Time to update a couple of matters recently discussed in this space…
Shaneen Allen: We discussed here earlier the plight of Shaneen Allen, the young single mom who innocently thought her Pennsylvania carry permit would be recognized in New Jersey, and discovered the hard way it was not, leaving her now facing years away from her kids, in prison and with a “felon jacket.” We learn that a New Jersey lawmaker is introducing a bill to give judges discretion to handle such things with more justice, rather than apply Draconian mandatory penalties: http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Bill-Introduced-to-Grant-Discretion-in-Gun-Cases-273243581.html#ixzz3BpwyMyjB . Thanks, by the way, to all who have contributed to her defense fund, which can be found at: http://gogetfunding.com/project/shaneen-allen-legal-defense-fund .
JPFO: Jews for Preservation of Firearms Ownership is now under the umbrella of the Second Amendment Foundation. The board of JPFO explains why, here: http://www.ammoland.com/2014/09/jpfo-comments-on-second-amendment-foundation-merger/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ammoland+(ammoland#axzz3Ce2hzacW .
The changeover has generated an amazing amount of vitriol. Under its late, great founder Aaron Zelman, JPFO amassed a quantity of scholarly research that is vitally important to all in the gun owners’ civil rights movement; it must be preserved, and indeed, more widely disseminated. SAF is in a position to make that happen. Several people who claim to be members clamored for JPFO to “die with dignity” rather than be turned over to one of the most effective pro-2A organizations in the country…a disturbing “If I can’t have her, nobody will” mentality.
The transition will be a significant topic of discussion at the Gun Rights Policy Conference the end of this month, and among the SAF Board which will meet during the same time frame. As a member of the SAF Board of Trustees, I should have more information for you then.
Cal,
Again I’ll have to use the qualifier “back in the day”. –Back in the day there was a certain amount of privacy, or “one on one” if you will, in an officer and citizen contact, giving the officer more flexibility. In today’s electronic wonderland, most transactions conducted, at least by the larger departments, are audio/video recorded and kept in archive for a set period of time, subject to review. These recordings are accessible only by supervisors, in other words they can’t be edited by the officer. If the officer’s agency is hard core on violations such as this, he may well be subjecting himself to disciplinary action if he fails to enforce this law.
In answer to the question of “would I have arrested her?” Hell no!, but then again, I was well known among my peers for refusing to enforce stupid laws, or what I called “feel good laws” that had nothing to do with protecting the public, but were passed by politicians to placate small but vocal groups. I would hope that most officers are still exercising good judgement in cases such as this.
Truthfully, even though I’m covered by LEOSA, I refuse to go to the northeastern states because of the seemingly high number of incidents of poor judgement by some officers in that region.
In closing, if it will make you feel any better, the New Jersey Turnpike troopers have a pretty poor reputation among law enforcement officers from around the country who have been unlucky enough to have been stopped for speeding there. I’ll leave it at that.
Busy day at the Ministry of Truth, it seems.
First, the entire effort by JPFO supporters and corporate sponsors to keep JPFO alive and independent goes right down the Memory Hole. Like it never existed. Nice job of “disappearing” an inconvenient truth about JPFO supporters, Mas.
Then we have a new “fact” about SAF’s reason for absorbing JPFO. Seems SAF took control of JPFO, lock, stock, and mailing lists, solely to do something that could easily by done simply by mirroring the JPFO website. How wonderfully altruistic. Too bad it doesn’t pass the smell test.
Busy day at the Ministry of Truth, it seems.
First, the entire effort by JPFO supporters and corporate sponsors to keep JPFO alive and independent goes right down the Memory Hole. Like it never existed. Nice job of “disappearing” an inconvenient truth about JPFO supporters, Mas.
Then we have a new “fact” about SAF’s reason for absorbing JPFO. Seems SAF took control of JPFO, lock, stock, and mailing lists, solely to do something that could easily by done simply by mirroring the JPFO website. How wonderfully altruistic. Too bad it doesn’t pass the smell test.
“s”, you are answered here in today’s blog entry:https://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/
“s”, you are answered here in today’s blog entry:https://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/
“s”, you are answered here in today’s blog entry:https://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/
“s”, you are answered here in today’s blog entry:https://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/
Not evasive at all, Cal — you asked, I answered.
Now you ask a different question: what would I have done if I was a cop in NJ, where illegal concealed carry is a felony upon first offense, and where historically decent people carrying concealed weapons is NOT a “common custom and practice”? “Officer discretion” is largely dependent on the level of the alleged crime, among other things. I probably would have had to arrest her.
Which is why I don’t do police work in places with Draconian laws.
Dennis has explained that to you very well, but you don’t seem to be listening.
Cal, just for perspective, you’re responding to a blog post written by a cop who thinks concealed carry permits should have national reciprocity. The problem in the Allen case was not the arresting officer, IMHO; it was poorly crafted law.
But, I’ve already said that…
Not evasive at all, Cal — you asked, I answered.
Now you ask a different question: what would I have done if I was a cop in NJ, where illegal concealed carry is a felony upon first offense, and where historically decent people carrying concealed weapons is NOT a “common custom and practice”? “Officer discretion” is largely dependent on the level of the alleged crime, among other things. I probably would have had to arrest her.
Which is why I don’t do police work in places with Draconian laws.
Dennis has explained that to you very well, but you don’t seem to be listening.
Cal, just for perspective, you’re responding to a blog post written by a cop who thinks concealed carry permits should have national reciprocity. The problem in the Allen case was not the arresting officer, IMHO; it was poorly crafted law.
But, I’ve already said that…
Not evasive at all, Cal — you asked, I answered.
Now you ask a different question: what would I have done if I was a cop in NJ, where illegal concealed carry is a felony upon first offense, and where historically decent people carrying concealed weapons is NOT a “common custom and practice”? “Officer discretion” is largely dependent on the level of the alleged crime, among other things. I probably would have had to arrest her.
Which is why I don’t do police work in places with Draconian laws.
Dennis has explained that to you very well, but you don’t seem to be listening.
Cal, just for perspective, you’re responding to a blog post written by a cop who thinks concealed carry permits should have national reciprocity. The problem in the Allen case was not the arresting officer, IMHO; it was poorly crafted law.
But, I’ve already said that…
Not evasive at all, Cal — you asked, I answered.
Now you ask a different question: what would I have done if I was a cop in NJ, where illegal concealed carry is a felony upon first offense, and where historically decent people carrying concealed weapons is NOT a “common custom and practice”? “Officer discretion” is largely dependent on the level of the alleged crime, among other things. I probably would have had to arrest her.
Which is why I don’t do police work in places with Draconian laws.
Dennis has explained that to you very well, but you don’t seem to be listening.
Cal, just for perspective, you’re responding to a blog post written by a cop who thinks concealed carry permits should have national reciprocity. The problem in the Allen case was not the arresting officer, IMHO; it was poorly crafted law.
But, I’ve already said that…
Dennis, thank you for your reply.
Mas, forgive me for not at first asking the question like a lawyer. With your courtroom experience, I should have known better.
And thanks for honestly admitting you “probably would have had to arrest her.” Your stated view on reciprocity is well known. However, many would disagree with your statement that “the problem in the Allen case was not the arresting officer, IMHO; it was poorly crafted law.” The problem is both bad laws and the willingness of officers to enforce them. There are many law enforcement officers who have demonstrated their integrity by publicly stating they will not enforce laws they find abhorent – those refusing to enforce the SAFE act in NY being commendable examples. I am sorry to find that you “would probably” choose not to be among them.
Dennis, thank you for your reply.
Mas, forgive me for not at first asking the question like a lawyer. With your courtroom experience, I should have known better.
And thanks for honestly admitting you “probably would have had to arrest her.” Your stated view on reciprocity is well known. However, many would disagree with your statement that “the problem in the Allen case was not the arresting officer, IMHO; it was poorly crafted law.” The problem is both bad laws and the willingness of officers to enforce them. There are many law enforcement officers who have demonstrated their integrity by publicly stating they will not enforce laws they find abhorent – those refusing to enforce the SAFE act in NY being commendable examples. I am sorry to find that you “would probably” choose not to be among them.
Dennis, thank you for your reply.
Mas, forgive me for not at first asking the question like a lawyer. With your courtroom experience, I should have known better.
And thanks for honestly admitting you “probably would have had to arrest her.” Your stated view on reciprocity is well known. However, many would disagree with your statement that “the problem in the Allen case was not the arresting officer, IMHO; it was poorly crafted law.” The problem is both bad laws and the willingness of officers to enforce them. There are many law enforcement officers who have demonstrated their integrity by publicly stating they will not enforce laws they find abhorent – those refusing to enforce the SAFE act in NY being commendable examples. I am sorry to find that you “would probably” choose not to be among them.
Dennis, thank you for your reply.
Mas, forgive me for not at first asking the question like a lawyer. With your courtroom experience, I should have known better.
And thanks for honestly admitting you “probably would have had to arrest her.” Your stated view on reciprocity is well known. However, many would disagree with your statement that “the problem in the Allen case was not the arresting officer, IMHO; it was poorly crafted law.” The problem is both bad laws and the willingness of officers to enforce them. There are many law enforcement officers who have demonstrated their integrity by publicly stating they will not enforce laws they find abhorent – those refusing to enforce the SAFE act in NY being commendable examples. I am sorry to find that you “would probably” choose not to be among them.
Dennis, thank you for your reply.
Mas, forgive me for not at first asking the question like a lawyer. With your courtroom experience, I should have known better.
And thanks for honestly admitting you “probably would have had to arrest her.” Your stated view on reciprocity is well known. However, many would disagree with your statement that “the problem in the Allen case was not the arresting officer, IMHO; it was poorly crafted law.” The problem is both bad laws and the willingness of officers to enforce them. There are many law enforcement officers who have demonstrated their integrity by publicly stating they will not enforce laws they find abhorent – those refusing to enforce the SAFE act in NY being commendable examples. I am sorry to find that you “would probably” choose not to be among them.
Ms Allen is in deep doo doo .It saddens me to see good people treated so badly. It infuriates me that states have such draconian laws and deal such harsh treatment.I see no reason why she wasn’t offered an alternative program they have.What the state is doing offers no justice.
Ms Allen is in deep doo doo .It saddens me to see good people treated so badly. It infuriates me that states have such draconian laws and deal such harsh treatment.I see no reason why she wasn’t offered an alternative program they have.What the state is doing offers no justice.
Ms Allen is in deep doo doo .It saddens me to see good people treated so badly. It infuriates me that states have such draconian laws and deal such harsh treatment.I see no reason why she wasn’t offered an alternative program they have.What the state is doing offers no justice.
Ms Allen is in deep doo doo .It saddens me to see good people treated so badly. It infuriates me that states have such draconian laws and deal such harsh treatment.I see no reason why she wasn’t offered an alternative program they have.What the state is doing offers no justice.
Ms Allen is in deep doo doo .It saddens me to see good people treated so badly. It infuriates me that states have such draconian laws and deal such harsh treatment.I see no reason why she wasn’t offered an alternative program they have.What the state is doing offers no justice.
Cal, Mas is pointing out that in certain situations cops have no choice. The way the armpit of the Union has written its laws, it gives cops NO discretion on the issue. Legislators, and thus the people who elect them, are supposed to be the ones who choose what is written into law and enforced (and thus civilian control over the laws), whereas the cops are supposed to then enforce what the people (through their representatives) have said needs to be enforced. Within that scope of the law, cops can be given discretion and in certain cases they are not.
This is a case where VERY bad law was passed both in what it does and the rules on enforcing it. There was no right response for this officer. In one instance he could have decided not to arrest her and potentially lose his source of livelyhood, or he could do his job, and let a jury try and nullify the law by refusing to convict. It’s all fine and dandy to say “I never would have done that to her” without you actually being put in that position.
Bad law is a terrible thing for both those who suffer under it and those otherwise decent souls who are required to enforce it.
Cal, Mas is pointing out that in certain situations cops have no choice. The way the armpit of the Union has written its laws, it gives cops NO discretion on the issue. Legislators, and thus the people who elect them, are supposed to be the ones who choose what is written into law and enforced (and thus civilian control over the laws), whereas the cops are supposed to then enforce what the people (through their representatives) have said needs to be enforced. Within that scope of the law, cops can be given discretion and in certain cases they are not.
This is a case where VERY bad law was passed both in what it does and the rules on enforcing it. There was no right response for this officer. In one instance he could have decided not to arrest her and potentially lose his source of livelyhood, or he could do his job, and let a jury try and nullify the law by refusing to convict. It’s all fine and dandy to say “I never would have done that to her” without you actually being put in that position.
Bad law is a terrible thing for both those who suffer under it and those otherwise decent souls who are required to enforce it.
Cal, Mas is pointing out that in certain situations cops have no choice. The way the armpit of the Union has written its laws, it gives cops NO discretion on the issue. Legislators, and thus the people who elect them, are supposed to be the ones who choose what is written into law and enforced (and thus civilian control over the laws), whereas the cops are supposed to then enforce what the people (through their representatives) have said needs to be enforced. Within that scope of the law, cops can be given discretion and in certain cases they are not.
This is a case where VERY bad law was passed both in what it does and the rules on enforcing it. There was no right response for this officer. In one instance he could have decided not to arrest her and potentially lose his source of livelyhood, or he could do his job, and let a jury try and nullify the law by refusing to convict. It’s all fine and dandy to say “I never would have done that to her” without you actually being put in that position.
Bad law is a terrible thing for both those who suffer under it and those otherwise decent souls who are required to enforce it.
Cal, Mas is pointing out that in certain situations cops have no choice. The way the armpit of the Union has written its laws, it gives cops NO discretion on the issue. Legislators, and thus the people who elect them, are supposed to be the ones who choose what is written into law and enforced (and thus civilian control over the laws), whereas the cops are supposed to then enforce what the people (through their representatives) have said needs to be enforced. Within that scope of the law, cops can be given discretion and in certain cases they are not.
This is a case where VERY bad law was passed both in what it does and the rules on enforcing it. There was no right response for this officer. In one instance he could have decided not to arrest her and potentially lose his source of livelyhood, or he could do his job, and let a jury try and nullify the law by refusing to convict. It’s all fine and dandy to say “I never would have done that to her” without you actually being put in that position.
Bad law is a terrible thing for both those who suffer under it and those otherwise decent souls who are required to enforce it.
Cal, Mas is pointing out that in certain situations cops have no choice. The way the armpit of the Union has written its laws, it gives cops NO discretion on the issue. Legislators, and thus the people who elect them, are supposed to be the ones who choose what is written into law and enforced (and thus civilian control over the laws), whereas the cops are supposed to then enforce what the people (through their representatives) have said needs to be enforced. Within that scope of the law, cops can be given discretion and in certain cases they are not.
This is a case where VERY bad law was passed both in what it does and the rules on enforcing it. There was no right response for this officer. In one instance he could have decided not to arrest her and potentially lose his source of livelyhood, or he could do his job, and let a jury try and nullify the law by refusing to convict. It’s all fine and dandy to say “I never would have done that to her” without you actually being put in that position.
Bad law is a terrible thing for both those who suffer under it and those otherwise decent souls who are required to enforce it.
Just saw a news story, prosecutor is reevaluating Shaneen’s case, possibly due to mounting publicity. Story claims same prosecutor gave footballer Rice pretrial intervention.
Just saw a news story, prosecutor is reevaluating Shaneen’s case, possibly due to mounting publicity. Story claims same prosecutor gave footballer Rice pretrial intervention.
Just saw a news story, prosecutor is reevaluating Shaneen’s case, possibly due to mounting publicity. Story claims same prosecutor gave footballer Rice pretrial intervention.
Just saw a news story, prosecutor is reevaluating Shaneen’s case, possibly due to mounting publicity. Story claims same prosecutor gave footballer Rice pretrial intervention.
Just saw a news story, prosecutor is reevaluating Shaneen’s case, possibly due to mounting publicity. Story claims same prosecutor gave footballer Rice pretrial intervention.
Cal – you admit to reading Dennis’ post above – but did you understand it?
Specifically:
“If the officer’s agency is hard core on violations such as this, he may well be subjecting himself to disciplinary action if he fails to enforce this law.”
I’m wondering – what would YOU have done?
Cal – you admit to reading Dennis’ post above – but did you understand it?
Specifically:
“If the officer’s agency is hard core on violations such as this, he may well be subjecting himself to disciplinary action if he fails to enforce this law.”
I’m wondering – what would YOU have done?
Cal – you admit to reading Dennis’ post above – but did you understand it?
Specifically:
“If the officer’s agency is hard core on violations such as this, he may well be subjecting himself to disciplinary action if he fails to enforce this law.”
