The redundant mantra of gun grabbers is "It's the job of the police to protect us," or "Only professional law enforcement officers are qualified to protect us," or "Citizens should not bear arms because it's the job of policemen to protect us," or statements to that effect. But the mass shooting in a Parkland, Florida, school proves the absolute fallacy of the above statements.
Constitutional Attorney John Whitehead recently wrote an outstanding column entitled "Armed And Dangerous: If Police Don't Have To Protect The Public, What Good Are They?" He begins his article by quoting author William S. Burroughs: "After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military." AMEN!
Whitehead writes, "In the American police state, police have a tendency to shoot first and ask questions later.
"In fact, police don't usually need much incentive to shoot and kill members of the public.
"Police have shot and killed Americans of all ages—many of them unarmed—for standing a certain way, or moving a certain way, or holding something—anything—that police could misinterpret to be a gun, or igniting some trigger-centric fear in a police officer's mind that has nothing to do with an actual threat to their safety.
"In recent years, Americans have been killed by police merely for standing in a 'shooting stance,' holding a cell phone, behaving oddly and holding a baseball bat, opening the front door, running in an aggressive manner holding a tree branch, crawling around naked, hunching over in a defensive posture, wearing dark pants and a basketball jersey, driving while deaf, being homeless, brandishing a shoehorn, holding a garden hose, and peeing outdoors.
"So when police in Florida had to deal with a 19-year-old embarking on a shooting rampage inside Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., what did they do?
"There were four armed police officers, including one cop who was assigned to the school as a resource officer, on campus during that shooting. All four cops stayed outside the school with their weapons drawn (three of them hid behind their police cars).
"Not a single one of those cops, armed with deadly weapons and trained for exactly such a dangerous scenario, entered the school to confront the shooter.
"Seventeen people, most of them teenagers, died while the cops opted not to intervene.
"Let that sink in a moment."
Let that sink in, indeed.
How could four sheriff's deputies stay hidden behind cover outside a school building while a maniac (or Manchurian Candidate?) is busy mowing down 17 people—most of them school kids? Are you kidding me?
At least one deputy who refused to go in has said that he was ordered not to go in. Unfortunately, that is very feasible. Many sheriffs' offices and police departments have protocols for "street cops" to wait for SWAT teams to arrive and, if possible, not confront armed aggressors. When you hear about a police officer shooting someone, it is almost always a case of the cop shooting someone in a perceived self-defense scenario. In other words, the vast majority of times a policeman uses his firearm, it is to protect HIMSELF, not someone else.
A Former FBI investigator who has written a police manual that is mandatory reading for all Maine Criminal Justice Academy cadets blatantly told reporters: "The Supreme Court has made it clear . . . A police officer can let the public take the risk, take [the risk] upon himself or put it on the individual who brings the danger in the first place. That's what law enforcement is for — to protect the community. They have to protect themselves [first] to do that." (Words in brackets are in the original.)
See the report here:
So, the sheriff's deputies who stayed behind cover outside the school and refused to try and take out the shooter were following the procedures laid out by this FBI instructor. They were putting the responsibility on the shooter—and letting the public (students and teachers in the school, in this case) take the "risk"—and protecting themselves "first."
So, when the American people assume that it is the policeman's job to protect them from an armed aggressor, they are completely mistaken. It is NOT the responsibility of policemen to protect us.
Whitehead elucidates this subject: "According to the U.S. Supreme Court, police have no duty, moral or otherwise, to help those in trouble, protect individuals from danger, or risk their own lives to save 'we the people.'
"In other words, you can be outraged that cops in Florida did nothing to stop the school shooter, but technically, it wasn't part of their job description."
Let that sink in too, folks.
Whitehead is exactly right. As noted above, courts have consistently ruled that it is NOT the responsibility of a police officer to protect the citizen. It is the responsibility of the citizen to protect himself. The job of the police officer is to gather evidence, apprehend the suspected criminal, and bring them to a court of law for a fair trial where they are presumed innocent until proven guilty. All of this talk about cops protecting us is a myth—a complete fabrication and misrepresentation. And every lawyer and judge in the country knows it. The only ones who don't know it are MOST of the American people.
