The Terrible Truth About Abraham Lincoln and the Confederate War
President Lincoln has been all but deified in America, with a god-like giant statue at a Parthenon-like memorial in Washington. Generations of school children have been indoctrinated with the story that “Honest Abe” Lincoln is a national hero who saved the Union and fought a noble war to end slavery, and that the “evil” Southern states seceded from the Union to protect slavery. This is the Yankee myth of history, written and promulgated by Northerners, and it is a complete falsity. It was produced and entrenched in the culture in large part to gloss over the terrible war crimes committed by Union soldiers in the War Between the States, as well as Lincoln’s violations of the law, his shredding of the Constitution, and other reprehensible acts. It has been very effective in keeping the average American ignorant of the real causes of the war, and the real nature, character and record of Lincoln. Let us look at some unpleasant facts.In his first inaugural address, Lincoln stated clearly that (1) he had no legal authority to interfere with slavery where it existed, (2) that he had no inclination or intention to do so even if he had the legal authority, (3) that he would enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, returning runaway slaves escaping to the North to their masters in the South, and (4) that he fully supported the Thirteenth Amendment then being debated in Congress which would protect slavery in perpetuity and was irrevocable. He later famously stated, “Do not paint me with the Abolitionist brush.”Although there was some opposition to slavery in the country, the government was willing to concede everything the South wanted regarding slavery to keep it in the Union. Given all these facts, the idea that the South seceded to protect slavery is as absurd as the idea that Lincoln fought the war to end slavery. Lincoln himself said in a famous letter after the war began that his sole purpose was to save the Union, and not to either save or end slavery; that if he could save the Union without freeing a single slave, he would. Nothing could be clearer.For decades before the war, the South, through harsh tariffs, had been supplying about 85% of the country’s revenue, nearly all of which was being spent in the North to boost its economy, build manufacturing, infrastructure, railroads, canals, etc. With the passage of the 47% Morrill Tariff the final nail was in the coffin. The South did not secede to protect slavery, although certainly they wished to protect it; they seceded over a dispute about unfair taxation, an oppressive Federal government, and the right to separate from that oppression and be governed “by consent”, exactly the same issues over which the Founding Fathers fought the Revolutionary War. When a member of Lincoln’s cabinet suggested he let the South go in peace, Lincoln famously replied, “Let the South go? Where, then, would we get our revenue!” He then launched a brutal, empirical war to keep the free and sovereign states, by force of arms, in the Union they had created and voluntarily joined, and then voluntarily left. This began his reign of terror.Lincoln was the greatest tyrant and despot in American history. In the first four months of his presidency, he created a complete military dictatorship, destroyed the Constitution, ended forever the constitutional republic which the Founding Fathers instituted, committed horrendous crimes against civilian citizens, and formed the tyrannical, overbearing and oppressive Federal government which the American people suffer under to this day. In his*first four months, heFailed to call Congress into session after the South fired upon Fort Sumter, in direct violation of the Constitution.Called up an army of 75,000 men, bypassing the Congressional authority in direct violation of the Constitution.Unilaterally suspended the writ of habeas corpus, a function of Congress, violating the Constitution. This gave him the power, as he saw it, to arrest civilians without charge and imprison them indefinitely without trial—which he did.Ignored a Supreme Court order to restore the right of habeas corpus, thus violating the Constitution again and ignoring the Separation of Powers which the Founders put in place exactly for the purpose of preventing one man’s using tyrannical powers in the executive.When the Chief Justice forwarded a copy of the Supreme Court’s decision to Lincoln, he wrote out an order for the arrest of the Chief Justice and gave it to a U.S. Marshall for expedition, in violation of the Constitution.Unilaterally ordered a naval blockade of southern ports, an act of war, and a responsibility of Congress, in violation of the Constitution.Commandeered and closed over 300 