Illegal Alien Convicted of Raping a Girl Gets Just 5 Years!

An illegal immigrant who raped a 13-year-old girl in October in Darke County was sentenced to just five years behind bars Thursday.

29-year-old Hermelando Chacon had four charges against him, including abduction and a second rape charge, dropped in exchange for a guilty plea on one rape charge.

Chacon could face deportation when his sentence is complete.  The young girl’s father called the sentence “utterly ridiculous.”

Imagine if you’re at home and someone breaks into your house.You’ll need something to defend yourself! It could be a goft club, a baseball bat, basically anything hard and solid. I recommend a Strike Light . It’s basically a flashlight and baton in one package and it’s a good option to have in case you’re in a vulnerable situation at home or in your car.

DREAMr accused of brutally sexually assaulting a 14 y/o & 19 y/o girls

Salvador Diaz Garcia, an illegal immigrant given DACA status, was accused of brutally raping a 19 year old girl and sexually assaulting a 14 year girl in Seattle. The 19 girl received massive injuries including a broken jaw and a dangling ear.

The illegal alien had passed a background and was permitted to stay here under former President Obama’s Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals or DACA program. This is simply no surprise. Proponents of sanctuary cities will respond that citizens are more likely to commit crimes than illegal immigrants.

Apparently they forget illegals are already criminals by default since they are in our country without permission. Regardless I’m sure that’s no solace to the families of those two young women.

What’s even worse  is had this not gotten media attention Garcia may not even be considered for deportation.


You guessed it; Burien is a sanctuary city. This means the city has pledged disobey federal law and protect illegal aliens even if they commit crimes. The left’s argument is that sanctuary cities are actually safer since illegals are supposedly more likely to report their friends to the cops since they don’t fear deportation.

Related: Sanctuary Cities Are Hotbeds of Crime

Thomas Autry FIGHTS BACK!

Thomas Autry was walking home from his waiter job in Atlanta when he say 4  suspicious looking people. He ignored them and kept walking until he realized they were following him.

Once he saw they were armed with a shotgun and a pistol he ran until the group caught up with him.

This time was different. 

Autry pulled out his pocket knife, kicked the shotgun out of the attackers hands, and stabbed one of the attackers at which point they ran off.

The police found the attackers at the hospital where one of them was pronounced dead.  Autry was shaken but unharmed.

The situation could’ve been much worse had Autry not had the ability to defend himself.

Don’t be a victim!

There is no political will in many areas to get rid of these illegal aliens so its up to the average citizen to protect himself or herself.

Some tips to protect yourself:

  1. There’s safety in numbers. Almost all of the victims were alone
  2. Don’t show fear. If you they think you’re likely to put up a fight they’ll leave you alone.  Most bad guys are looking for easy pickings
  3. Have a self defense tool

If you do have a gun then you need a concealed holster so you can have it when you need it. Period. I found this one for free just pay for shipping.

But many people are uncomfortable carrying a firearm. That’s okay; you can still protect yourself with things like this special credit card . It seems really cool and will get one myself!

I know many of you will say “But you can’t carry a knife everywhere!”

That’s true that’s why I recommend this strike pen. It’s a fully functional self defense tool cleverly disguised as a writing utensil and a flashlight. It has a tungsten steel striker, a bottle opener, and yes it actually writes!

Secret service agents carry pen’s like these!

Here’s Why a Gay Man Supports The Bigoted Baker

In a startling and increasingly rare victory for religion in America the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 7-2 that a baker shouldn’t be required to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

In the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission the court ruled that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission did not give Jack Philips (the baker) a fair shake in the hearing. The court was particularly troubled by the remarks of one commissioner who said that

“freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust.”

Justice Kennedy felt that was unbecoming of a commissioner who is sworn to be neutral.

Here is why I support the ruling. The simple matter is that a private business is just that, private. The reason many entrepreneurs cite for starting a business is not wanting to have a boss over them.

If Mr. Philips is willing to forgo profits for religious reasons then he should able to do that. There are plenty of other bakers in Denver that would gladly bake the cake for the gay couple.

Those who think the baker is discriminating should have to answer these questions:

Should  a Jewish bakery be forced to bake a cake commemorating Hitler’s birthday?

Should a Muslim bakery be forced to bake a cake celebrating pigs?

Should a gay bakery be forced to bake a cake celebrating Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson’s birthday?

The hypocrisy of the gay community

Many in the gay community are decrying the baker for not baking a cake that doesn’t comply with his values yet in North Carolina gay trump supporters were denied a booth because in the words of the event organizers ‘it doesn’t align with our values”.

So it’s okay for the gay community to discriminate when it doesn’t align with their values yet Christians can’t do the same when it doesn’t align with theirs?

What the Anti Trump Tariff People Don’t Want You to Know

Ah the Trump tariffs.  A wedge issue that is currently dividing patriots across the our great nation. We’ve been told for decades by the intellectuals & elites that ‘free trade is good!’.

The Trump tariffs on imported aluminum and steel are an antithetical slap in the face to that narrative.Do these tariffs in fact serve as proof that Trump really doesn’t know what the heck he’s doing?

Before you make a decision on the Trump tariffs  I encourage you to take this quiz to see what you know about the current world trade situation our great America is in.