So, think about it: Under our Constitution and laws, police officers have NO OBLIGATION to protect the American citizenry. But at the same time, our politicians, news media, and most public school administrators and police chiefs insist that the American citizenry NOT be allowed to protect itself. If this isn't madness, there is no such thing.
Whitehead goes on: "This begs the question: if the police don't have a duty to protect the public, what are we paying them for? And who exactly do they serve if not you and me?
"Why do we have more than a million cops on the taxpayer-funded payroll in this country whose jobs do not entail protecting our safety, maintaining the peace in our communities, and upholding our liberties?
"Why do we have more than a million cops who have been fitted out in the trappings of war, drilled in the deadly art of combat, and trained to look upon 'every individual they interact with as an armed threat and every situation as a deadly force encounter in the making'?
"I'll tell you why.
"It's the same reason why the Trump Administration has made a concerted effort to expand the police state's power to search, strip, seize, raid, steal from, arrest and jail Americans for any infraction, no matter how insignificant.
"This is no longer a government 'of the people, by the people, for the people.'
"It is fast becoming a government 'of the rich, by the elite, for the corporations,' and its rise to power is predicated on shackling the American taxpayer to a life of indentured servitude.
"Cops in America may get paid by the citizenry, but they don't work for us.
"They don't answer to us. They're not loyal to us.
"And they certainly aren't operating within the limits of the U.S. Constitution.
"That 'thin, blue line' of loyalty to one's fellow cops has become a self-serving apparatus that sees nothing wrong with advancing the notion that the lives—and rights—of police should be valued more than citizens.
"As one commentator remarked, '"Protect and Serve" are the words we see on the side of many police cars and is the motto of most police forces. The words define the mission of the police, which is to "protect" citizens and "serve" the public. However, it has become increasingly clear that in far too many police forces those words have been twisted beyond recognition. Too often they appear to mean, "to protect officers and serve the police force." "Force Protection" has become the primary motivating force for many in the Police. That term is actually a military concept which means that you do everything you can to protect the troops when planning and executing a combat mission.'"
Whitehead is dead on. Everything he just said was on display at the school shootings in Parkland, Florida.
Whitehead continues, "For the record, any police officer who tells you that he needs tanks, SWAT teams, and pepper spray to do his job shouldn't be a police officer in a constitutional republic.
"Unfortunately, 'we the people' don't get to call the shots anymore. And we no longer live in a constitutional republic.
"Welcome to the American police state, funded by Corporate America, policed by the military industrial complex, and empowered by politicians whose primary purpose is to remain in office.
"It's a short hop, skip and a jump from the police state we're operating under right now to a full-blown totalitarian regime ruled with the iron fist of martial law.
"The groundwork has already been laid.
"The events of recent years have only served to desensitize the nation to violence, acclimate them to a militarized police presence in their communities, and persuade them that there is nothing they can do to alter the seemingly hopeless trajectory of the nation: the invasive surveillance, the extremism reports, the civil unrest, the protests, the shootings, the bombings, the military exercises and active shooter drills, the color-coded alerts and threat assessments, the fusion centers, the transformation of local police into extensions of the military, the distribution of military equipment and weapons to local police forces, the government databases containing the names of dissidents and potential troublemakers.
"The sight of police clad in body armor and gas masks, wielding semiautomatic rifles and escorting an armored vehicle through a crowded street, a scene likened to 'a military patrol through a hostile city,' no longer causes alarm among the general populace."
I have been saying this for years (and so has Mr. Whitehead, by the way).
And speaking of "police clad in body armor and gas masks," did you watch the eyewitness testimony of the teacher who saw the shooter from a "bad-breath distance" of only twenty feet?
Stacey Lippel, a language arts teacher at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, said at first she thought the shooter was a police officer because of the way he was dressed "in 'full metal garb' complete with helmet, face mask and bulletproof armor."
"'I'm staring at him thinking, "Why is the police here? This is strange,"' she said. 'And I'm just looking at him, but I'm still getting the kids, knowing this is an emergency.'"
The teacher also said that the shooter was carrying a rifle that she had "never seen before."