newspapers in theNorth, because of editorials against his war policy and his illegal military invasion of the South. This clearly violated the First Amendment freedom of speech and press clauses.Sent in Army forces to destroy the printing presses and other machinery at those newspapers, in violation of the Constitution.Arrested the publishers, editors and owners of those newspapers, and imprisoned them without charge and without trial for the remainder of the war, all in direct violation of both the Constitution and the Supreme Court order aforementioned.Arrested and imprisoned, without charge or trial, another 15,000-20,000 U.S. citizens who dared to speak out against the war, his policies, or were suspected of anti-war feelings. (Relative to the population at the time, this would be equivalent to President G.W. Bush arresting and imprisoning roughly 150,000-200,000 Americans without trial for “disagreeing” with the Iraq war; can you imagine?)Sent the Army to arrest theentire legislature*of Maryland to keep them from meeting legally, because they were debating a bill of secession; they were all imprisoned without charge or trial, in direct violation of the Constitution.Unilaterally created the state of West Virginia in direct violation of the Constitution.Sent 350,000 Northern men to their deaths to kill 350,000 Southern men in order to force the free and sovereign states of the South to remain in the Union they, the people, legally voted to peacefully withdraw from, all in order to continue the South’s revenue flow into the North.These are just a few of the most egregious things Lincoln did during his despotic presidency. He set himself up as a tyrannical dictator with powers never before utilized or even imagined by any previous administration. During this four years of terrible war he was one of the greatest despots the world has ever known, his tyranny focused against his own countrymen, both North and South. He was called a despot and tyrant by many newspapers and citizens both North and South, until he had imprisoned nearly all those who dared to simply speak out against his unconstitutional usurpations of power. Those who disagreed with him were branded as “traitors”, just as were the brave and honorable men in the states which had legally seceded from the Union over just such issues as these criminal abuses of power by the Federal government.
Of course Obama has'nt started a CIVIL WAR yet, however, As I recall many years ago on this forum, I said well before Obama was elected that he would usher in Mass Prejudice and Racist hatred by blacks towards whites.
I even quipped/joked that it would be LEGAL UNDER UNITED NATIONS human rights directives/laws for blacks to murder whites without any "hate crimes" laws being attached to such crimes.
And as usual I AM ALWAYS RIGHT! NOW you can dismiss my views/opinions all you want and continue in your blissful ignorance of truth, or you can of course go to the myriad of "truth tellers" out on the net who are scam artist looking to get your money. EITHER WAY I am beholding to No One!
So is it any coincidence that in the last 5 years of Obama's Presidency, that he has finished the MILITARIZATION OF POLICE FORCES across America, started under BUSH? Now do you see why Obama and his handlers love ABRAHAM LINCOLN?
By Colin FlahertyThe deniers of black mob violence have a new mantra: "Colin, show us the numbers." Otherwise, all this talk about the Knockout Game and an epidemic of black on white violence is a myth. An urban legend.Thus sayeth more than a dozen of media outlets including the Los Angeles Times and NPR -- two outlets that loved me when I wrote a story that showed a black man in prison for trying to kill his white girl friend was unjustly convicted. He was released because of that story.They did not ask for numbers then. Now they do.I wrote White Girl Bleed a Lot: The Return of Racial Violence to America and How the Media Ignore It for these exact people -- the deniers. I did not really put a lot of numbers in White Girl because I figured: What was the point?First off, the numbers on racial crime and violence are just as horrific as you can imagine. Pick a number between between 5 and 100. That is how many times greater black crime and violence is compared to white and Asian.The only people who do not know that are ones who don't want to know it.Deniers screech "profiling!" when people use lots of statistics on racial violence. Turn around and use stories instead and the Los Angeles Times will accuse you of "cherry picking."Result: It's better not to write about it at all. I just saved you the price of admission to the next Society of Professional Journalists seminar on how to report racial violence.Let's do it anyway -- talk about the numbers, that is.