How the rest of the world treats us

NAFTA cost net one million American jobs. Okay maybe you knew that but did you know that the jobs lost were good paying manufacturing jobs that came complete with health and benefit packages.

The pro-NAFTA crowd will say that trade created jobs in America.  While that’s true the lion’s share of those are service jobs which on average pay 20% less than American jobs and most of the time don’t include the same benefit packages that manufacturing jobs did.

Indonesia & India 

Indonesia taxes American motorcycles at 400%.

Why is that significant? Because Indonesia is one of the world’s largest motorcycle markets nearly 8 million motorcycles were sold in Indonesia in 2014.

Therefore to limit competition from American companies the Indonesian government taxes American motorcycles at 400%. India levies a 100% duty on American motorcycles as well.

The Philippines 

We allow foreigners to buy land here and drive up prices but other countries don’t give American immigrants the same privilege. It is illegal for an American to buy land in the Philippines; an American can’t even own a condo that’s on the first floor in the Philippines.

This is significant because the Philippines is a major retirement destination for Americans; especially retired veterans. As a result American man are forced to put their property in their girlfriend’s or wife’s name which is very risky for obvious reasons.


Canada taxes American dairy products at 270%. Canada has made it abundantly clear that it intends to protect its dairy industry no matter what the Americans say. That being said Canada may sell its milk here with little tax.

American emigrants

Other countries don’t treat American immigrants the same as we treat theirs either. All immigrants illegal or legal are entitled to due process prior to being deported from the United States.

However, other countries don’t see it that way for American immigrants. For example did you know in the Philippines an American can be deported for something as trivial as ‘disrespecting a Filipino’?

Yes its true. If you cross the wrong Filipino and he files a complaint against you as an immigrant you are eligible to be deemed an ‘undesirable alien’ and deported. You have no right to due process either.

There are no ‘dreamers’ in the Philippines…

Trump Commemorative Coin

The American experience then & now

Currently 2.5 million Americans are addicted to opioid drugs. The epicenters of this crises are in the rest belt where massive job loss has impacted so-called ‘privileged’ white men the most.

The very jobs lost were the ones killed by free trade agreements such as (but not only) NAFTA. This has helped to stagnate wages for the last 50 years.

I was watching a documentary on Geroge Wallace and on it they said something very interesting.

They said Arthur Bremer (the man that shot him) lived in his own apartment and was a bus boy and part time janitor.

It took me aback that in 1972 a bus boy could afford to have his own apartment.  I can’t think of anybody in a job like that who could afford their own place in 2018.

So-called Free trade has hurt more than just manufacturing workers. Think because you’re not a blue collar worker that free trade won’t hurt you?

Think again…

Just between 2001-2003 over 250,000 call center jobs were outsourced to India and the Philippines.  University of California-San Francisco fired 49 IT workers and replaced them with cheap labor from India. Disney and Southern California Edison both did the same thing.

Which leads me to my next point…

Who’s really benefiting from free trade?

The main beneficiaries of ‘free trade’ are large multinational corporations.  Minimal labor and environmental standards abroad have benefited  the bottom line of the multinational corporations.

Many people rightfully pointed out the in the TPP a corporation could decide it didn’t like one of our laws and take us to a court of un-elected international judges and the law would be overturned.

What many don’t mention is that NAFTA has similar provisions. President Trump has said over and over again that he’s not against trade.

He simply wants fair trade!

The President has said it’s not fair that other countries get to put their needs first but for some reason we can’t do the same.

We finally have a president that is willing to stand up to special interests and elites of both parties and do whats best for the working man the average American.

In short President Trump simply wants to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! 

Debunking Liberal Lies About Guns

The Marjory Stoneman Douglass High school shooting in Parkland Florida was different. This is the time the left has decided to bring the big guns out (no pun intended) in order to advance their anti 2nd amendment agenda.

The big guns I’m referring to are children.

They have been touting David Hogg and a Mexican chick I don’t remember her name.

Child crises actors

Anyway these child crises actors have been used by the left to not just tug but yank at the heart strings of average American in order to advance their anti-freedom agenda.

I say crises actors intentionally because that’s exactly what they are. They are angry kids (they have every right to be angry btw) that clearly don’t know what they’re talking about.

Here are just a few false statements David Hogg has made:

“Dana Loesch is the president of the NRA”

No she isn’t

“President Trump you control the house & the senate…yet you’ve done nothing”

No he doesn’t.

Its clear he’s being told what to say by leftist groups (like CNN) that are simply using him and the girl for their own sick goals.

But this article isn’t meant to be about them. This is meant to debunk the liberal lies about guns that they use to shred the 2nd amendment.

Here are a few of them:

There have been 18 school shootings just this year

Luckily conservatives have done a good job debunking this lie.  This falsehood was started by the old prune himself Jeff Greenfield in, of course, a tweet.

Jeff Greenfield is a former professor of mine in UCSB

In the rest of the world, there have been 18 school shootings in the last twenty years. In the U.S., there have been 18 school shootings since January 1.

Most of those ‘school shootings’ involved accidents or suicide and in only two that weren’t suicides were people killed. Other than that there were no injuries!

“Criminals get their guns from the gun show loophole”

Another complete fabrication. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, at most 2 percent of guns used by criminals are purchased at gun shows, and most of those were purchased legally by people who passed background checks.

