
Say Uncle observes that the Zumbo scrap awhile back over black rifles has actually turned out to be beneficial to the gun rights movement:
Many on the Hill in both Parties expected Gonzalez to be gone by now, either by his own choice to resign or by termination by the President.
It is no secret in political circles that there are major problems at the Department of Justice. From the unjust prosecution and imprisonment of two innocent Border Patrol agents to a rogue bureau, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE), the DOJ seems to suffer from a grossly inordinate amount of corruption.
In no way can all of this be laid at the feet of the Attorney-General. Large, overgrown government monoliths tend to begin to feed off of their own power, only to grow larger, often without adequate accountability.
Yet as the Attorney-General, Gonzalez is ultimately responsible for what occurs under his watch at the DOJ.
And this constitutes his biggest problem.
Gonzalez has been lax as a chief executive in exercising oversight of the department under his charge. This has created a scenario in which a rogue federal prosecutor such as Johnny Sutton can unleash his attacks against those who attempt to secure our southern border.
And, much worse, this scenario is one in which a rogue government bureau such as the BATFE can flourish.
The BATFE has been allowed to get away with unlawful and unconstitutional practices designed to harass law-abiding, private citizens into submission to government power.
Although there are lieutenants under Gonzalez who are charged with the oversight of these components of the Department of Justice, a good Attorney-General would insist that the law be obeyed, that employees tell the truth to Congressional oversight committees, and that the highest ethical standards of professional conduct be followed.
Gonzalez, for one reason or another, has failed to insist on these standards, and thus, the DOJ has been allowed to drift.
Is this reason enough for Gonzalez to be fired? It depends.
If the President begins to pressure his Attorney-General to clean up the DOJ, implementing strict guidelines of behavior and conduct, including the termination of unethical personnel, then it would not necessarily be a good thing to get rid of him.
So far, the Democrats have used Gonzalez as a whipping boy to get at the President for the firing of the eight federal prosecutors, who are political appointees serving at the pleasure of the President.
Thus, the Democrats have chosen an issue that is much ado about nothing.
If Congressional Democrats on Capitol Hill truly want the best thing for the country, politics aside, then they will work with Republicans to pressure the President to lay down the law to Gonzalez about cleaning up the DOJ.
That way our southern border will be infinitely more secure, Border Patrol agents will be free to do their jobs, the BATFE will be reigned in and restricted from its attacks on citizens, and DOJ personnel will no longer lie to Congress.
If the President is not successful in getting Gonzalez to make these necessary and urgent changes, then he should get rid of him and appoint someone who will.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Citizens asked questions of the candidates via YouTube, moderated by Anderson Cooper.
The War in Iraq dominated the discourse during the forum. As William F. Buckley observed a couple of months back, the manner in which George W. Bush has conducted the War has the potential of burying the Republicans in November of 2008.
Democrats have wasted no time in jumping on this vulnerability, taking full advantage of public sentiment. They all wish to leave Iraq immediately, but the devil is in the details.
Not all would leave immediately, despite the rhetoric. There are nuances in the various plans for withdrawal offered by the candidates.
Hillary Clinton advocates for continuing an American military presence in the country even after most of the combat forces have been withdrawn. Dennis Kucinich, on the other hand, wants an immediate total withdrawal, including cutting off funds for the troops.
Democratic activists applauded wildly for Kucinich on that point.
It is most unfortunate, however, that the War dominates political discussion so far during this election cycle. By focusing on the War, the Democrats can avoid close scrutiny of their views on many other issues, which show that they are basically in one accord on social policy.
In short, they are all to one degree or another European styled socialists.
None of the Democratic candidates talk about the importance of Constitutional law, the Bill of Rights, or the necessity of appointing only those Judges to the bench who understand that strict adherence to the Constitution is the primary task of jurisprudence.
All of the candidates support abortion, including late-term 'partial-birth' abortions. All have a dismal record on supporting citizens' rights to self-defense as delineated in the Second Amendment. All have advocated dangerous limits on freedom of speech. All would dismantle the greatest healthcare system in the world in order to help a small minority of citizens gain access to medical care, rather than focusing on ways to fix the problem without killing the goose that laid the golden egg.
Therefore, using our exclusive 'Liberty Rating System'--which rates the candidates on the basis of their stance on abortion, healthcare, gun rights, national defense, immigration, taxes, the War on Terror, and U.S. foreign policy--The Liberty Sphere rates the Democratic candidates in Monday night's debate as follows, with 10 being the highest score and 1 the lowest:
As time progresses during this campaign cycle, we are increasingly appalled at how thoroughly the Democratic candidates have virtually discarded and ignored every single principle for which the Founders of this nation stood.
Monday, July 23, 2007
For example, if the U.S. were a pure democracy, the wishes of a simple majority of the electorate could obliterate every single liberty that free people cherish. 'Majority rule' is actually mob rule, as strong-armed, vocal, and intimidating mobs could potentially get a 51% plurality of voters, for example, to ban blue-eyed blond females from driving automobiles.