I’m wondering – what would YOU have done?
Cal – you admit to reading Dennis’ post above – but did you understand it?
Specifically:
“If the officer’s agency is hard core on violations such as this, he may well be subjecting himself to disciplinary action if he fails to enforce this law.”
I’m wondering – what would YOU have done?
Cal – you admit to reading Dennis’ post above – but did you understand it?
Specifically:
“If the officer’s agency is hard core on violations such as this, he may well be subjecting himself to disciplinary action if he fails to enforce this law.”
I’m wondering – what would YOU have done?
Jamie and Don – Pa,
To answer Don’s question: I would have let her go on her way.
Jamie, you always have a choice. You can always exercise discretion. Nobody can force you to do anything you don’t want to do. You just have to be man enough to accept the consequences. Anything short of a bullet to the head is of minor consequence.
I always strive to do what is right, regardless of whether or not my bosses agree. Yes, I have told bosses “No” when they wanted me to do something illegal, immoral, or unethical. Did it effect my career advancement? Undoubtedly. Did it eventually play a part in being asked to find employment elsewhere? Most probably, more than once.
But that goes with the territory when a man decides to live up to his principles. If you, or anyone, feels it it is better to subject someone to arrest, prosecution, financial catastrophe, and possible imprisonment because you are afraid of some “disciplinary action,” then I submit that perhaps a different job might be in order – one where won’t lose sleep worrying if doing the right thing will get you fired. If you’re smart enought to be a cop, you’re smart enough to earn a living doing something else. It might even pay better, too.
Jamie and Don – Pa,
To answer Don’s question: I would have let her go on her way.
Jamie, you always have a choice. You can always exercise discretion. Nobody can force you to do anything you don’t want to do. You just have to be man enough to accept the consequences. Anything short of a bullet to the head is of minor consequence.
I always strive to do what is right, regardless of whether or not my bosses agree. Yes, I have told bosses “No” when they wanted me to do something illegal, immoral, or unethical. Did it effect my career advancement? Undoubtedly. Did it eventually play a part in being asked to find employment elsewhere? Most probably, more than once.
But that goes with the territory when a man decides to live up to his principles. If you, or anyone, feels it it is better to subject someone to arrest, prosecution, financial catastrophe, and possible imprisonment because you are afraid of some “disciplinary action,” then I submit that perhaps a different job might be in order – one where won’t lose sleep worrying if doing the right thing will get you fired. If you’re smart enought to be a cop, you’re smart enough to earn a living doing something else. It might even pay better, too.
Jamie and Don – Pa,
To answer Don’s question: I would have let her go on her way.
Jamie, you always have a choice. You can always exercise discretion. Nobody can force you to do anything you don’t want to do. You just have to be man enough to accept the consequences. Anything short of a bullet to the head is of minor consequence.
I always strive to do what is right, regardless of whether or not my bosses agree. Yes, I have told bosses “No” when they wanted me to do something illegal, immoral, or unethical. Did it effect my career advancement? Undoubtedly. Did it eventually play a part in being asked to find employment elsewhere? Most probably, more than once.
But that goes with the territory when a man decides to live up to his principles. If you, or anyone, feels it it is better to subject someone to arrest, prosecution, financial catastrophe, and possible imprisonment because you are afraid of some “disciplinary action,” then I submit that perhaps a different job might be in order – one where won’t lose sleep worrying if doing the right thing will get you fired. If you’re smart enought to be a cop, you’re smart enough to earn a living doing something else. It might even pay better, too.
Jamie and Don – Pa,
To answer Don’s question: I would have let her go on her way.
Jamie, you always have a choice. You can always exercise discretion. Nobody can force you to do anything you don’t want to do. You just have to be man enough to accept the consequences. Anything short of a bullet to the head is of minor consequence.
I always strive to do what is right, regardless of whether or not my bosses agree. Yes, I have told bosses “No” when they wanted me to do something illegal, immoral, or unethical. Did it effect my career advancement? Undoubtedly. Did it eventually play a part in being asked to find employment elsewhere? Most probably, more than once.
But that goes with the territory when a man decides to live up to his principles. If you, or anyone, feels it it is better to subject someone to arrest, prosecution, financial catastrophe, and possible imprisonment because you are afraid of some “disciplinary action,” then I submit that perhaps a different job might be in order – one where won’t lose sleep worrying if doing the right thing will get you fired. If you’re smart enought to be a cop, you’re smart enough to earn a living doing something else. It might even pay better, too.
Jamie and Don – Pa,
To answer Don’s question: I would have let her go on her way.
Jamie, you always have a choice. You can always exercise discretion. Nobody can force you to do anything you don’t want to do. You just have to be man enough to accept the consequences. Anything short of a bullet to the head is of minor consequence.
I always strive to do what is right, regardless of whether or not my bosses agree. Yes, I have told bosses “No” when they wanted me to do something illegal, immoral, or unethical. Did it effect my career advancement? Undoubtedly. Did it eventually play a part in being asked to find employment elsewhere? Most probably, more than once.
But that goes with the territory when a man decides to live up to his principles. If you, or anyone, feels it it is better to subject someone to arrest, prosecution, financial catastrophe, and possible imprisonment because you are afraid of some “disciplinary action,” then I submit that perhaps a different job might be in order – one where won’t lose sleep worrying if doing the right thing will get you fired. If you’re smart enought to be a cop, you’re smart enough to earn a living doing something else. It might even pay better, too.
Cal – a belated “thanks” is in order from me – I got wrapped up in some other things and just saw your response from 9/16. Believe me when I say I am impressed by what you posted. The obvious flaw? Your belief system is in a severe minority. The only way it would work would be if EVERYONE acted in the same manner. Unfortunately, I don’t see that occurring anytime soon. Still, thanks for displaying honor and honesty.
Cal – a belated “thanks” is in order from me – I got wrapped up in some other things and just saw your response from 9/16. Believe me when I say I am impressed by what you posted. The obvious flaw? Your belief system is in a severe minority. The only way it would work would be if EVERYONE acted in the same manner. Unfortunately, I don’t see that occurring anytime soon. Still, thanks for displaying honor and honesty.
Cal – a belated “thanks” is in order from me – I got wrapped up in some other things and just saw your response from 9/16. Believe me when I say I am impressed by what you posted. The obvious flaw? Your belief system is in a severe minority. The only way it would work would be if EVERYONE acted in the same manner. Unfortunately, I don’t see that occurring anytime soon. Still, thanks for displaying honor and honesty.
Don-pa, thanks for your reply and your compliments. However, I must disagree when you say “The only way it would work would be if EVERYONE acted in the same manner.” Change has never occurred because “EVERYONE acted in the same manner.” It happens when a determined minority acts in numerous ways toward a goal. The American Revolution was supported by only 1/3 of the colonists. It took only one woman named Rosa Parks to start a chain of events contributing to the end of the Jim Crow south. History is full of such examples.
It would only take a minority of police officers saying “Sir, No Sir!” to get noticed. And once noticed, others might find the courage to join them. The rest, who would sell their self-respect, their principles, and the respect of the public for a few pieces of silver, would be swept away by the tides of history.
Don-pa, thanks for your reply and your compliments. However, I must disagree when you say “The only way it would work would be if EVERYONE acted in the same manner.” Change has never occurred because “EVERYONE acted in the same manner.” It happens when a determined minority acts in numerous ways toward a goal. The American Revolution was supported by only 1/3 of the colonists. It took only one woman named Rosa Parks to start a chain of events contributing to the end of the Jim Crow south. History is full of such examples.
It would only take a minority of police officers saying “Sir, No Sir!” to get noticed. And once noticed, others might find the courage to join them. The rest, who would sell their self-respect, their principles, and the respect of the public for a few pieces of silver, would be swept away by the tides of history.
Don-pa, thanks for your reply and your compliments. However, I must disagree when you say “The only way it would work would be if EVERYONE acted in the same manner.” Change has never occurred because “EVERYONE acted in the same manner.” It happens when a determined minority acts in numerous ways toward a goal. The American Revolution was supported by only 1/3 of the colonists. It took only one woman named Rosa Parks to start a chain of events contributing to the end of the Jim Crow south. History is full of such examples.
It would only take a minority of police officers saying “Sir, No Sir!” to get noticed. And once noticed, others might find the courage to join them. The rest, who would sell their self-respect, their principles, and the respect of the public for a few pieces of silver, would be swept away by the tides of history.
Comments are closed.