See the interview with Ms. Lippel here:
But Ms. Lippel's eyewitness testimony contradicts the official story that the 19-year-old shooter was wearing street clothes and a backpack and carrying a black duffel bag containing extra ammunition, which he discarded when he casually walked out of the school with the other students, and was later arrested in a nearby residential neighborhood. (I have not seen reports stating exactly where authorities found the discarded rifle, backpack, and duffel bag.)
If this teacher saw the 19-year-old kid (who we are told was the sole shooter), could he really have carried all of that armored police gear to the school (remember he was supposedly driven to the school by a Uber driver), quickly put on all of the gear (no easy task unless one is very familiar and practiced with this kind of equipment), go through the school shooting everyone in sight, and then take off the body armor and tactical gear without being seen and casually walk out of the school with the other students, completely blending in with them and raising no suspicion by police officers as he walked away from the scene? Apparently, that is what we are told to believe.
Oh, and what happened to all of this armor the shooter was wearing? Not a word has been said about it.
In my mind, the more plausible explanation is that Ms. Lippel saw a second shooter—someone professionally trained and equipped with sophisticated military and police tactical gear. Plus, it's hard to believe that the teacher wouldn't know what an AR-15 rifle would look like. But military units carry a plethora of combat weapons that most civilians have never laid eyes on. But that's a whole different subject, isn't it?
Plus, it is more than curious that, according to students and teachers at the school: 1) the Secret Service conducted drills (plural) at the school, 2) teachers and students had been told by police that they would be conducting active shooter drills at the school that very week and that they would be firing blanks during the exercises (many students and faculty members thought police had begun drilling when they heard the shots ring out), and 3) according to one student's testimony, she actually walked out of the building with the alleged shooter Nikolas Cruz. Obviously, he was not wearing police armor. The girl said she heard shots coming from another part of the school at the same time they were walking out together and is certain there had to have been a second shooter.
See Alexa Miednik's testimony here:
Since when does the Secret Service conduct drills at public schools in different states? Wow! You can count on this: If the Feds are involved, the fish are rotten in Denmark. And what a coincidence that police had told the school to expect an active shooter drill at about the exact same time as the real live shooting took place. Sorry, folks. I just don't believe in coincidences when it comes to mass shootings.
And isn't it convenient that the government is razing the entire school building—just like Waco, the Twin Towers, the OKC Murrah building, etc.? Destroy the building (crime scene) and destroy the evidence.
I was also glad to see Mr. Whitehead accurately make the connection of the burgeoning Police State here in America with the endless wars of aggression overseas. Whitehead writes, "Few seem to care about the government's endless wars abroad that leave communities shattered, families devastated and our national security at greater risk of blowback. Indeed, there were no protests in the streets after U.S. military forces carried out air strikes on a Syrian settlement, killing 25 people, more than half of which were women and children.
"And then there's President Trump's plans for a military parade on Veterans Day (costing between $10 million and $30 million) to showcase the nation's military might. Other countries that feel the need to flex their military muscles to its citizens and the rest of the world include France, China, Russia and North Korea.
"Connect the dots, people."
See John Whitehead's report here:
I am constantly amazed at how these conservative "pro-life" Christians and Republicans who speak out so vociferously against legalized abortion-on-demand that takes the lives of millions of innocent unborn babies can seem completely comfortable with the U.S. military killing millions of innocent men, women, and children in these perpetual wars of aggression around the world—especially in the Middle East.
The number of people killed by the U.S. government's "war on terror" (translated: wars for Israel) are counted in the millions. And, yes, the vast majority of these victims are innocent civilians. Are you really surprised that so many people around the world hate us? Are you kidding?
See these reports:
Again, it is NOT the job of the police to protect us; it is the job of the American people to protect themselves. And it is the job of parents to protect their children—and that includes those adults (i.e., school teachers) to whose care children have been entrusted.
Just look at how Donald Trump, Florida Governor Rick Scott, and other Republicans are joining with Democrats in abandoning their support for the Second Amendment and are already pushing for more gun control. I applaud Trump for talking about arming teachers, but his decision to enact more gun control is patently and pathetically inexcusable.