A better way to explain our form of government in American free society is 'constitutional republic,' which includes the notion of a 'representative democracy.'
Yet, even then, the representatives we elect are restricted in what they can do by an agreed-upon Constitution with a Bill of Rights that protects precious human liberty, including that of minorities that should never be subject to the mob mentality of 'majority rule.'
A growing movement in certain sectors of academia, however, takes the notion of representative democracy governed by a Constitution in a new and dangerous direction.
The movement has become known in academic and political circles as 'deliberative' or 'discursive' democracy.
The basic premise embraced by the proponents of this theory is that free societies should encourage greater cooperation between government and citizens, encouraging open discussion or deliberation concerning policy initiatives, the result of which would be a lower degree of opposition to policy decisions once they are initiated by government.
Civil libertarians and other academics who keep an eye on threats to liberty express deep concern about such a notion.
As one commentator pointed out, merely discussing freedom is not the same thing as actually being free.
Giving citizens the illusion that they are free and can influence government decision-making in developing public policy is a dirty trick of collectivists. Such a tactic satisfies the citizens' need to be heard and to feel important. But then, the elitists of government go ahead and do whatever they want anyway.
Are you now thinking to yourself as I am, that government in the U.S. is already under the creeping crawl of 'deliberative democracy'?
And this is precisely the core issue with regard to 'deliberative democracy.' At the heart of the movement is the desire to increase government power to control every aspect of human life.
Under normal conditions such a movement would be rejected outright as totalitarian, which is an accurate assessment. But what makes this movement so dangerous is that totalitarianism is disguised and made palatable by encouraging 'citizen participation' in government.
When citizens are allowed to deliberate proposed policy decisions effecting society, they are given the 'warm fuzzies' in that they feel their voices have been heard.
And then everyone can congratulate themselves over how wonderful it is to live in a land where average citizens can participate in their government.
The ominous, dark side of this plan, however, is that such an outcome among the electorate effectively diffuses and renders null and void any potential threat to the policies implemented by those in government.
In short, the plan is nothing but window-dressing.
Citizens are made to feel free without actually being free.
A perfect example of an adherent to deliberative democracy in politics today is John Edwards, Democratic candidate for President. As reported several weeks ago on The Liberty Sphere, when asked what he thinks are the most important basic, fundamental human rights, Edwards responded with things such as 'universal Internet access,' 'universal government healthcare coverage,' and the biggie, 'American citizenship.'
Never once did Edwards refer to free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of self-defense as protected by the Second Amendment, or for that matter, ANY of the liberties delineated in the Bill of Rights.
In the brave new world of 'deliberative democracy,' there are many more important matters than guarding liberty. Apparently Edwards believes that allowing the entire world free citizenship in the U.S. is a good idea, along with all of the freebies offered to those he wants to import to the country in droves.
And it really doesn't matter if these new citizens know a thing about the Bill of Rights.
Collectivism as a political ideology has greatly matured since the days of the Cold War and Soviet Communism. Adherents are much more adept at hiding their true motives. The intent to expand government control to every single aspect of human life can be carefully framed and couched in the language of democracy and liberty.
And this, perhaps, is what makes the modern 21st century even more dangerous a time to live than during the Cold War. Not only do we contend with terrorists who wish to wipe us from the face of the earth, but we are now confronted with another enemy, and this one has a friendly face and nice-sounding words.
Knowledge and awareness are the number one enemies of these purveyors of government control in the name of democracy. It is vital that citizens become informed.
To help begin that process, we point you to two important links. The first is an excellent overview of the concept of deliberative democracy provided by Blogonomicon. It is well worth a careful consideration.
Next is a link to an organization that is fighting those promoting the concept of deliberative democracy--The Foundation for Economic Freedom. An excellent essay on the subject is provided there.