Another inconvenient factoid is that less than 1 out of 5 Americans get their guns this way. The vast majority get their guns through a local retail outlet. A really inconvenient factoid is that 90% of guns used in a crime were not obtained legally. A Chicago study found that most guns used by criminals were 1. Stolen 2. Obtained from a family member or friend 3. A drug dealer or some other black market source.

Just 11% of criminals got their guns from a gun shop, pawn shop, flea market, or gun show! 

“Australia saw a reduction in crime after buying back guns”

First things first don’t be fooled by liberals calling it a ‘buy back’.  It was a mandatory hand over of firearms to the government and the government paid the citizen a price to the government. In other words it was a confiscation with compensation.

Here’s a graph from Australia’s Institute of Criminology that leftists don’t want you to see.

The ‘buy back’ occurred in 1996-1997  but look homicides went up in 1999. If the lower homicide rate had truly been caused by the ‘buyback’ there should be a decline in homicides every year. On top of that homicides were already in decline since before the ‘buyback’.

Whether if its by a bullet, a machete, or just a pair of hands you’re just as dead. Changing the means won’t change the result.

“Countries with ‘sensible’ gun control have lower murder rates! That proves gun control works!”

Maybe the UK and Australia do have lower murder rates-they also have more homogeneous populations-that doesn’t mean its the result of gun control.

Lets take a look once again at our friend Australia which is the liberal poster child of gun control. Although it is estimated that a large number of guns are purchased on the black market there they still have strict gun control laws and lets compare it to its neighbor New Zealand which has more lax gun controls.  The murder rate in Australia is 0.98 per 100,000 residents while in only 0.91 in New Zealand!

Switzerland has some of the most lax gun laws in Europe. In 2011 Swiss voters rejected a referendum to even require gun owners to register their firearms. If we believe the gun control lobby that’s a recipe for disaster right?


In 2016 the country had a whopping 45 murders and not all of those involved firearms!

“The Parkland shooting wouldn’t have happened if we had ‘sensible’ gun control!”

Nikolas Cruz purchased his AR-15 legally ergo had AR-15’s been banned the school shooting wouldn’t have happened. That’s the logic that the loony left wants you to believe.

Here’s what they don’t tell you:

  1. The Broward County sheriff had been contacted about this kid’s homicidal threats more than 23 times
  2. Under the Baker Act in Florida the Broward County sheriff could have already involuntarily detained Cruz
  3. The FBI had been contacted twice about this kid once after he left a comment on a youtube video using his real name saying he was planning to do a school shooting
  4. Even an ‘enhanced’ background check (whatever that means) wouldn’t have stopped him from buying a gun since he had no criminal record
  5. The shooting could’ve been much less fatal had the Broward County Sheriff’s deputies not hid behind their cars outside while kids were being slaughtered inside the school
  6. Tax payers were already paying a school resource officer to be there for just this sort of thing. Literally his one job was in case something like this were to happen would be to take care of it. Instead he ran out and hid behind his car.
  7. Again most guns used in crime are not obtained legally. It is highly doubtful that outlawing a specific firearm would’ve prevented this tragedy.

“It’s too easy to get a concealed carry permit!”

That’s is of course an outright lie.  The ease of getting a concealed carry permit varies by State and often by country.  In Los Angeles county California the adage is ‘don’t even try’ and its not far off.

According to Breitbart LA county issued just 197 concealed carry permits for just 10.2 million residents!  California politicians boast on how tough it is for their citizens to utilize their second amendment rights.

Even concealed holsters are regulated in California!

“California has always been a leader on the issue of gun safety,”

-Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa

They may have restricted law abiding citizens but they haven’t stopped criminals…duh. LA county still has one of the highest murder rates in the state and violent crime is increasing and has been increasing since 2015.

“The founding fathers were thinking of muskets when the second amendment was written!”

That’s a common lie you’ll see in videos and throughout social media. While yes most of us think of muskets when we thinking of the founding fathers the truth is there were much more advanced fire arms than just muskets in those days.

I present to you the Girondani Air Rifle. This guy is a repeating rifle capable of firing 22 shots before requiring a reload. The Girondani Air Rifle was used by Lewis and Clark on their famous western expedition! This was certainly not a musket!

Then we have the Kalthoff repeater & the Belton Flintlock all of which were capable of firing multiple rounds without needing to be reloaded.

Don’t believe everything you remember from grade school history class the founding fathers most certainly did know about repeat fire weapons and yet still made it a constitutional right for the citizens to possess them!

“The NRA is funded mostly by gun manufacturers”

Wrong! The NRA is funded through average freedom loving American citizens. The average donation is $40 per year with a little under 30,000 donations in total.

Even the Communist News Network (CNN) had to marvel at the NRA’s ability to raise money.

The NRA’s ability to raise so much money from small donations is highly unusual for a special interest group, demonstrating its wide reaching support, said Sarah Bryner, research director at the Center for Responsive Politics.


If this doesn’t prove that giving up your 2nd amendment rights won’t make you safer nothing will.

See how much you know about guns by taking this quiz! 



Morals Matter: Milwaukee Has Largest HIV Outbreak in US History

Milwaukee is currently experiencing one of the largest HIV & syphilis outbreaks in US history according to the Journal Sentinal .

At least 125 people have contracted syphilis, HIV or both. Some of the new infections occurred in high school students and babies were born infected with syphilis last year.

“This is an epidemic people are not talking about enough, and it leads to people taking unnecessary risks,” said Melissa Ugland, a public health consultant who works with a number of local nonprofit organizations that focus on public health.

Thanks to the declining morals in our society and medical breakthroughs in HIV prevention and treatments such as Prep more and more people are taking a lackadaisical attitude towards safe sex and sex in general.

There was a time when teenagers having sex was frowned upon. Now its considered ‘normal’. Female promiscuity is also championed by many feminists.

Related: Non Religious Reasons Why Promiscuity Is Bad

As a result we’ve seen a surge in sexual transmitted disease outbreaks and single motherhood.  Since the sexual revolution in the 1960’s the number of children living with a never married mother has been skyrocketing and hasn’t shown any signs of declining to pre -1960’s levels anytime soon.

Here is another chart demonstrating the skyrocketing growth of Chlamydia among American young people

The gay community also has its share to blame. Its well known that gay men tend to be more promiscuous than heterosexuals and the data back that up.

According to a study based on a sampling of teenagers in Massachusetts, sexual minority youth—that is, those who identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual or had any same-sex sexual contact in their lifetimes—were significantly more likely than other students to report lifetime sexual intercourse (72% vs. 44%). The same study found that sexual minority youth were more likely to report sexual intercourse before age 13 (18% vs. 4%), sexual intercourse with four or more partners in their lifetimes (32% vs. 11%), and recent sexual intercourse (55% vs. 33%). Among students in the Massachusetts study who ever had sexual intercourse in their lifetimes, sexual minority youth were significantly more likely than other students to report “having been or gotten someone pregnant (15% vs. 4%) and having been diagnosed with HIV or another STI (10% vs. 5%).”


That being said abstinent only education equally hasn’t shown to be effective. While the intentions were good it was too little too late to combat the problem.

The real solution is the restoration of the family and family values as a whole.  Here are some stats that you don’t hear in the mainstream media:

According to another study religious adolescents lose their virginity three years later than the average American. On average, those with strong religious backgrounds become sexually active at age 21.

Kids with fathers in their lives are less likely to engage in sexual risky behavior.

Youth who engaged more regularly in activities with their families and had fathers who were more knowledgeable about their friends and activities thereafter reported lower average levels of sexual risk behaviors in comparison to their peers with less engaged parents,”

-Live Science

Getting personal

Growing up in Northern California I used to believe that those that taught morals were just uninformed, gun touting, racist hicks that were just angry because everyone else was getting smarter than they were.

Having gone through living a promiscuous lifestyle I know first hand the damage that it can do not just to the body but to the mind.

I’ve been diagnosed with Chlamydia twice now and not until I made a decision to ‘get right’ with my life have I considered myself to be a happy person.

Maybe you are at a point where you’re questioning the wisdom of sexual liberation. If so I would encourage you to please read this article on why sexual ‘liberation’ is not a good thing and no there’s no gay bashing involved.

A great book I recommend is Libido Dominadi it explains how sexual promiscuity helped bring down the Roman Empire and parallels it to modern day society.

Police Have No Obligation to Protect You

An Essay From Professor Peter Kasler

All our lives, especially during our younger years, we hear that the police are there to protect us. From the very first kindergarten- class visit of “Officer Friendly” to the very last time we saw a police car – most of which have “To Protect and Serve” emblazoned on their doors – we’re encouraged to give ourselves over to police protection. But it hasn’t always been that way.

Before the mid-1800s, American and British citizens – even in large cities – were expected to protect themselves and each other. Indeed, they were legally required to pursue and attempt to apprehend criminals. The notion of a police force in those days was abhorrent in England and America, where liberals viewed it as a form of the dreaded “standing army.”

England’s first police force, in London, was not instituted until 1827. The first such forces in America followed in New York, Boston, and Philadelphia during the period between 1835 and 1845. They were established only to augment citizen self-protection. It was never intended that they act affirmatively, prior to or during criminal activity or violence against individual citizens. Their duty was to protect society as a whole by deterrence; i.e., by systematically patrolling, detecting and apprehending criminals after the occurrence of crimes. There was no thought of police displacing the citizens’ right of self-protection. Nor could they, even if it were intended.

Professor Don B. Kates, Jr., eminent civil rights lawyer and criminologist, states:

    • Even if all 500,000 American police officers were assigned to patrol, they could not protect 240 million citizens from upwards of 10 million criminals who enjoy the luxury of deciding when and where to strike. But we have nothing like 500,000 patrol officers; to determine how many police are actually available for any one shift, we must divide the 500,000 by four (three shifts per day, plus officers who have days off, are on sick leave, etc.). The resulting number must be cut in half to account for officers assigned to investigations, juvenile, records, laboratory, traffic, etc., rather than patrol.

Such facts are underscored by the practical reality of today’s society. Police and Sheriff’s departments are feeling the financial exigencies of our times, and that translates directly to a reduction of services, e.g., even less protection. For example, one moderate day recently (September 23, 1991) the San Francisco Police Department “dropped” 157 calls to its 911 facility, and about 1,000 calls to its general telephone number (415-553-0123). An SFPD dispatcher said that 150 dropped 911 calls, and 1,000 dropped general number calls, are about average on any given day.