CNSNews.com) - The debt of the U.S. government has increased $6.666 trillion since President Barack Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, according to the latest numbers released by the Treasury Department.When President Obama was first inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009, the debt of the U.S. government was $10,626,877,048,913.08, according to the*Treasury Department’s Bureau of the Public Debt. As of Jan. 31, 2014, the latest day reported, the debt was $17,293,019,654,983.61—an increase of $6,666,142,606,070.53 since Obama’s first inauguration.The total debt of the United States did not exceed $6.666 trillion until July 2003. In the little more than five years of the Obama presidency, the U.S. has accumulated as much new debt as it did in it’s first 227 years.- See more at:
Much has been said about the January Non-farm payrolls number, which rose by 113K on expectations of a 180K increase, most of which has been focused on the US atmospheric conditions during the winter. There is a problem with those numbers: they don't really exist (as for the non-impact of "the weather" on jobs we*showed previously*that the number of people "not at work due to weather" as calculated by the BLS itself. this winter was lower than 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 - so much for historic winter weather).So what really happened in January?For the real answer we have to go to the BLS'*non-seasonally adjusted data series. It is here that we find that in January,*some 2.870 million real, actual jobs were*lost,*not gained. Putting this further in perspective, the number of NSA jobs losses in January 2014 was greater than in January of 2013, 2012, 2011 and tied that of 2010. In fact only during the peak of the depression in January 2009 was there a greater NSA drop in the first month of the year when 3.691 million jobs were lost.
Black Mob Violence in Macon: What’s Snow Got to Do with It?
February 7, 2014*by*Colin Flaherty*84 Comments63*Print This Post
John J. Owens is absolutely sure race had nothing to do with the reason why 30 black people attacked five white people, including a mom and a baby, near Macon Georgia last week.The alleged assailants and victims could have been any race. “Color doesn’t matter, only the ‘idiot factor’ matters,”*opined Mr. Owens in the Macon Telegraph.*That means the rest is random.
Holder: State Laws That Bar Felons From Voting Are ‘Too Unjust to Tolerate’
CNSNews.com) – Three days after announcing that the U.S. Justice Department will recognize same-sex marriages in all legal matters, even in states that forbid it, Attorney General Eric Holder took a swipe at states that don’t allow felons to vote.“In many states, felony disenfranchisement laws are still on the books. And the current scope of these policies is not only too significant to ignore -- it is also too unjust to tolerate,” Holder told a criminal justice forum at Georgetown University Law Center.Holder urged lawmakers “to stand together in overturning an unfortunate and outdated status quo.” And he called on the American people “to join us in bringing about the end of misguided policies that unjustly restrict what's been called the ‘most basic right’ of American citizenship.”- See more at:
TAMPA (FOX 13) -New video released Tuesday by the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office shows the start of what would become a massive stampede of rowdy students at the Florida State Fair that led to dozens of ejections and several arrests.The video was shot by a vendor and handed over to investigators as they try to identify victims and make more arrests in connection to the organized stampede known as "wilding.""It's more of a giant stampede, and that's kind of the beginning of it that you see on that video," explained Col. Jim Previtera. "It does give a brief glimpse of what 'wilding' looks like."The stampede, which investigators said involved many teenagers attending with free student tickets, led to 99 ejections and 12 arrests Friday and forced authorities to shut the fair down early.Previtera made another revelation: Known gang members were involved in the ordeal; several of them even took pictures at a photo booth at the fair."Certainly the gang element adds an organized group into the mix that's there for one purpose, and that's certainly not to take advantage of the rides," he said. "They were there to cause problems."Two undercover detectives with the sheriff's office gang unit were thrust into the middle of the chaotic scene."You have people coming from everywhere, 360 degrees, you never know where it's coming from and you're trying to prepare yourself for the situation that may occur, that you really don't know what's going to happen," said one of the detectives, who asked to not be identified."They're trampling patrons, knocking them over, using it as an opportunity to commit crimes," the other detective said, describing the actions of the gang members. "They were using it as a means to instill fear in the crowd and basically have fun at the crowd's expense."Sheriff David Gee, meanwhile, sent a letter to leaders in the African American community, asking for their help."I am concerned that the overwhelming number of youth and young adults arrested or ejected from the midway for misconduct were African American," Gee wrote in the letter.
President Obama is launching a new initiative to help young men of color. It’s called My Brother’s Keeper.The President told Charles Barkley in a television interview last night that he wants create special educational, mentorship and apprenticeship programs – for a specific segment of the population.“We’re going to pull together private philanthropies, foundations working with governors, mayors non-profits and we’re going to focus on young men of color and find ways in which to create more pathways to success for them,” the president told Barkley.He said he wants to expose young men of color to career options that could pay as much as $35 an hour.“Across the board from the time they’re young all the way to their first job, we want to help more young African-American men and Latino men succeed,” he said.I applaud the president’s initiative – but what about the young, white man looking for a job?Where are the special programs designed to help him get a leg up in the world? Where are the mentoring and interning opportunities for white kids from impoverished neighborhoods?The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. once had a dream that his children would one day live in a nation where they would not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.Let’s hope in the future that President Obama applies that same standard when it comes time to helping young men find jobs – no matter the color of their skin.
Caddell Bombshell: GOP Establishment Wants the IRS to Go After the Tea Party
February 17, 2014
RUSH:*The Republican Party establishment... Let me set this up by going back to the 2012 presidential campaign. Remember when you learned that the Romney campaign, along with Republican establishment types, had put the word out that there was to be no criticism of Obama? In fact, I remember... I think I told you all this. A prospective Republican presidential candidate in 2010 or 2011 visited me.
There was some confab here in Palm Beach, and this man called and wanted to come by and tell me what his plans were. So I said, "Sure, come on by Sunday morning." The guy said, "Rush, now, I just want to tell you: We can't go after Obama. That's instant death. We can go after his policies, but we can't go after Obama." I said, "Really? How do you separate 'em? How do you not go after Obama if you're going after his policies? How could you go after his policies while not going after Obama?""We can't make it personal, Rush. We just can't do it." And that bled over to the Romney campaign, so much so that in the debates they wouldn't even bring up Benghazi. So now, the Republican establishment has let everybody in the party know that they will not tolerate, they will not advocate, and they won't put up with anybody attacking the Clintons' past.*If Hillary runs for president, there will be no discussion of Lewinsky and the blue dress.There will be no discussion of the Rose Law Firm, the billing records. There will be none of that stuff from the past. "We're not gonna dredge it up," the Republican establishment says. "It ain't gonna happen. We can't win by going back and being critical of the Clintons. We can't bring all that stuff up from the past. We're not gonna do it. We're gonna stay away from it."Sure, they can attack Palin. They can attack Palin's whole family. They can make movies and talk about how the Republicans were so scared of her lack of intelligence, they wouldn't even vote for her. They can do all that, but we can't attack the Clintons. We couldn't attack Obama, and can't now attack the Clintons. Pat Caddell was on Fox saying the GOP establishment wants the IRS to go after the Tea Party.Pat Caddell said yesterday on Fox News that the reason Republican leadership has not pushed for a higher-level investigation of the IRS for targeting the Tea Party is because they want the IRS to go after the Tea Party. When you have 71% who want an investigation, 64% who believe it is a sign of corruption, including nearly a majority of Democrats, the reason is the establishment Republicans want the IRS to go after the Tea Party.Got it?They want them to go after the Tea Party because the Tea Parties are an outside threat to their power hold. I'm telling you, the lobbying-consultant class of the Republican Party and Republican leadership, who have been attacking the Tea Party and alienating them, they want the IRS to do this. That's why there hasn't been any establishment Republican pushback on the IRS. It's almost safe to say the Republican establishment might be willing to lose a couple of elections if it meant getting rid of the Tea Party; because it's clear, folks, they don't want to win any elections the Tea Party can claim any credit for.BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: You gotta hear Pat Caddell. I mentioned this, but I want you to hear Pat Caddell say it. It was last night on the Fox report on the Fox News Channel, talking about the IRS targeting Tea Party groups.CADDELL: The reason is, the establishment Republicans want the IRS to go after the Tea Parties. Got it? They want to go after the Tea Parties because the Tea Parties are an outside threat to their power hold, and I'm telling you, the lobbying, consulting class of the Republican Party and Republican leadership who have been attacking the Tea Parties and alienating them, they want the IRS to do this.
RUSH: That is a serious charge. That is a very, very serious charge, that the Republican establishment is aligned with Obama and is okay with Obama using the IRS to investigate the Tea Party. But it's believable, because we know the Republican establishment, the political class in Washington, is spreading the word that they are not gonna criticize Hillary, it isn't gonna happen, and we shouldn't, either. It shouldn't happen. It won't help anybody to criticize the Clintons, at least not from the nineties. Maybe go after her on Benghazi, but if anybody does that they'll say, "No, no, no, leave Benghazi alone." And pretty soon they're gonna say no criticism of the Clintons. That's not gonna help us. You watch.
First Amendment:*The FCC has cooked up a plan to place "researchers" in U.S. newsrooms, supposedly to learn all about how editorial decisions are made. Any questions as to why the U.S. is falling in the free press rankings?As if illegal seizures of Associated Press phone records and the shadowy tailing of the mother of a Fox News reporter weren't menacing enough, the Obama administration is going out of its way to institute a new intrusive surveillance of the press, as if the press wasn't supine enough.Ajit Pai, a commissioner with the Federal Communications Commission, warned this week in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that a plan to dispatch researchers into radio, television and even newspaper newsrooms called the "Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs" is still going forward, despite the grave danger it presented to the First Amendment.Pai warned that under the rationale of increasing minority representation in newsrooms, the FCC, which has the power to issue or not issue broadcasting licenses, would dispatch its "researchers" to newsrooms across America to seek their "voluntary" compliance about how news stories are decided, as well as "wade into office politics" looking for angry reporters whose story ideas were rejected as evidence of a shutout of minority views.Pai questioned if such a study could really be voluntary, given FCC's conflict of interest (and, he might have added, the Obama record of going after political opponents).The origin of the idea is a recrudescence of the Fairness Doctrine, inoperative since 1987 or so, to provide equal time to leftist points of view in broadcasting and other media that otherwise wouldn't have a willing audience in a free market.It's an idea so fraught with potential for abuse it ought to have news agencies screaming bloody murder. The very idea of Obama hipsters showing up in newsrooms, asking questions and judging if newspapers (over which they have no jurisdiction), radio and TV are sufficiently diverse is nothing short of thought control.But the reaction from the National Association of Broadcasters was mealy-mouthed. The FCC "should reconsider" "qualitative" sections of its study, it wrote.The FCC now says it will be "closely reviewing the proposed research design to determine if an alternative approach is merited," as a result of Pai's warning. Adweek actually reported that as a "retreat."It's because of this don't-rock-the-boat attitude that Reporters Without Borders said the U.S. had "one of the most significant declines" in press freedom in the world last year, dropping 13 places to a wretched 46th in its newly released global ranking. If the FCC has its way, it can drop even further.Read More At Investor's Business Daily:*http://news.investors.com/ibd-editor...sH2V6GN*Follow us:*@IBDinvestors on Twitter*|*InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook
The State of Connecticut says that all citizens must register rifles and high capacity magazines, or be charged will a felony. As many as 100,000 people could face heavily armed police smashing down their doors and be charged with a felony.The legislature of CT says that a registration is needed so they can know where the guns are. Yet at the same time, they are sending threatening letters to gun owners. So they already have records of who has purchased certain guns. The fact is, that the CT legislature fully intends to confiscate hundreds of thousands of firearms anyway. The registration process will simply make it easier to confiscate, because you acknowledge that you still own a firearm that the state already suspects that you own.CT State Police Spokesman Lt. Vance says that state police would comply with an order from the state to conduct door to door gun confiscations.Experts claim that as many as 350,000 people are in violation of the law, and over 100,000 of those people could face felony charges. That means over 3.6% of the entire adult population of Connecticut has been transformed into a felon by the new registration law. Roughly one in twenty Connecticut homes could have their doors smashed in by heavily armed law enforcement seeking to confiscate firearms.CT State Police Spokesman Lt. Vance can be reached at at (860) 685-8290.Read more at*
Connecticut Patriot Forewarned Lawmakers about Gun Registration: “I Will Not Comply”
Tim Brown*March 2, 2014 480 Comments
With the current situation in Connecticut, where state lawmakers have legislated gun registration, tens of thousands have determined not to register their weapons and the state has threatened to confiscate them and arrest individuals if they do not register or turn them in, I thought a word from patriot John S. Cinque was in order. His words echo the founding fathers and Mike Vanderboegh of Connecticut's Sipsey Street Irregulars, and were a foreshadowing of what is taking place.
On April 4, 2013, Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy (D)*signed Senate Bill 1160 into law, unleashing one of the most draconian gun control laws in the nation on his constituents.* Among other things, the*140-page law*bans large classes of firearms and magazines that had been obtained lawfully by tens of thousands of Connecticut residents.* Limited grandfather provisions apply to those who registered otherwise banned items before January 1, 2014.* Others in possession could face felony penalties for violations.* President Obama himself was in Connecticut*four days after this bill became law, praising it as a model for the nation.Throughout the Connecticut lawmakers' efforts to attack law-abiding gun owners, your NRA has been actively involved in fighting to vindicate the Second Amendment rights of Connecticut's citizens.* Shortly before the bill*was rammed through the state legislature*with no opportunity for public debate or even for adequate committee review, the*NRA helped organize*a huge lobby day protest rally in conjunction with the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the Connecticut Citizens Defense League and the Coalition of Connecticut Sportsmen.* Thousands turned out peacefully to protest the proposed legislation and the incursions on their rights that would undoubtedly result from it.NRA is currently backing a lawsuit,*Shew v. Malloy, to challenge the constitutionality of several provisions of the law, including its expanded bans on semi-automatic firearms and its restrictions on magazine capacity.* Some have wondered why NRA has not appeared as a named plaintiff in the suit.* Simply put, experience has often shown that NRA is more effective in lending its expertise and resources, rather than its name, to litigation.* Many within the legal elite have been slow to embrace the fundamental, individual rights protected by the Second Amendment, and getting a fair hearing on these matters is difficult enough.* When NRA participates in a legal case as a plaintiff, its involvement attracts a traveling media circus eager to criticize and attempt to discredit whatever it does.* This can further inhibit courts from giving the merits of the case a thorough and impartial hearing.* Unlike some groups who will eagerly tout their participation in any "gun rights" case, no matter how ill-advised or unlikely to succeed, NRA is more interested in advancing our Second Amendment freedoms through litigation, rather than just using lawsuits for publicity or fundraising purposes.In any event, a federal district court judge has, for now,*upheld*the contested provisions of the law.* An appeal is already underway.* The court's ruling, while unfavorable on the law, contained important factual findings, including that the newly-banned firearms and magazines are, in fact, commonly owned and legally used nationwide, including in Connecticut.* These findings could well make a difference as the case makes its way through the appeals process. *While relief through the court system is at best a long and incremental process, the effort continues with NRA's full support.Meanwhile, reality is setting in for Connecticut lawmakers and enforcement officials, who now must deal with the effects the new law is having on ordinary persons who have never been at odds with the law.* As in other states that have recently enacted draconian gun control measures, SB 1160 has caused good jobs and honest business interests to*leave the state, unwilling to shoulder the blame for acts committed by criminals that tore at the heart of the business owners and their employees along with all of the good people in Connecticut. *Even supporters of the law now widely acknowledge that tens of thousands of existing firearms and untold numbers of magazines have*not been registered*as required.* In other words, Connecticut's politicians have created from whole cloth an entirely new class of criminals.*
These are otherwise ordinary people who work at legitimate jobs, pay taxes, and undoubtedly in many cases are raising families and running businesses that employ others and contribute to the general welfare of the state.*These are individuals who have never used firearms unlawfully and have no intention of ever doing so.* They had merely chosen to protect their homes and families and pursue their sporting interests with what federal judges are now recognizing as common firearms used in-state and throughout the nation for lawful purposes.* At the time they acquired the firearms, they were perfectly lawful.* Now, these people have become the scapegoats for the heinous acts of a handful of criminals.* Now, they are the pawns in a larger political fight going back decades, when gun control supporters realized that handgun bans would not work, and*other avenues would have to be used*to condition the public to accept gun bans. *Only last week, multiple reports surfaced of*a disturbing letter*that had reportedly been sent to Connecticut gun owners who tried to register their firearms but whose paperwork arrived at the Connecticut State Police ("CSP") after the deadline. *That letter, dated January 2, 2014, and containing the signature of a State Police lieutenant, gave recipients four choices for disposition of their firearms, none of which indicated they would be given a pass for their late submission. *Rumors swirled, as some claimed this was the precursor to a later campaign of outright confiscation, even by those who tried to comply with the registration aspects of the law but failed because of early Post Office closures or mistakes in paperwork.The Connecticut State Police did nothing helpful to alleviate these concerns.* As one rumor after another was reported in breathless media accounts, your NRA was diligently working behind the scenes to learn the truth.* Our experience was consistent with other reports that have since emerged, in that answers received from CSP officials seemed to vary with whomever happened to answer the telephone.* Some said a letter was being drafted but had not been sent.*
Others denied the existence of the letter categorically. *Finally, after NRA personnel identified themselves as such and demanded to speak with high ranking officials, confronted these officials with the CSP's inconsistent answers, and insisted on knowing the truth, the CSP reversed course and admitted to NRA that the letter was authentic and that it had been sent to a number of individuals whose registration paperwork was received after the deadline.* Nevertheless, the officials insisted it was not a warning of later confiscation but a "public service" to advise gun owners whose registrations were rejected of their options.Media reports also indicate that the CSP in some cases is willing to grant limited "amnesty" to persons who are believed to have completed the registration requirements prior to the deadline but whose paperwork was received late because of circumstances beyond the registrant's control.* We find none of this reassuring.* Simply put, the rule of law has broken down in Connecticut and the Malloy administration's and CSP's credibility on this issue has been severely compromised. *Nobody seems to know what the state's intentions are toward residents who have committed purely technical violations of the law, whether or not they unsuccessfully attempted to register their firearms on time.* While we agree that evidence of unsuccessful attempts at registration should not be used to prosecute the registrants, the process of choosing who is and is not eligible for "amnesty" seems to be wide open, with no oversight to ensure consistency or fairness.* In short, Connecticut's approach to this issue is a glaring example of arbitrary and capricious enforcement of what was bad public policy in the first place.The only safe choice for those Connecticut gun owners who have not successfully registered their firearms (whether or not intentionally) is to assume enforcement action remains a very real possibility with very serious consequences.* Nevertheless, we certainly hope the Malloy administration and the CSP will devote their limited resources to focusing on truly dangerous individuals who have no regard for any laws or the lives or well-being of others. *They are the proper targets of law enforcement efforts; not responsible gun owners who were in perfect compliance with the law until a rushed and deeply flawed bill was passed with no chance for public input.As for the legislature, they should repeal this ill-considered, politically-motivated law with the Orwellian title of "An Act Concerning Gun Violence Prevention and Children's Safety."* Children are not safe when their parents are classified as criminals subject to arrest and imprisonment for the earlier acquisition of property that was undertaken lawfully and in good faith and which threatens harm to no one in the present. *Children are not safe when the next knock at the door could be an armed squad of policemen who are serving warrants against a class of citizens who have done nothing to harm others but have summarily been condemned as "armed criminals."The rule of law is in tatters in the "Constitution State," and whatever ambiguities remain or misadventures may yet come to pass, one thing is crystal clear: Governor Malloy and those who voted for SB 1160 in the state legislature are responsible for them. * *In the meantime, Connecticut gun owners can be sure that the NRA is standing with them to fight this injustice every step of the way.