New ‘Watchlist’ Sends Outspoken Academics into a Tailspin

/in , , /by

A new “watchlist” is ruffling feathers in the academic community, with critics calling it “Orwellian,” “grotesque,” “an assault on academic freedom,” and even “the right’s new McCarythyism.”

Oh, we’ve been there, too. NRA has long warned of the dangers of using secret government blacklists to deny people their Second Amendment rights without due process, transparency, or oversight.

Gun control advocates (including the Obama White House), on the other hand, believe the use of black lists to curtail Second Amendment rights is a “common sense step.” They also argue that the government should run a background check any time a lawfully owned firearm changes hands, even between neighbors, friends, and relatives. It’s a “no-brainer,” they’ll tell you. 

But watchlists and background checks are not so popular with Obama and his fans in other contexts. 

When used to screen out job applicants with criminal histories, for example, background checks are said to be discriminatory, even if the same hiring standards apply to all. It’s not “common sense,” apparently, to favor a law-abiding person to handle a business’s merchandise or money over someone who has recently been convicted of fraud or theft. 

And it’s REALLY not common sense, according to a growing roster of anguished media accounts, to aggregate a list of online news stories about academics who publicly espouse certain political points of view, as in the case of the recently launched “Professor Watchlist,” a project of Turning Point USA.

As described on its website, “This watchlist is an aggregated list of pre-existing news stories that were published by a variety of news organizations.” Its editors will “accept tips for new additions on our website,” but will “only publish profiles on incidents that have already been reported by a credible source.” They also state that they “will continue to fight for free speech and the right for professors to say whatever they wish” but that they believe “students, parents, and alumni deserve to know the specific incidents and names of professors that advance a radical agenda in lecture halls.” 

The site is searchable by professor name and employing institution. It is said currently to contain about 200 entries and includes stock photographs of the listed academics, summaries of their purportedly “radical” statements, and links to the underlying sources. The website does not suggest how browsers should use its information, nor advocate for any specific action against the listed individuals.

One entry, for example, concerns Alvin Lee, a human resources training specialist at Purdue University. According to the linked story from The College Fix website, Lee teaches a Management 301 course in which he labels various phrases as “microaggressions” and dismisses the idea of a meritocracy.  The phrases he subjects to criticism include asking a person where he or she is from, suggesting “[e]veryone can succeed in society if they work hard enough, “ and believing “the most qualified person should get the job.”

Several of the entries on the watchlist specifically mentioned the professors’ statements about NRA and its members.

James Pierce, an adjunct professor at Southern State Community College, is cited for a Facebook post in which he wrote, “Look, there’s only one solution. A bunch of us anti-gun types are going to have to arm ourselves, storm the NRA headquarters in Fairfax, VA, and make sure there are no survivors.”

Erik Loomis, a history professor at the University of Rhode Island, is singled out for a series of anti-NRA tweets in which he blamed NRA for the Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy. “I want Wayne LaPierre’s head on a stick,” he wrote. He also claimed “the National Rifle Association has murdered some more children” and asked if NRA membership could count as “dues contributing to a terrorist organization?” 

Journalism professor David Guth, of the University of Kansas, earned his spot on the list with his own tweet after another high profile mass murder. “The blood is on the hands of the #NRA,” he wrote. “Next time, let it be YOUR sons and daughters. Shame on you.” When representatives of the Campus Reform website later asked Guth about the tweet, he acknowledged writing it and expressed no remorse. “I do not regret that Tweet,” Guth stated. “I don’t take it back one bit.”

College is of course a very expensive proposition these days. Parents and potential students have to weigh a multitude of factors in choosing the right institution for their needs. And alumni are perpetually solicited for money to promote the values and educational programs of their former schools. The Professor Watchlist could be considered one more data point for decision-making in these circumstances. One could even think of it as an informal background check on those tasked with influencing the minds and values of America’s rising generation of adults.

But despite inapt comparisons to 1984 and McCarthyism, the effort does not employ the heavy hand of government coercion or official disapproval. It is distinguishable, in that regard, from such efforts as the infamous “Rightwing Extremism” report issued by Barack Obama’s Department of Homeland Security. That report indicated that mainstream and widespread political views, such as opposition to gun control and concern over illegal immigration, were contributing to a rise in “radicalization” and “recruitment” among antigovernment groups. This activity, DHS warned, could “result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities” and “lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.” It’s also distinguishable from the government-maintained Terrorist Watchlist and No-Fly List at the center of various gun control proposals.

The principal behind the private non-profit Turning Point USA is 23-year-old political activist Charlie Kirk. Explaining the motivation behind the watchlist, Kirk stated, “Everyday I hear stories about professors who attack and target conservatives, promote liberal propaganda, and use their position of power to advance liberal agendas in their classroom.” He continued, “Turning Point USA is saying enough is enough.  It’s time we expose these professors.” 

And, after all, isn’t exposure of his or her ideas what every principled and ambitious academic seeks?

In any case, private groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) have been doing similar things for years, appointing themselves curators of this or that list of groups or people who don’t meet their approval for one reason or another. SPLC, for example, maintains its “Extremist Files,” which in some cases include groups that do not advocate violence or lawlessness but which have political or cultural views that diverge from those of the SPLC. Far from being decried by the mainstream press as Orwellian or McCarthyist, however, SPLC is often cited as if it were an authority on the subject of extremism.

Whatever one might think of Turning Point USA’s efforts, it’s hard not to detect more than a hint of hypocrisy amongst an academy and press that revel in pointing condemning fingers at others but shudder with indignant horror when the spotlight is turned on those with whom they identify.

RELATED ARTICLE: What gun groups want from Trump

DNC Chair Frontrunner Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) is an Anti-Second Amendment Radical

/in , , , /by

It appears that those gun rights supporters hoping that the leaders of the Democratic Party would engage in a moment of self-reflection following their historic defeat in the 2016 election may be left wanting. Despite having been routed in contests throughout the middle of the country, Democrats are on the verge of electing Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), an avowed opponent of gun rights, to Chair the Democratic National Committee. Ellison has made clear that he believes the Democratic Party should not only pursue a litany of severe gun control measures, but that the party should also directly attack the Second Amendment.

During an appearance on the March 21, 2014 episode of HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, Ellison explained his position on firearms. During a discussion on the efficacy of gun control, Maher challenged Ellison on the Second Amendment, which resulted in the following exchange:

View Related Articles

Maher: Then why doesn’t your party come out against the Second Amendment? It’s the problem.

Ellison: I sure wish they would. I sure wish we would.

Maher: Really? Because I never hear anybody in the Democratic party say that. But they say, ‘I am also a strong supporter.’

Ellison: You’ve got to check out the progressive caucus. We have come out very strong for common-sense gun safety rules.

The lawmaker went on to further characterize the type of gun control he supports by telling Maher, “what it means is that if you want to have grandpa’s shotgun, have it, but get rid of the crazy military-style assault weapons.”

Ellison’s long history of working against the rights of gun owners stretches back to the time he spent in the Minnesota House of Representatives from 2003-2007.

In 2003, Minnesota became a Right-to-Carry state with the passage of the Minnesota Citizens’ Personal Protection Act. This was accomplished when the Minnesota House amended a Senate natural resources bill by adding Right-to-Carry language. The bill was subsequently approved by the Minnesota Senate and signed by Gov. Tim Pawlenty. Ellison voted against the House amendment that added the Right-to-Carry language and the entire bill. Further, during Minnesota’s 2003-2004 legislative session, Ellison served as an author, or was the chief author, of numerous bills to encumber the Right-to-Carry, along with legislation to repeal the Minnesota Citizens’ Personal Protection Act entirely.

Following passage, opponents of Minnesota’s new Right-to-Carry law filed suit, claiming among other things that the addition of the Right-to-Carry language to a natural resources bill violated the Minnesota State Constitution’s requirement that legislation be limited to a single subject. After a lower court struck down the law, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling in April of 2005.

In response to the court ruling, the Minnesota Legislature enacted a new Right-to-Carry law in May, 2005. Making clear that his opposition to the 2003 legislation was not a principled stance for the Minnesota Constitution, but rather an expression of his disdain for the right to keep and bear arms, Ellison opposed the new Right-to-Carry legislation at every turn.

As the 2005 legislation was making its way through the Minnesota Legislature, Ellison attempted to weaken the bill by offering an amendment that would have prohibited carry at various locations, including sports facilities, convention centers, and movie theaters, unless “expressly permitted by the management or operator of the facility.” Ellison also voted in favor of an amendment that would have permitted business owners to prohibit lawfully possessed firearms from parking areas, an amendment that would have forced business owners who did not prohibit firearms on their premises to post a “conspicuous sign at every entrance” notifying the public that that they allow firearms on the property, and yet another amendment that would have undermined Minnesota’s firearms preemption statute.

Of course, Ellison also voted against final passage of the 2005 Right-to-Carry bill.

In 2006, Ellison was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. Since joining the U.S. Congress, Ellison has cosponsored a wide array of anti-gun legislation and has acted as a fierce advocate for harsh gun restrictions.

Ellison has supported bills that would ban commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms, ban magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds, ban popular types of ammunition, require gun owners to purchase liability insurance, and expand the categories of individuals prohibited from possessing firearms.

Ellison is also a cosponsor of H.R. 3830, the “Reducing Gun Violence in our Neighborhoods Act of 2015.” This misleadingly-titled bill would impose an additional $100 tax “upon the sale by the manufacturer, producer, or importer of any firearm.” This legislation also threatens the privacy of gun owners by forcing them to report lost or stolen firearms to law enforcement for inclusion in a federal database.

Of the numerous gun control measures Ellison supports, three in particular serve to illustrate the severity of Ellison’s anti-gun fervor.

Ellison is a cosponsor of H.R. 3411, the “Fix Gun Checks Act of 2015”, and H.R. 3051, the “Background Check Completion Act.” H.R. 3411 would criminalize the private transfer of firearms by forcing individuals to conduct nearly all firearms transfers through a Federal Firearms Licensee and subject to a background check. H.R. 3051 would eliminate a vital protection that permits a gun dealer to transfer a firearm to a prospective transferee three business days after a NICS background check has been initiated, as long as the FBI has not notified the dealer that the transferee is prohibited. This safeguard prevents the federal government from indefinitely suspending a firearm transfer without proper reason.

Ellison supports these background check measures despite being a staunch critic of the federal government’s ability to conduct accurate background checks. On August 2, 2013, Ellison introduced H.R. 2999, the Accurate Background Check Act, which sought to place safeguards on FBI background checks conducted for employment purposes. In a press release that announced the legislation, Ellison lamented, “Up to 600,000 Americans are wrongfully denied a job every year simply because the information on their background checks is wrong.” Explaining a provision of the legislation that provided a safety valve for prospective employees, Ellison stated, “Under the ABC Act, the FBI will have ten days to find missing and incomplete information on rap sheets. If they can’t find final outcomes of arrests and court orders, the FBI will be required to remove the information from the background check.”

In June, Ellison participated in the widely-publicized gun control “sit-in” on the House floor. A purported goal of the protest was to force a vote on unconstitutional so-called “no fly, no buy” legislation that would permit the federal government to eliminate an individual’s Second Amendment rights without due process of law based on their placement on a secret government list. Minneapolis-based online newspaper MinnPost quoted Ellison as saying, “If law enforcement has deemed you to be so dangerous that you can’t get on an airplane, then maybe you shouldn’t be able to go get a gun… I’m happy to suspend your right to get a gun to sort out whether you should be in that program or not.”

Ellison is acutely aware of the problems inherent in using secret government lists as a tool to restrict rights, as he authored an April 9, 2014 letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson that took issue with the accuracy of the federal government’s secret watch lists and the lack of opportunity for redress. In a news release that accompanied the letter on Ellison’s website, the congressman acknowledged that his own constituents have faced difficulties stemming from their placement on a secret government watch list.

The fact that Ellison seems to understand the problems attendant to government background checks and secret government watch lists in certain civil liberties contexts, but not as they pertain to Second Amendment rights, underscores the congressman’s anti-gun zealotry.

Ellison’s radical anti-Second Amendment positions will not win the Democratic Party favor with the American people. Polls show that the overwhelming majority of Americans support the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment, that it protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. Recent surveys have also revealed that majorities oppose a ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms and understand that more Americans exercising their Right-to-Carry makes the country safer.

Following past defeats, the more rational leaders of the Democratic Party worked to steer the party away from the gun control issue in order to improve the Democrats’ electoral prospects. Choosing Ellison to lead the party would be doubling down on an anti-gun strategy that has failed time and time again.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Keith Ellison’s Disinformation Campaign by Steven Emerson – IPT News

Jewish opposition grows to Keith Ellison’s bid to head Democratic National Committee

3 Ways Trump Can Advance Gun Rights In His First 100 Days

/in , , , /by

Now that the election is over, we need to start looking ahead; moving forward not only as a party, but as a nation. One of those bright spots not too far off on the horizon is the topic of gun rights. With a Republican president, Senate, and House, gun rights activists can breath easy that their wishes will be upheld in Washington DC come January 20th, 2017.

Or can they?

Let’s take a look at a few key things a Trump administration could do in the first 100 days to ease tension and reassure the NRA card carrying members that all is well.

Appoint A Supreme Court Justice Sympathetic To Gun Rights

The passing of Justice Scalia was a hit to the conservative movement as a whole, not just the gun rights lobby. However, an important way for Trump to earn their trust would be to put gun rights front and center in the conversation about who to appoint next. While gun rights is arguably not the most crucial issue facing the country, appointing a solid, conservative judge that is pro-gun would definitely help protect the 2nd amendment for the next generation.

Stand Up And Allow Carry on Military Bases

Every time there is a shooting on a military base we have the same discussion: Why can’t our men and women in uniform carry their own weapons on a military base if they are trained to use them while in the military.

Since the Fort Hood attack in 2009, we’ve had more than a dozen additional shootings on military installations in the United States. These tragedies are hard to predict and even harder to stop once they have started; the most likely outcome is that the damage is done well before any law enforcement arrive. Many believe that the prohibition of carry by service members helps encourage these types of attacks on military bases.

Get Involved In Gun Sports To Show His Support

One of President-elect Trump’s sons is very active in outdoor sports, shooting, and general adventure however the billion dollar Businessman himself isn’t quite as active. He claims to have a concealed carry license but isn’t as strong of a supporter of the 2nd amendment as some would like.

The problem?

Well, there isn’t one really. As long as he passes and approves legislation that helps those who hold their firearms near and dear to their heart he will be fine. The sentiment remains, however, that seeing him “walk the walk” a bit more would be nice.

While these three options certainly aren’t a comprehensive list, they would be a great start to help sooth the tensions of some of American’s staunchest proponents of the right to bear arms. In addition to more widespread use of guns, another important thing Mr. Trump should focus on is working on some national gun safety campaign. Most people who support the 2nd amendment are very sober in their understanding of guns; guns are very dangerous. Mr. Trump may add some legitimacy to his stance on both sides by taking a look at things that can be done to increase gun safety at the federal level.

Florida Republican who killed pro-gun bills loses seat, gives hope to 2A advocates by Chris Eger

/in , , , , , /by

A powerful south Florida state senator who repeatedly sidelined popular gun rights legislation lost his seat Tuesday, opening the door for campus carry and open carry in the Sunshine State.

Florida State Sen. Miguel Diaz de la Portilla, R-Miami, chairs the Senate Criminal Justice Committee and in 2015 refused to hold hearings on a bill to allow legal concealed carry on public colleges and universities. Diaz de la Portilla was also a fly in the ointment when it came to derailing an emergency concealed carry bill the year before and in 2016 was key in killing bills on campus carry and open carry, refusing to even meet with advocates.

However, even though he was supported by a $85,000 ad campaign paid for by Everytown, state Rep. Jose Javier Rodriguez, a Democrat, beat Diaz de la Portilla in this week’s election.

While the loss of his seat was balanced out in the Senate by Democratic Sen. Dwight Bullard’s defeat by Republican Rep. Frank Artiles, sustaining the GOP with a 25-15 majority in the chamber, gun rights advocates argue the vanquished lawmaker simply reaped what he sowed.

“Senator Diaz de la Portilla broke his word,” Marion Hammer, executive director of the Unified Sportsmen of Florida and a former National Rifle Association president, told Guns.com Wednesday. “He betrayed gun owners and bragged about it. People know not to trust a man who not only breaks his word but then brags about being deceitful. He engineered his own defeat.”

Further, with Diaz de la Portilla out of the mix next year, open carry advocates see the upcoming session as a bright one provided the state’s high court hasn’t already stricken an ongoing lawsuit against the prohibition.

“Betrayal of gun owners is not the way for a Republican to win re-election,” Sean Caranna, executive director of Florida Carry, told Guns.com. “Assuming that the Florida Supreme Court has not ruled yet on the Norman case before the legislative session, we will be back with the same open carry bill that passed the Florida House last year.”

Those in support of dropping gun free zones at the state’s public colleges and universities also see hope with Diaz de la Portilla’s Tallahassee privileges revoked.

“We are in a very advantageous political position this year, especially now that Diaz de la Portilla cannot block our efforts,” Bekah Hargrove, a member of the board of directors for Florida Students for Concealed Carry, said in an email to Guns.com. “The people have shown they do not appreciate politicians who lie and advance their own agenda, while ignoring the wishes of their constituents. We have been planning a major effort for this the upcoming session and with this news, our supporters will be even more energized to fight for the rights of Floridians.”

The regular session of the new Florida Senate convenes on March 7, 2017.

Florida Right-to-Carry Permit Holder Saves Deputy Sheriff from Violent Attack

/in , /by

Law enforcement is at its best when police can rely on the support of the communities they serve to assist in their fight against crime. This cooperation between citizens and police can come in many forms, however, this week witnessed a profound instance of citizen support for law enforcement when a Right-to-Carry permit holder came to the defense a law enforcement officer in Lee County, Fla.

On the morning of November 14, Lee County Sheriff’s Deputy Dean Bardes and members of the Florida Highway Patrol were tending to an accident on Interstate 75 when a motorist nearly struck Bardes with his vehicle. The near miss prompted Bardes to pursue the motorist until he stopped at an off ramp.

Upon conclusion of the chase, the motorist exited his vehicle and physically attacked Bardes. During the altercation, the motorist tackled Bardes to the ground and got on top of him. As striking images of the encounter show, the driver then proceeded to viciously beat the officer. A witness to the assault described the scene to local media outlet WINK News, stating, “He threw the officer to the ground so violently. I mean it just it was awful. And he just started punching him and hitting and hitting and hitting. I thought he was going to kill him.”

As Bardes cried out for help, an armed Florida Concealed Weapon License holder happened upon the scene. The Right-to-Carry permit holder drew a gun and rushed from his vehicle to Bardes’ defense. The armed citizen repeatedly ordered the motorist to cease his assault. When the motorist continued to beat the deputy, the Right-to-Carry permit holder shot and killed the attacker.

Following the incident, Lee County Sheriff Mike Scott issued a statement commending the actions of the Right-to-Carry permit holder. Scott noted, “My deepest and sincere appreciation goes to the citizen who engaged the crazed assailant and stopped the imminent threat of great bodily harm or death to our Deputy.”

Those who follow NRA’s long running Armed Citizen column will know that this is nowhere near the first instance in which a law-abiding gun owner has come to the aid of a law enforcement officer. In fact, in 1996 NRA compiled a number of such instances into a booklet titled, “Armed Citizens & Police Officers: Partners in Fighting Crime.”

More recent examples of armed citizen support for police abound.

In July, Right-to-Carry permit holder Dylan DeBoard was granted a Citizen’s Award for Valor by officials in Mount Vernon, Ohio for his part in helping an officer in distress. A month earlier, Mount Vernon Police Department Cpl. Michael Wheeler was attempting to restrain a meth-addled homeless man when he was overpowered and pinned on his back. According to reports, Wheeler’s attacker attempted to get control of the officer’s sidearm.

DeBoard came upon the altercation and was able to distract the homeless man with his own firearm long enough for Wheeler to regain the upper hand in the fight and handcuff the vagrant. Following the incident, Wheeler remarked on how there were several other bystanders who offered no assistance, saying of DeBoard, “I wish a lot more of society would do what he did. There were people standing around, but they were just watching. I kept wondering why people didn’t do anything.”

In February, an armed citizen came to the defense of an officer under attack in the Philadelphia suburb of Upper Darby, Pa. A police officer was attempting to break up a fight outside Upper Darby High, when he was attacked by one teen and surrounded by a group of others. A nearby resident witnessed the altercation, retrieved a gun, and ordered the group to stop.

Describing the incident, Upper Darby Police Superintendent Michael Chitwood told a local media outlet, “There were 40 kids. If it wasn’t for the good Samaritan stepping forward, he’d have been dead meat… There’s no doubt they would have attacked him.” Chitwood also noted, “If this guy didn’t come out and come to the aid of the officer, this officer would have had significant problems.”

In May 2015, an armed citizen aided an officer in Oklahoma City, Okla. In this case, rookie Oklahoma City Police Officer Adam Eller pursued, then was attempting to arrest a suspected burglar when the suspect attacked. During the altercation, the suspect obtained control of Eller’s baton and repeatedly struck the officer in the head with it. An armed citizen witnessed the attack and rushed to the officer’s defense, ordering the suspect to cease his assault. 

Of course, in addition to instances where armed citizens have come to the assistance of an officer in peril, the Armed Citizen column is replete with examples of where law-abiding gun owners have assisted police in the apprehension of wrongdoers.

It is logical that gun owners and law enforcement routinely find themselves working in concert, as these groups are natural allies. As a group, Right-to-Carry permit holders have demonstrated the utmost respect for the law, with permit revocation data showing that they are more law-abiding than the general public.

In a decision characteristic of an individual responsible for such a noble deed, the armed citizen that came to Bardes’ aid wishes to remain anonymous. This anonymous hero deserves our admiration, and their actions will stand as another sterling example of the important bond between law-abiding gun owners and law enforcement.

VIDEO: Our Time is Now!

/in , , , , /by

On November 8th, you made history. Your commitment and determination helped lead tens of millions of gun-owning voters to the polls, and your heroic efforts ended Hillary Clinton’s political career and sent Donald Trump and Mike Pence to the White House. It’s an achievement you can be proud of for the rest of your life.

Since Election Day, I’ve been bombarded with phone calls, letters, and emails from members across the country, all wanting to know how this election will impact our freedoms and where we go next. To answer your questions – and to say thanks for all your hard work – I’ve made a short video that you can watch right here.

You deserve the gratitude of every freedom-loving American. I hope you’ll watch my videoand stand tall with NRA in the weeks ahead. Together, we’ll get freedom back on the rails and reclaim the precious ground we’ve lost these past eight years.

I’ve never been more proud of you, and I’ve never been more proud of this great Association!

Wayne

Wayne LaPierre
Executive Vice President
National Rifle Association

A Historic Election Night for the Second Amendment

/in , , , , /by

Last week, we observed how the mainstream media – which had become little more than a super PAC for Hillary Clinton – had already tried to write-off Donald Trump and his supporters. “But the media and Clinton campaign … don’t get to write the final chapter to this story,” we noted. “You do.”

And you did. Did you ever.  Once again, NRA’s members and supporters proved to be the most potent political force in America.

In what the Washington Post described as a “cataclysmic, history making upset,” Donald J. Trump shocked the political establishment and the world with a solid trouncing of his rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton, in their contest for the U.S. presidency.

The final statistics will not be known until Arizona and Michigan finish counting votes. But by 3:00 a.m. Wednesday morning, Trump had surpassed the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency. Clinton called Trump to congratulate him on his victory, and Trump took to the airwaves to address the nation as president-elect. 

“[O]urs was not a campaign but rather an incredible and great movement,” Trump stated. “It is a movement comprised of Americans from all races, religions, backgrounds, and beliefs, who want and expect our government to serve the people — and serve the people it will.”

The Post’s writer called Trump’s victory “the single most stunning political development I have ever witnessed.” Political scientists will likely be studying the 2016 campaign for decades to come.

But many ordinary Americans could see that a movement was afoot and that real change was in the air. Trump signs proliferated, even in normally Democratic strongholds. The crowds at Trump’s rallies dwarfed those of his rival. And repeated media predictions of Trump’s certain political demise unfailingly proved wrong.

Your NRA proved to be one of Trump’s earliest, staunchest, and most faithful friends throughout his historic campaign. That’s because in this campaign, the issue of gun control was front and center in way rarely seen in modern politics. Hillary Clinton made sweeping restrictions on firearms a centerpiece of her campaign. Trump, meanwhile, was just as vocal about his support for the Second Amendment. 

NRA endorsed Trump in May, at its annual meeting in Louisville, KY. After a contentious and crowded Republican primary season, the NRA help unite and focus supporters of the various candidates around the shared commitment to the Second Amendment and our firearms freedom.

NRA went on to release a series of hard-hitting political ads in key battleground states. The ads warned of Clinton’s dishonesty, hypocrisy, antigun policies, and the crucial issue of securing the Supreme Court’s pro-Second Amendment majority. 

And as always, NRA brought a get-out-the-vote ground game that remains one of the best in the business: 38,000,000 election mailings were sent; 1.35 million live phone calls were made; and 170,000 doors were knocked, all in a targeted effort to ensure the highest impact voters showed up at the polls.

Together, these efforts materially contributed to Trump’s victory. NRA’s efforts were so effective, in fact, that they were highlighted by the mainstream media and even by Michael Bloomberg’s own antigun propaganda machine. 

But none of it would have mattered, had you – NRA members, supporters, and volunteers – not done your part. Your activism, quiet determination, and votes are what ultimately overcame the Clinton Machine, perhaps the most sophisticated, well-funded, and media-embraced political campaign in American history. As a result, the White House will now be back to representing the interests of everyday Americans. 

But it wasn’t just the presidential race where pro-gun forces scored important victories. 

Critically, American voters maintained pro-gun majorities in the U.S. House and Senate. NRA made 249 endorsements in House races, with 233 of those candidates winning (with results from one race still outstanding). And 21 of NRA’s 25 endorsed Senate candidates prevailed.

Protecting our allies in the U.S. Senate and returning a pro-gun majority to that chamber will prove critical in the nomination and approval process to replace Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court.

A sizeable majority of governorships also remain in pro-gun hands throughout the states and we were able to defeat Michael Bloomberg’s gun control ballot initiative in Maine despite being massively outspent.

Simply put, gun control was on the ballot this election season, and it suffered a resounding loss. A strong Second Amendment firewall remains intact throughout the country. 

As ever, NRA’s members and supporters will be the difference between winning and losing as gun issues move through the Congress.  So stayed tuned as we head into a future that’s looking increasingly bright for the right to keep and bear arms.

Let Us Not Squander Victory

/in , , , , /by

The election of president elect Donald Trump was an amazing victory or at the very least, potential victory.  I say potential, only because at this point, we do not know if the soon to be president will follow through to fruition on his pledge for example, to build the wall along our southern border.  So far there is no reason to doubt him, but fantastic promises have been made before by others, only to be left in the land of great ideas.  When I add in the fact that our beloved republic has been under various levels of horrendously ugly progressive leaning attacks for decades, it will be interesting to see how President Trump will be able to override the globalist/progressive stranglehold on government.

Thus, it is more important than ever for those who supported Mr. Trump because of the great ideas he expounded upon, to make sure he remembers that “We the People” expect him to follow through.  Because of the precarious position our beloved republic is in today, economically, spiritually, governmentally, morally and militarily, it will probably take approximately two years just to clean up the government enough so that good governance can be the norm.

In fact, over the next two years the amount of ground in horrible, immoral political filth in the government that will be exposed is going to be mind boggling.   I truly believe that the arrival of Donald J. Trump on the political scene has literally helped to avert a total collapse of our republic and way of life.  Only an outsider who is not a beholden elitist with a globalist mentality could have the desire and moral fortitude to even attack the nation killing problems.  Whether it is the open borders policy for example or the no growth economic recovery to deal with, the next president has a monumental job no one in their right mind will envy.  It’s seems as though president Obama is handing over to Donald Trump a 240 year old fixer upper that needs repair everywhere including in the area of how Americans relate to one another.  The streets of America have been filled with political oriented brats and Soros paid thugs who are hell bent on creating an atmosphere of disruption in hopes of president Obama bringing forth Martial Law.  All because they stupidly believe that the election of Donald Trump for president is completely unfair.  Yikes

Unfortunately, far too many of today’s government school, college attendees and graduates have been so severely indoctrinated against all that is good, including the great possibilities and opportunities available in America, that they ae in danger of squandering away their productive lives.  Their ginned up anger and bitterness over problems that are either made up or are exaggerated is setting them up for a lifetime of silly bitterness, lack and mega disappointment.    I have learned through observation that there is also a population of Cloward Piven/Sal Alyski inspired generation of people who consciously do not care one bit about the restoration of America and are more than willing to sacrifice their own possible opportunities for a better life on the altar of political correctness, socialism, open borders, sharia law and any other idea that is destructive to America.  Although that is a pretty grim reality I believe that America is now in a position to experience a real and major change for the better.

Already there have been signs of better days ahead.  Because of the election of Trump, there have been rumors that Ford Motor Company may not move small car production to Mexico.  Even some movers and shakers on wall Street have proclaimed that America is now open for business.  I believe our republic is poised for a return to greatness.  Here’s hoping that the Trump victory is not squandered away.  God Bless America and May America Bless God.  You will also be blessed

EDITORS NOTE: Readers may join Ron on Fridays at two PM PT and 5:00 PM ET on AM 1180 KCKQ AM 1180 Reno, Nev.  Or via www.americamatters.us  Also Tuesdays, Thursdays at 5:05 AM, and Saturdays at 4:05 AM join me on The Captain’s Third Watch hosted by Matt Bruce, emanating nationwide from Flagship station WGUL AM 860 The Answer Tampa, Florida or am860theanswer.com  Also don’t miss a page from The Edwards Notebook commentary at various times overnights during The Captain’s Third Watch heard nationwide.

Effective Immigration Law Enforcement under President Trump

/in , , , , , /by

Now that the 2016 Presidential election is literally and figuratively in the history books, candidate Trump must begin the process of transforming into President Trump so that he can implement his goals to “Make America great again.”

Donald Trump has also promised to “Make America safe again” and “Make America wealthy again.”

Trump’s historic rise to power was, in no small measure, the direct result of those promises in addition to the promise to construct a wall along the border that is supposed to separate the United States from Mexico to keep out rapists, murderers and narcotics.

From the beginning of his effort to become America’s 45th President, Donald Trump, the highly successful billionaire, quickly realized that the key to resolving most of the threats and challenges we face was effective immigration law enforcement.

Trump was highly critical of the H-1b Visa Program that enables tens of thousands of foreign high-tech workers to displace American workers and also promised to use “Extreme vetting” to make certain that no aliens, especially those who are citizens of countries that sponsor terrorism would not be admitted into the United States unless our government could be certain as to their identities and the fact that they did not pose a threat to our safety.

These promises was quickly embraced by huge throngs of enthusiastic supporters along with his campaign mantra that he would “Make America great again.”  In fact, many of those who attended his political rallies during the campaign sported the now famous red caps emblazoned with that phrase.

Of course the open-borders advocates and immigration anarchists immediately accused Trump of being a racist, the most common epithet that they resort to when confronting anyone who would dare call for securing our borders and enforcing our immigration laws.

In reality failures of the immigration system consists are not limited to the extreme porosity of the U.S./Mexican border.  I addressed this issue in my article, “Border Security and the Immigration Colander: Why the breakdown of the Southwest border is only the tip of the iceberg.”

Additionally, Trump did not call for ending lawful immigration, only for ending illegal immigration.  This distinction between aliens who are lawfully present in the United States and aliens who are illegally present that, beginning with Jimmy Carter, the globalist Democratic Party and even some Republicans, have refused to acknowledge.

My article, “Immigration Failure — By Design: Doing the bidding of the Open Borders anarchists” focused on the Obama administration and the unscrupulous politicians who make certain to reduce our borders to little more than “speed bumps” to facilitate the flow of tourists, foreign students and foreign workers.  These politicians seek the campaign contributions of special interest and lobbying groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that see in our nation’s borders impediments to their great wealth.

They also hobble the enforcement of our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States so that aliens who violate our borders and/or our immigration laws will not be identified, located, arrested or deported (removed).

For years pundits, pollsters and politicians have created a false narrative that it is purportedly compassionate to permit illegal aliens live and work in the United States and even provide them with lawful status in a massive amnesty program that would lack the capability to conduct face-to-face interviews or field investigations.  They are delusional and blithely ignore the facts that:

  1. There is nothing compassionate about exploiting desperate and vulnerable foreign workers.
  2. There is nothing compassionate about driving down wages so that record numbers of American families now live below the poverty level.
  3. There is nothing compassionate about causing hard-working Americans to lose their jobs and their paychecks.
  4. There is nothing compassionate about “Sanctuary Cities” that make a mockery of our nation’s immigration laws and attract foreign criminals and fugitives and possibly foreign terrorists to those communities increasing the risks to the residents of those cities and creating strong incentives for illegal aliens including the criminals and terrorists to enter the United States, confident that they will easily be able to embed themselves in those cities.
  5. here is nothing compassionate about violating the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

Meanwhile for years the various pollsters and the organizations that they work for have divided American into subgroups based on age, income, race, religion, ethnicity, education and other such factors.

The morning after the 2016 election television reporters appeared stunned as they sat in front of their cameras and interviewed some of the pollsters who admitted that their polls were wrong, indeed, often extremely wrong especially where “Latino Voters” were concerned.

For the duration of the campaign the pollsters and pundits all talked about the mythical “Latino Voters” and asserted that Trump could never get their votes.

On Wednesday, November 9th Fox News reported that 29% of Latino voters had in fact, voted for Trump.

One pollster was asked about having “egg on his face” over his totally wrong predictions about Latino voters and a number of other issues.  With a very somber expression on his uncharacteristically soft voice he responded by saying that he did not have egg on his face but an entire omelet on his face.

Those assaulted by a criminal they do not care about the race, religion or ethnicity of their assailant.  People who lose their jobs to another person do not care about the race religion or ethnicity of the person who stole their job and their paycheck.

Fundamentally our immigration laws were enacted to protect the lives and livelihoods of Americans and lawful immigrants.

I expressed my outrage about these flawed polls that involve a disgusting form of bigotry and profiling in my articles, “Skewed Immigration Polls May Skewer Americans:  Figures don’t lie but liars can figure” and, “Balkanized America:  Politicians, pollsters, and pundits are all responsible for the nation’s division.”

Those who seek to exploit the immigration system for their own gain do everything that they can to entice ever greater numbers of foreign workers to enter the United States to take jobs that should be done by Americans.  These aliens include those who enter the United States illegally or violate the terms of their lawful admission into the United States by overstaying their authorized period of entry and/or working illegally and aliens who enter the United States with visas that permit them to work under the color of law even when they game the visa process to essentially steal jobs that should go to Americans in a wide variety of industries including the high-tech industries.

If there was one bit of advice that Donald Trump should be given is summed up in the title of my recent article, “Effective Interior Enforcement Of Immigration Laws Vital To National Security.”

In fact, effective interior enforcement is not only essential to national security and public safety but is essential to all aspects of the immigration system.  What follows is a brief and overly simplified explanation of how effective interior enforcement would help.

Each year the United States lawfully admits tens of millions of non-immigrant visitors.  Each year it is estimated that roughly one-half millions of these aliens fail to depart the United States.  Other non-immigrants admitted as foreign students fail to attend school for which they were admitted to attend while authorized foreign workers fail to go to the jobs for which they were admitted.

A dedicated cadre of immigration enforcement personnel need to be available to seek theses illegal aliens along with this aliens who fail to show up for immigration court appearances.

While there are those who claim that making E-Verify mandatory is the solution to the enforcement of our immigration laws to prevent employers from hiring illegal aliens, they ignore that many such unscrupulous employers simply pay illegal aliens “off the books.”

Again, the solution is to have an adequate number of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents available to conduct these investigations.

Every year more than six million applications for various immigration benefits are filed and fraud is common.  Immigration fraud was identified by the 9/11 Commission as a key entry and embedding tactic of terrorists.  Having an adequate number of agents to conduct fraud investigations could deter that fraud.  Furthermore, even if a fraud applications did not result in a prosecution, aliens who participate in such fraud could be easily deported.

At the beginning of my career I participated in a fraud pilot program involving marriage fraud that was so effective that within one year the number of applications filed was just a fraction of what it had been and fraud that had been common became rare.

Now Soon-to-be President Trump is about to set up shop in the Oval Office and these immigration anarchist / anti-American exploiters are in panic mode.  They know that there is indeed a new sheriff in town and he is on to their game.

They can either board Trump’s train or risk being run over by it.

Clinton Pushes Semi-Auto Ban as Public Rejects Gun Bans in Record Numbers

/in , , , /by

Hillary Clinton has made clear that she would make gun control a top priority of her presidency, and has pointed to a new ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms as one of her chief goals. At a June 17, 2014 CNN “town hall” event, Clinton was asked, “Do you think that reinstating the ban on assault weapons and banning high capacity magazines would do any good?” Clinton affirmed her support for a ban, and stated, “We cannot let a minority of people — and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people — hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.” Clinton’s team might want to rework this line of attack, as a Gallup poll released this week shows that a record number, and a majority, of Americans oppose a ban on popular semi-automatic firearms.

In a poll conducted October 5-9, Gallup asked 1,017 adults, “Are you for or against a law which would make it illegal to manufacture, sell or possess semi-automatic guns known as assault rifles?” An overwhelming 61 percent of respondents answered that they were against such a ban, while a mere 36 percent support the restriction.