It is, therefore, a fact of law and of practical necessity that individuals are responsible for their own personal safety, and that of their loved ones. Police protection must be recognized for what it is: only an auxiliary general deterrent.

Because the police have no general duty to protect individuals, judicial remedies are not available for their failure to protect. In other words, if someone is injured because they expected but did not receive police protection, they cannot recover damages by suing (except in very special cases, explained below). Despite a long history of such failed attempts, however, many, people persist in believing the police are obligated to protect them, attempt to recover when no protection was forthcoming, and are emotionally demoralized when the recovery fails. Legal annals abound with such cases.

Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate’s screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: “For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers.”

The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.’s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a “fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.” There are many similar cases with results to the same effect.

In the Warren case the injured parties sued the District of Columbia under its own laws for failing to protect them. Most often such cases are brought in state (or, in the case of Warren, D.C.) courts for violation of state statutes, because federal law pertaining to these matters is even more onerous. But when someone does sue under federal law, it is nearly always for violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 (often inaccurately referred to as “the civil rights act”). Section 1983 claims are brought against government officials for allegedly violating the injured parties’ federal statutory or Constitutional rights.

The seminal case establishing the general rule that police have no duty under federal law to protect citizens is DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services. Frequently these cases are based on an alleged “special relationship” between the injured party and the police. In DeShaney the injured party was a boy who was beaten and permanently injured by his father. He claimed a special relationship existed because local officials knew he was being abused, indeed they had “specifically proclaimed by word and deed [their] intention to protect him against that danger,”  but failed to remove him from his father’s custody.

The Court in DeShaney held that no duty arose because of a “special relationship,” concluding that Constitutional duties of care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves. “The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State’s knowledge of the individual’s predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf.”

About a year later, the United States Court of Appeals interpreted DeShaney in the California case of Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department. Ms. Balistreri, beaten and harassed by her estranged husband, alleged a “special relationship” existed between her and the Pacifica Police Department, to wit, they were duty-bound to protect her because there was a restraining order against her husband. The Court of Appeals, however, concluded that DeShaney limited the circumstances that would give rise to a “special relationship” to instances of custody. Because no such custody existed in Balistreri, the Pacifica Police had no duty to protect her, so when they failed to do so and she was injured they were not liable. A citizen injured because the police failed to protect her can only sue the State or local government in federal court if one of their officials violated a federal statutory or Constitutional right, and can only win such a suit if a “special relationship” can be shown to have existed, which DeShaney and its progeny make it very difficult to do. Moreover, Zinermon v. Burch very likely precludes Section 1983 liability for police agencies in these types of cases if there is a potential remedy via a State tort action.

Many states, however, have specifically precluded such claims, barring lawsuits against State or local officials for failure to protect, by enacting statutes such as California’s Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846 which state, in part: “Neither a public entity or a public employee [may be sued] for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals.”

It is painfully clear that the police cannot be relied upon to protect us. Thus far we’ve seen that they have no duty to do so. And we’ve also seen that even if they did have a duty to protect us, practically- speaking they could not fulfill it with sufficient certainty that we would want to bet our lives on it.

Now it’s time to take off the gloves, so to speak, and get down to reality. So the police aren’t duty-bound to protect us, and they can’t be expected to protect us even if they want to. Does that mean that they won’t protect us if they have the opportunity?

One of the leading cases on this point dates way back into the 1950s.  A certain Ms. Riss was being harassed by a former boyfriend, in a familiar pattern of increasingly violent threats. She went to the police for help many times, but was always rebuffed. Desperate because she could not get police protection, she applied for a gun permit, but was refused that as well. On the eve of her engagement party she and her mother went to the police one last time pleading for protection against what they were certain was a serious and dangerous threat. And one last time the police refused. As she was leaving the party, her former boyfriend threw acid in her face, blinding and permanently disfiguring her.

Her case against the City of New York for failing to protect her was, not surprisingly, unsuccessful. The lone dissenting justice of New York’s high court wrote in his opinion: “What makes the City’s position [denying any obligation to protect the woman] particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law [she] did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her.” [12]

Instances of police refusing to protect someone in grave danger, who is urgently requesting help, are becoming disturbingly more common. In 1988, Lisa Bianco’s violently abusive husband was finally in jail for beating and kidnapping her, after having victimized her for years. Ms. Bianco was somewhat comforted by the facts that he was supposedly serving a seven-year sentence, and she had been promised by the authorities that she’d be notified well in advance of his release. Nevertheless, after being in only a short time, he was temporarily released on an eight-hour pass, and she wasn’t notified. He went directly to her house and, in front of their 6- and 10- year old daughters, beat Lisa Bianco to death.

In 1989, in a suburb of Los Angeles, Maria Navarro called the L. A. County Sheriff’s 911 emergency line asking for help. It was her birthday and there was a party at her house, but her estranged husband, against whom she had had a restraining order, said he was coming over to kill her. She believed him, but got no sympathy from the 911 dispatcher, who said: “What do you want us to do lady, send a car to sit outside your house?” Less than half an hour after Maria hung up in frustration, one of her guests called the same 911 line and informed the dispatcher that the husband was there and had already killed Maria and one other guest. Before the cops arrived, he had killed another.