Foundation for Economic Freedom:
The Ninth Stage has the quote of the day, and it's a good one:
Of Arms and the Law has a link to Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee's views on the Second Amendment:
The Jet Pilot posts one of the best excerpts on the meaning of the Second Amendment that I have ever read:
The Jet Pilot also blogs about a handgun safety course that is excellent for those wishing to bone up on their skills:
One more by The Jet Pilot. The Liberty Sphere created quite a bit of interest in our op-ed piece Sunday on the ATF targeting gun shops. The Jet Pilot weighs in on the issue, including a link to a new website designed to call attention to the gestapo tactics of the ATF:
Concerning the ATF, The War on Guns posts this, including a link to Red's Trading Post website:
More on the ATF from A Keyboard and a .45:
Snow Flakes in Hell shows us that when the tables are turned, and the mainstream media and its gophers in the anti-gun movement come under the scrutiny of the ATF for breaking federal law, all hell breaks loose:
Snow Flakes in Hell also gives us the exact law that the Boston Globe and its straw man broke in the gun purchase ruse in New Hampshire:
This should make your blood boil. Sarah Brady mouths off about gun control here at Snow Flakes In Hell:
John Lott posts this important piece on the 1996 gun control act in Australia--a law that has proven to be ineffective:
John Lott also echoes our concern that the Fairness Doctrine may be headed back:
Alphecca points to an excellent report comparing crime stats in New England states with strict gun control laws with those states in the region that have less stringent gun control:
Say Uncle posts the response of Steve Bailey of the Boston Globe to the firestorm of controversy raised by the paper's illegal purchase of firearms, resulting in an ATF investigation:
Cap'n Bob and the Damsel present this important piece on the three falsely accused and imprisoned Texas lawmen:
Check out this vitally-important reminder of the inexcusable, criminal, and horrific murders of an entire family of citizens at Ruby Ridge BY THE ATF back in 1992:
Xavier Thoughts posts a highly informative video of a convenience store robbery and shootout, and what can be learned from it:
Internet Armory provides an excellent evaluation of various types of handguns and revolvers for self-defense. You can also find a truckload of more firearms information there as well:
Sunday, July 22, 2007
The main question is why is the ATF suddenly conducting this ultra-aggressive campaign against American small business engaged in the lawful selling of firearms.
That question becomes more critical when one considers that some of the oldest and most reputable gun sellers in the nation have become targets. If the problem were the illegal sale of firearms then such a tactic would be defensible.
But the shops the ATF has targeted, particularly within the past year, indicate that much more is behind the shutdowns and harassment than a concern about illegal activity.
Red's Trading Post in Idaho is a case in point.
The ATF has made Red's a target with sudden, inexplicable raids, demands to see paperwork, and the pouring over of documents seeking for one small infraction, such as a misspelled word, that would give agents an excuse to shut down the store.
So far, of course, the Feds have found nothing. Yet the raids and the harassment continue.
Red's Trading Post is one of the oldest and most respected firearms dealers in the western states. Established in 1936, Red's has been doing business in an honest, lawful, and reputable fashion for over 60 years. Today it is the oldest gun store in Idaho.
Apparently the problem with Red's is that it is one of the few gun shops in the area still standing. The heavy-handed, gestapo tactics of the ATF have succeeded in shutting down most of the gun shops in that part of the country.
The Liberty Sphere reported several weeks ago on the growing problem of the ATF. Instead of focusing their attention on fly-by-night outfits that clearly engage in illegal activity, the ATF has instead focused on shutting down reputable dealers by going over their required licensing paperwork with a magnifying glass, seeking for any minor infraction that would give them a reason to revoke dealers' licenses to sell firearms.
Several former gun shop owners report that their licenses have been revoked by the Feds over nothing more than a misspelled word on the application form.
These details, however, have already been reported and are fairly well-known. The real issue here centers on the rationale of the Feds in conducting these gestapo-like raids against law-abiding firearms dealers.
It is no small coincidence that the ATF operates under the U.S. Department of Justice, which has already been shown to be infested with serious corruption, including lying to Congress.
The vast majority of these dealers are average citizens, American entrepreneurs, who are trying to make a living in the U.S. by lawfully selling guns and accessories. They are not criminals. Most of them have never once committed a single act that could be remotely considered illegal.
Yet in Idaho, for example, the ATF has succeeded in nearly ridding the entire state of gun shops.
What is going on in the bowels of the federal government that has led to a policy of harassing gun shop owners out of business?
While we are hesitant to point to conspiracy theories, it is nonetheless important to remember that Democrats control Congress. Many believe a Democrat will be elected to the White House in 2008. And thus, the stage will be set for a massive assault on Second Amendment rights in this country.
Is the present policy of the ATF nothing more than a foreshadowing of things to come, a massive preparation for the time when gun-control freaks take over the government and unleash their ire on that part of the electorate that fights for Second Amendment rights?
In addition, not only is the ATF flexing its muscle, it seems to be increasing its power.
Several weeks ago a furniture store in Charleston, South Carolina caught fire, resulting in the deaths of several courageous firefighters. The fire started outside of regular business hours, and thus, no employees or customers were in any danger. Nothing was found in the ashes except for the ruins of furniture and accessories.
Normally the local fire department would handle such an investigation.
Yet the ATF moved in, seized control of the investigation, and pushed the local fire department into the background.
Needless to say, many residents in the area were left with raised eyebrows, scratching their heads wondering what on earth prompted the Feds to move in and take over an investigation of a furniture store fire.
Incidents such as these, along with the wholesale shutting down of dozens of gun shops, raise serious questions concerning the activities of the ATF and the federal government.
Until these questions are answered and we see a total change in tactics on the part of the bureau, we can only assume that what we are witnessing is the harassment of citizens by a rogue organization within the government that is intent on oppressing ordinary citizens into compliance.
But, compliance to what?
This is not about compliance with the law. That has been done. This is about compliance to a rogue bully of the federal government that is operating outside the boundaries of the law and the Constitution.