Just yesterday (Wednesday), Trump scolded Republican congressmen for wanting to include national reciprocity for concealed carry and instead supported the Joe Manchin (D-WV)/Pat Toomey (R-PA) gun control bill. This bill will outlaw the private sale of firearms at gun shows and the private sale of firearms period. By the way, this is the exact same universal background check legislation that was proposed by Barack Obama in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook shootings in 2013. And it is the very same bill that was defeated by the DEMOCRAT Senate that same year.
Please stop and let THAT sink in.
Trump also wants to raise the age for all gun purchases to 21, add "mental health" restrictions to firearm background checks, and bolster the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. He will also back the STOP School Violence Act, which gives the Justice Department grants for preventing school violence (whatever the heck that means) and get rid of "bump stocks" and other firearm "modifiers." Trump said that bump stocks "will be gone shortly."
See the report here:
But Donald Trump took the cake in disdain for the constitutional government department when he told lawmakers yesterday that guns should be confiscated from people without any due process.
The Hill reports: "President Trump on Wednesday voiced support for confiscating guns from certain individuals deemed to be dangerous, even if it violates due process rights.
"'I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man's case that just took place in Florida ... to go to court would have taken a long time,' Trump said at a meeting with lawmakers on school safety and gun violence.
"'Take the guns first, go through due process second,' Trump said.
"Trump was responding to comments from Vice President Pence that families and local law enforcement should have more tools to report potentially dangerous individuals with weapons.
"'Allow due process so no one's rights are trampled, but the ability to go to court, obtain an order and then collect not only the firearms but any weapons,' Pence said.
"'Or, Mike, take the firearms first, and then go to court,' Trump responded."
See the report here:
Trump's words should scare the socks off of anyone who believes in the Constitution and the rule of law. These are not the words of the president of a constitutional republic; these are the words of a would-be dictator.
Do you really want to live in a country where government bureaucrats are authorized to send storm troopers to your house to confiscate your most basic freedom—the right to keep and bear arms—without ANY DUE PROCESS?
Can one imagine the uproar if Barack Obama had uttered these words? But since it was Donald Trump who said them, I wonder how many so-called conservatives, constitutionalists, and Christians will even notice?
Trump also told congressmen, "You have a different president now." Then he mocked Democrats saying that they (Democrats) are "afraid" of the NRA. "They have great power over YOU PEOPLE [Democrats]," Trump said.
Donald Trump is not only a traitor to the Second Amendment; he is a traitor to the U.S. Constitution, republican government, and every sacred principle enshrined in our Bill of Rights.
It looks to me like all it will take is one more mass shooting (and you KNOW it is coming), and Donald Trump and both sides of the aisle in Congress will do what the Zionist/Globalist/Deep State freedom haters have been trying to accomplish for decades: ban the sale and possession of AR-15 rifles. More than anything else, the AR-15 rifle is the people's most effective tool impeding the goals and ambitions of those who would (and who are already trying to) turn America into a totalitarian Police State.
And, again, listen to William S. Burroughs: "After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military." Hear! Hear!
P.S. The day that my AR-15 rifle is outlawed is the day that I WILL BE AN OUTLAW.
Self-defense—including defense against tyrannical government—is more than a right guaranteed in the Second Amendment to our Constitution; it is a duty assigned us in Nature by our Creator. For anyone, especially a Christian, to willingly surrender their means of self-defense is not only a crime against liberty; it is a sin against God.
I urge my Christian friends (and anyone else) to read the book my constitutional attorney son and I wrote entitled "To Keep or Not To Keep: Why Christians Should Not Give Up Their Guns."
Mark it down: Any law demanding the citizenry to surrender their AR-15 rifles would be unconstitutional, unnatural, and unbiblical. And NO Christian or other free man should ever comply with such a law.
I know that there is a plethora of pastors who teach that Christians ought to obey the government should it outlaw our guns. THEY ARE WRONG. They are wrong biblically, constitutionally, and morally.
Our book shows the Natural and Biblical duty of self-defense. I don't know of another book like it.
With all that is happening today, it is CRUCIAL that people (especially Christians) become familiar with the truths contained in this book. I urge you to order one for yourself and one (at least) for your friends and kinfolk.
To order "To Keep or Not To Keep: Why Christians Should Not Give Up Their Guns," go here:
© Chuck Baldwin
*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:
I also have many books and DVDs available for purchase online. Go here:
To subscribe to my weekly columns, click here: