By Ben Shapiro
At 2 a.m. on Sunday, 27-year-old Alan Senitt was murdered. Senitt, an aspiring British politician, Jewish activist and Democratic volunteer, was walking home a female companion in the Georgetown area of Washington, D.C. when he was accosted by Christopher Piper, 25, Jeffrey Rice, 22, and a 15-year-old. Piper, who had a gun, immediately grabbed Senitt's female companion and pulled her away to rape her. Rice, who had stated earlier in the night that he was desperate to "cut" someone, slit Senitt's throat. The three thugs then hopped into a getaway car driven by Olivia Miles, 26, and sped off into the night.
Only hours later, the police arrested the four suspects. Apparently, two of the suspects matched the descriptions of perpetrators of two recent robberies, and the police had already obtained an address for those two suspects. So why did Alan Senitt have to die in order for these animals to be arrested? "I can give you my 100 percent word everything was done within the confines of the law," Lt. Robert Glover of the police department's violent crimes branch told the Washington Post. "We cannot make an arrest without probable cause."
Now the police have their probable cause. Rice was found with Senitt's ID and the woman's cell phone on his person, and his shirt covered in Senitt's blood. The suspects are in custody. And Alan Senitt is dead.
Our Constitution mandates that citizens may not be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. One of the requirements of due process of law is that arrests not be arbitrary. It is likely true that the D.C. police did everything within the confines of the law to pursue the suspects. What the murder of Alan Senitt demonstrates is that the confines of law cost lives when citizens are unable to protect themselves.
Law enforcement is by its very nature reactive. The police cannot arrest people before they have committed any crimes, a la "Minority Report." Citizens should not expect that the police will be able to prevent all crime -- there must always be an initial crime in order for police to prevent subsequent crimes. Until Ted Bundy murdered his first victim, the police had nothing for which to arrest him; at the very most, law enforcement could only have saved Bundy's later victims. Someone always has to suffer before law enforcement can get involved.
Citizens are left with two choices. They can either rely on the kindness of criminals, or they can protect themselves. The choice is obvious. Yet liberal cities continue to rely on the kindness of criminals.
Washington, D.C. is famous for its insanely restrictive anti-gun laws. It has been illegal since 1976 to have an assembled and loaded firearm, even in your home, in D.C. Carrying a handgun for self-protection is against the law. For some reason, Democrats seem to be unable to explain the dramatic 72 percent rise in the D.C. homicide rate between 1976 and 2001, even as the national homicide rate plummeted 36 percent over the same period. Certainly Christopher Piper had no problem carrying a gun and using it to rape Senitt's female companion. Criminals, it seems, engage in crime. And law-abiding citizens pay the price.
The basis for every right in our Constitution is the right to self-preservation. John Locke, the founders' favorite non-Biblical philosopher, explained that if a government " endeavour[s] to grasp themselves an absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estates of the people; by this breach of trust they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the people, who have a right to resume their original liberty."
When a government seizes citizens' ability to protect themselves, that government becomes a usurper. It is for this reason that the Second Amendment guarantees both the individual right to self-defense and the communal right to fight any deprivation of the right to self-defense.
Would Alan Senitt have bought a gun for self-defense? The question is irrelevant in D.C.; Senitt had no choice in the matter. As it stands in D.C., only criminals have the right to choose. And the police can only respond to 911 calls.
Dug up for a new anti-war movement
This hope full head line beams from the marquee of his new church of the internet for the Godless.
He is the new Old Che and the New Che all in one.
He looks down at you from on high! Crucified by the CIA, dead and buried by 2006 he rose to be the truth and the light. He can not be questioned. He can not sin. He can not be assailed. He is unquestionable. He was persecuted by the Devil Richard Nixon and his evil cross dressing demon J. Edgar Hover. He is infallible and you can use him like a cross to bear in public for he died for all of our sins, and none of his plus, he always knew how to get the good Heroin.
Just because Time magazine makes you look like your some kind of clown doesn’t mean you should sign your checks with the name BOZO.
It doesn’t matter that Rolling stone calls you the worst president in History. That doesn’t make it real. I would be scared if Rolling Stone was setting American Policy, either foreign or domestic. You can say all kinds of things in this country and get a way with it. You can say for instance that this is the worst economy since the "Great Depression" and some people will bob their heads. I would rather live in a country where the stupid can mock the president than live in a country, like Iran or Venezuela where nobody can mock the president, but that doesn't mean I going to go a long with it and start listening to the Dixie Chicks for insight into Geo-politics.
The level of intellectual laziness by the un-worthy opposition (the press)is passed the point where we should tolerate it anymore. It is to the point now where you can claim 9/11 was an inside job on national TV and news papers and call the president a monkey but you can 't use the word terrorist for fear that someone might get offended.
Just so you don't get confused here is some historical perspective. This is what the press at the time thought of Abe Lincoln. Notice any thing? So what the press says in your own time apparently has little to do with reality or I guess we would have a monkey at the Lincoln memorial and on Mt. Rushmore. Go ahead and google Bush Chimp or BushChimpHitler and see what comes up. By the way they called Regan a cowboy too. Right after they made fun of the SDI or star wars thing that everybody loves all of the sudden. It only took 20 years for history to show Regan was correct and Time magizine and Rolling Stone were incorrect abolut SDI. Kim il Jung shows us Regan was correct.
"The Nigger" in the Woodpile
By Louis Maurer
Currier and Ives, 1860
A racist parody of Republican efforts to play down the antislavery plank in their 1860 platform. Horace Greeley, the prominent New York publicist of the party, stands at left reassuring a man identified as "Young America." "I assure you my friend," he says, "that you can safely vote our ticket, for we have no connection with the Abolition party, but our Platform is composed entirely of rails, split by our Candidate."
Young America, who represents progressive Democrats, points insistently toward the right, where candidate Abraham Lincoln sits atop a makeshift construction made of rails marked "Republican Platform," which imprisons a grinning black man. He tells Greeley, "It's no use old fellow! you can't pull that wool over my eyes for I can see {grave}the Nigger' peeping through the rails." Meanwhile, Lincoln reflects, "Little did I think when I split these rails that they would be the means of elevating me to my present position."
Don't worry I 'm just getting started. There is much more to come.
More Articles...
- It's a fine line between human shield and human killing machine
- Alcohol a Bigger Threat to U.S. Youth Than Drugs
- Equal Pay?
- White Guilt and the Western Past
- Hey Pot I would like to introduce you to Mr. Kettle
- Things I heard on the Intranets #4
- StarBucks CEO grew up in Housing project
- Calling her own shots
Page 46 of 50