But certainly no cop would stand by and do nothing while someone was being violently victimized. Or would they? In Freeman v. Ferguson  a police chief directed his officers not to enforce a restraining order against a woman’s estranged husband because the man was a friend of the chief’s. The man subsequently killed the woman and her daughter. Perhaps such a specific case is an anomaly, but more instances of general abuses aren’t at all rare.

In one such typical case , a woman and her son were harassed, threatened and assaulted by her estranged husband, all in violation of his probation and a restraining order. Despite numerous requests for police protection, the police did nothing because “the police department used an administrative classification that resulted in police protection being fully provided to persons abused by someone with whom the victim has no domestic relationship, but less protection when the victim is either: 1) a woman abused or assaulted by a spouse or boyfriend, or 2) a child abused by a father or stepfather.”

In a much more recent case, a woman claimed she was injured because the police refused to make an arrest following a domestic violence call. She claimed their refusal to arrest was due to a city policy of gender- based discrimination. In that case the U. S. District Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that “no constitutional violation [occurred] when the most that can be said of the police is that they stood by and did nothing…” [17]

Do the police really harbor such indifference to the plight of certain victims? To answer that, let’s leave the somewhat aloof and dispassionate world of legal precedent and move into the more easily understood “real world.” I can state from considerable personal experience, unequivocally, that these things do happen. As to why they occur, I can offer only my opinion based on that experience and on additional research into the dark and murky areas of criminal sociopathy and police abuse.

One client of my partner’s and mine had a restraining order against her violently abusive estranged husband. He had recently beaten her so savagely a metal plate had to be implanted in her jaw. Over and over he violated the court order, sometimes thirty times daily. He repeatedly threatened to kill her and those of use helping her. But the cops refused to arrest him for violating the order, even though they’d witnessed him doing so more than once. They danced around all over the place trying to explain why they wouldn’t enforce the order, including inventing numerous absurd excuses about having lost her file (a common tactic in these cases). It finally came to light that there was a departmental order to not arrest anyone in that county for violating a protective order because the county had recently been sued by an irate (and wealthy) domestic violence arrestee.

In another of our cases, when Peggi and I served the man with restraining orders (something we’re often required to do because various law enforcement agencies can’t or won’t do it), he threatened there and then to kill our client. Due to the vigorous nature of the threat, we went immediately to the police department to get it on file in case he attempted to carry it out during the few days before the upcoming court appearance. We spent hours filing the report, but two days later when our client went to the police department for a copy to take to court, she was told there was no record of her, her restraining order, her case, or our report.

She called in a panic. Without that report it would be more difficult securing a permanent restraining order against him. I paid an immediate visit to the chief of that department. We discussed the situation and I suggested various options, including dragging the officer to whom Peggi and I had given the detailed death threat report into court to explain under oath how it had gotten lost. In mere moments, an internal affairs officer was assigned to investigate and, while I waited, they miraculously produced the file and our report. I was even telephoned later and offered an effusive apology by various members of the department.

It is true that in the real world, law enforcement authorities very often do perpetuate the victimization. It is also true that each of us is the only person upon whom we can absolutely rely to avoid victimization. If our client in the last anecdote hadn’t taken responsibility for her own fate, she might never have survived the ordeal. But she had sufficient resolve to fend for herself. Realizing the police couldn’t or wouldn’t help her, she contacted us. Then, when the police tried their bureaucratic shuffle on her, she called me. But for her determination to be a victim no more, and to take responsibility for her own destiny, she might have joined the countless others victimized first by criminals, then by the very system they expect will protect them.

Remember, even if the police were obligated to protect us (which they aren’t), or even if they tried to protect us (which they often don’t, a fact brought home to millions nationwide as they watched in horror the recent events in Los Angeles), most often there wouldn’t be time enough for them to do it. It’s about time that we came to grips with that, and resolved never to abdicate responsibility for our personal safety, and that of our loved ones, to anyone else.

Gun Control Legislation’s Racist Roots

Gun control legislation is racist?! WTF?!

When I first saw that on a pro gun youtube video I was shocked. Gun control legislation is a baby of the left. The same left that calls anything that disagrees with it racist. Surely gun control couldn’t be racist.  Surely this is just some pro-gun propaganda…

I did some googling and it turns out gun control does indeed have a racist roots!

Gun control’s racist roots

The Virginia colony prohibited slaves from owning guns.

After being emancipated as a result of the Civil War the southern states passed laws known as the “Black Codes”. These laws were among other things were meant to disarm Blacks to enforce white supremacy.

In 1967 after the Black Panther party ‘invaded’ California’s capital building in Sacramento then governor Reagan signed the Mulford Act which prohibited carrying firearms in public places

In 1968 Richard Nixon signed the Gun Control Act of 1968 which prohibited so-called ‘Saturday Night Specials’. These where cheap low grade hand guns mostly utilized in minority communities at the time.

Both of these 1960’s laws were given the nod by the National Riffle Association if that was due to bigotry in the organization at the time is unknown.

However, since then the NRA has changed it tune, vehemently opposing virtually all attempts to limit gun ownership in the United States.

After Philando Castille was shot by a police officer the NRA released the following statement:

“[The NRA] proudly supports the right of law-abiding Americans to carry firearms for defense of themselves and others regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation”.

-National Riffle Association

Free iPac T-Shirt when you subscribe

Black gun ownership is on the rise

Gun ownership amongst Blacks is on the rise and for a very good reason. The majority of murders in America occur in predominantly African American neighborhoods.

As already discussed in my Defense of the Second Amendment article the police cannot and should not be counted on to protect individuals.

Current racism in gun control

There are numerous studies that demonstrate that overall many Americans fear Blacks. Notice I said Americans not just white Americans.  In some ways the fear may be justified. Sadly, 52.5% of all murders in America are committed by Blacks. However, those murders were largely drug related and the victims were other Blacks.

Free concealed gun holster

If anything Blacks are more so justified to fear other Blacks than whites are to fear Blacks.

We must ask ourselves though. Since there is an overall fear of Blacks could the left’s vehement push to take away our freedom to own a firearm be rooted in the same fear and racism that it was in this country’s past?

They will of course deny this as they want the laws applied to all citizens not just Blacks. Lets say, God forbid, they do managed to get confiscation through. Which neighborhoods do you think would receive of the strongest enforcement of the new laws?

Relatively low crime wealthy largely white neighborhoods or high crime impoverished Black neighborhoods?

Bitch Tricks Her Teacher in Sending Nudes – Then Shares Them

Catfish Gate

A student in North Carolina tricked her French teacher into sharing his nudes with her on grindr and then sent them to classmates.

The original article

A high school student from North Carolina accused of “catfishing” her teacher on Grindr and then sharing his nude photos with classmates has been found not guilty.

According to the Onslow County Sheriff’s Office, 16-year-old Brittney Renee Luckenbaugh and her friend, Brian Joshua Anderson, obtained the teacher’s picture after misrepresenting themselves on Grindr.

Luckenbaugh created a fake profile pretending to be a 19-year-old man. Then she looked for her French teacher on Grindr. Upon discovering him, she struck up a conversation. The chatted a bit before moving over the Snapchat.

After getting the teacher to send her three naughty photos of himself, Luckenbaugh forwarded the images to Anderson, who then shared it with five other students.

As a result, the teacher was suspended without pay then reassigned to another school where, he says, “the only way to communicate with a student was through a camera.”

During testimony, he called the entire situation “very distressing.”

To add insult to injury, the teacher was then forced defend his use of the app to the court.

“Grindr is a dating site and a hook up site,” he testified. “I was using it for more than a hook up site. I’m too old to play. I was looking for more than that.”

Lawyer Matt Silva, who represented Luckenbaugh, said the state couldn’t prove she intended to humiliate her teacher. He also argued that the man didn’t have a right to privacy after sending images to a stranger.

In the end, the judge sided with Luckenbaugh, who broke down sobbing on her mother’s shoulder after hearing the not guilty verdict.

Afterwards, Silva told media, “There are no winners in this situation. My client did not intend to have those pictures circulated around the school and we hope everyone can move on past this horrible situation.”


What do you think?

Do you think she should’ve been found not guilty? Should the  teacher have known better than to send his nudes?

Leave your thoughts in the comment section below!

The Left’s Next Victim…Pedophiles

Conservatives have been saying for a long time that pedophilia would be the left’s next victim. This is one time I am saddened that they were right.

In the last couple of years far left publications like ‘Cracked’ and “Vice” have released articles defending pedophilia.

In these modern times of ‘shock and awe’…I guess you can call it…journalism I can’t say I’m surprised. Clearly these publications are just trying to draw attention–and advertiser revenue–to themselves.  In this case its worked.

As a responsible human being I feel I have a duty to protect our children even if it means giving abhorrent publications like “Cracked” attention.

There are pedophiles in the world who don’t molest children, and never will. No one disputes that fact. So what portion of pedophiles actually victimize kids?

There’s even a new PC term for pedophiles. “MAPs” or Minor-Attracted-Persons.

…it’s a little like growing up and realizing there’s something about you that makes it impossible for other people to love you. Imagine growing up under circumstances where you can never truly give love in a way that is legal or considered normal by others.

And here comes the victimization of pedophiels

Dr. Cantor countered by pointing out that most of the evidence that sex offenders commit sex offenses due to some past trauma

Here’s the thing leftists

We know that pedophilia is a mental disorder and we also know there is no cure for it. By victimizing and thus normalizing pedophilia we only give license  to even more intrepid pedophiles to act on their urges.

There have been countless interviews of pedophiles who said they know what they do is wrong they just can’t stop. It’s just like serial killers.  Infamous serial killer Jeffery Dalmer stated many times that he just couldn’t help himself. He didn’t like killing but it was an uncontrollable urge.

Sex is one of the most powerful drives we as a species have. That means if one is sexually attracted to children those urges are almost impossible not to act on at least once in life.

In additional many leftists want to connect pedophilia to the LGBT movement which besides being incredibly offensive just proves the ignorant bigots  who opposed to gay marriage right.

All along the gay rights movement has said that we want legal recognition for relationships between consenting adults! Not fucking pedophiles that harm the most vulnerable members of our society.

What happens to molested children

Edgar Mendoza Illegal Immigrant Pedophile

From Veteran’s Affairs PTSD Website:

Almost every child sexual abuse victim describes the abuse as negative. Most children know it is wrong. They usually have feelings of fear, shock, anger, and disgust. A small number of abused children might not realize it is wrong, though. These children tend to be very young or have mental delays. Also some victims might enjoy the attention, closeness, or physical contact with the abuser. This is more likely if these basic needs are not met by a caregiver. All told, these reactions make the abuse very hard and confusing for children.

If childhood sexual abuse is not treated, long-term symptoms can go on through adulthood. These may include:

  • PTSD and anxiety.

  • Depression and thoughts of suicide.

  • Sexual anxiety and disorders, including having too many or unsafe sexual partners.

  • Difficulty setting safe limits with others (e.g., saying no to people) and relationship problems.

  • Poor body image and low self-esteem.

  • Unhealthy behaviors, such as alcohol, drugs, self-harm, or eating problems. These behaviors are often used to try to hide painful emotions related to the abuse.

But the left attempts once again to normalizing pedophilia. The loony left website salon  published an article stating that child sexual abuse is ‘rarely’ frightening, overwhelming,  [and] painful’.

How pedophiles should be dealt with

A few months ago I planted some green bell pepper seeds. I watered them, made sure they got plenty of sunlight, but they just didn’t produce any vegetables. My neighbor in on the other hand got some new peppers that we both enjoyed in some fajitas him and his girlfriend made.

So what happened?

I just got some bad seeds. There’s nothing I could’ve done to make those seeds produce the right results . The same with pedophiles.  They are simply bad seeds and there’s not much that can be done for them other than castration (oh yeah an overwhelming majority of pedophiles are male).

It’s sad but our children must come first. We all know someone who has been molested. I wouldn’t wish that on the worst person I can think of. I’ll give you a hint her first name starts with H and last name with C.

Pedophiles should be castrated on the first offence and executed on the second.

Children come first.


In Defense of Our 2nd Amendment

On Wednesday September 14th one of the deadliest school shootings in American history took place in Parkland Florida.  A deranged very troubled teenager bought an AR-15 rifle and use it to kill some of his classmates and teachers.

The left had no shame in nor has wasted any time turning this tragedy into a talking point for their anti freedom agenda.

They’ve even gone so far as to champion a blatantly disrespectful teenager that made one of the most disrespectful tweets towards a sitting president I’ve ever seen.

In response to the president offering his condolences to her and her fellow victims. Ms. Sarah Chadwick tweeted:

The tweet was made viral by Hollywood elitist Olaf from Frozen aka Josh Gadd. There is no depth too deep for liberal elites that wish to push their propagandist message and lifestyle on all of us.

What the liberals want

It is propaganda in fact. Anytime you turn on CNN or any other liberal machine you’ll hear phrases like

“we’re only asking for sensible gun control”

“What’s wrong with protecting our children with sensible gun laws?”

What they never tell you is what exactly constitutes ‘sensible gun laws’? Are they referring to the assault rifle ban?  According to the neutral fact checking website the assault rifle ban had ‘mixed’ results at best.

We all know that Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws in nation and yet still has one of the highest murder rates as does Washington DC.

Of course the liberals will say that’s because people bring in guns from other states that respect the second amendment like Indiana but that’s a point against gun control not for it.

Remember Al Capone folks…

Let’s imagine for a moment that they manage to get the second amendment repealed (which is what they really want).  Okay; so the second amendment is gone and all guns are illegal in America. Only the cops (which they ironically seem to hate) will be allowed to have guns.

It wouldn’t do a damn thing to stop violent crime!


Because it will have the same effect as banning alcohol and drugs did. It will create a huge black market for firearms.  Most people don’t know that murder actually went up during prohibition because alcohol prohibition created a big network of organized crime.

Think Al Capone folks!

You think the drug cartels wanted marijuana to be legal?


It severely cut into their profits which was actually one of the talking points of the leftists that wanted to legalize pot.

Doesn’t anyone else find it ironic that the same people that want to give drugs to our kids want to ban our right to protect them?

Even the liberal Washington Post had to admit that there was ‘zero correlation between state homicide rate and state gun laws’.

California vs Texas

Everyone knows I love to do California vs Texas comparisons.  So here it goes . In addition to having cleaner air, a much lower poverty rate, Texas also has a slightly gun death rate than California.

Related: California Everything That’s Wrong With Liberalism

People not guns


As you can see the problem isn’t the guns its a tiny fraction of people that own guns. We must deal with those people and not punish everyone else by taking away their freedom.

What’s next?

Knife control?

Baseball bat control?

Or maybe even pillow control?

Oh I’ve got it! Hand control!

All those things are known to have been used as a weapon by people wishing to commit a crime. At what point does it stop?

You have no right to police protection!

A really sad SCOTUS Case: Warren vs District of Columbia

The skinny of it is that two men broke into the home of two women in Washington DC . They called the cops and the dispatcher assured them that help was on the way.

The help never came and the women ended up being robbed, beaten, and rapped by the intruders. They of course sued the DC police department.

The supreme court ruled that the police were harmless as there is no legal right to police protection by individuals. In other words the supreme court has said ‘you’re on your own’!

Frankly every single women should have a concealed carry permit. Every man too for that matter.

Hold your representatives accountable!

Just as we did in 1776 if we want our freedom we must fight for it. You can help in the fight by holding your elected representatives accountable!

Primary season is coming up in less than a month in some states. If you are fortunate enough to be represented by a republican make sure he or sure understands that if they vote for *any* sort of so-called ‘gun control’ legislation that there will be consequences come voting time!

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

-Benjamin Franklin

Founding Father of the United States of America