Gallup began asking this question in 1996, and has done so several times in the last two decades. The trend in favor of greater respect for gun rights is undeniable. Since 1996, support for a ban has dropped more than 20 points and opposition has risen 19 points.

Moreover, Gallup’s data shows that support for a ban has fallen across both major political parties and independents. Gallup points out, “Currently, 50% of Democrats and 25% of Republicans favor a ban; in 1996, 63% of Democrats and 50% of Republicans did so.” Additionally, support for a ban is well below 50 percent in both gun-owning and non-gun-owning households.

In addition to the question about semi-automatic firearms, Gallup also asked respondents, “Do you think there should or should not be a law that would ban the possession of handguns, except by the police and other authorized persons?” As with commonly-owned semiautomatics, the results reveal that Americans are opposed to a handgun ban in record numbers. In the 1980s and early 1990s Gallup measured support for a handgun ban at around 40 percent. Today, only 23 percent support this restriction. 

While Clinton might like use incendiary rhetoric that labels gun rights supporters as a minority that “terrorizes” the majority of Americans, in fact it’s her support for gun bans that is extreme. We’d ask Clinton to stick to the truth, if she were familiar with the concept.

RELATED ARTICLE: Gun Control Measure Divides California’s Politicians, Law Enforcement

Gun Control Coalition’s Endorsement of Clinton is ‘Red Flare Warning’

/in , , , /by

BELLEVUE, Wash. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — This week’s endorsement of Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton by 17 gun prohibition lobbying groups amounts to a red flare warning to gun owners that their rights are on the line, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.

On Tuesday, anti-gun-rights organizations officially threw their support behind Clinton. CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb said this “is literally a message carved in stone” for Second Amendment activists that a Clinton victory translates to a defeat for liberty and the right to keep and bear arms.

“Clinton has already been caught on audio stating that she thinks the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment,” Gottlieb recalled. “Now she is basking in the warm glow of the gun grabbers. Her campaign is signaling to American gun owners that if she wins the White House, their rights are going to be trampled.

“The time for division within the ranks of firearms owners is past,” he continued. “Gun owners need to vote, not just in the presidential race, but also to determine majorities in the House and Senate. This year’s election is truly for all the marbles. We’re talking about everything from right to carry to legal ownership of modern sporting rifles. The future direction of the Supreme Court and lower federal courts will be determined by who occupies the Oval Office and holds the U.S. Senate majority.

“There is no excuse for not voting,” Gottlieb said. “It’s not just a right, it’s a responsibility. Anti-gunners are already preparing to celebrate. They think they’ve got us. They think the Second Amendment is within their grasp and they’re eager to turn this right that protects all the other rights into a strictly-regulated government privilege.

“Everything that gun owners have fought for is on the line,” he observed, “and nothing made that more clear than Tuesday’s gun control endorsement of Hillary Clinton. Apathy is a luxury that gun owners cannot afford. Don’t let someone else, especially a gun prohibitionist, decide your future.”

ABOUT THE CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of the nation’s premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States.

More Clinton Leaked Emails Detail Devotion to Executive Gun Control

/in , , , , , /by

More emails from Hillary Clinton campaign staffers were made public by WikiLeaks this week, granting insight into the campaign’s deceptive attacks on your rights and the extent to which Clinton is in league with the country’s most powerful anti-gun forces. Further, the emails provide more information about Clinton’s insistence on pursuing gun control by executive order.

Medium.com purports to be “a community of readers and writers offering unique perspectives on ideas large and small.” However, there’s nothing unique about the perspective of a January 12 item purportedly authored by a gun control advocate who was the victim of domestic violence. In fact, according to leaked emails, the piece was authored by Clinton campaign consultants and planted on Medium.com by campaign staff.

On January 8, Clinton campaign chair John Podesta forwarded an email titled, “Draft medium post on guns.” The author of the original email is not clear from the WikiLeaks archive. The email states, in part:        

Hey everyone –

Ron Klain wrote a riff for HRC and sent it to Teddy on guns. We thought it could make a strong Medium post from someone who could really speak to this issue (not HRC and not someone on our campaign).

Here’s the draft, which I edited and can personalize depending on who we want to use as an author. A survivor of gun violence? An advocate or family member?

If we can find someone, and if folks want, we could get this posted today to Medium in someone’s name (not us). Here it is, let me know your thoughts!

The email goes on to provide a draft of the commentary.

Ronald Klain is a prominent Democratic operative who served as the chief of staff to both Vice President Al Gore and Vice President Joe Biden. Most recently, Klain has consulted on the Clinton campaign.

From the email, it appears Klain developed an anti-gun commentary intended to be used by Clinton herself. However, the campaign seemed to have thought the item would carry more weight if it appeared under the name of someone outside the campaign who had a history with the issue.

The plan outlined in this email was carried out, as on January 12 a piece titled “I’m With Hillary” was posted to Medium.com with Clai Lasher listed as its author. Lasher was shot by her stepfather in 1970 and is a survivor engagement lead at Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety. Just as the email suggested, portions of the piece were personalized for Lasher. The majority of Klain’s commentary was not altered.

This incident should prompt the public to question just how much of the pro-Clinton content appearing in the media has been directly orchestrated by the Clinton campaign itself.

Recently released emails also give more insight into the unsavory nature of the Clinton campaign’s attacks on Democratic rival Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). The emails show that Clinton’s anti-Sanders messaging was tailored to the racial background of the target audience. In a February 7 email exchange between Democratic consultant Mandy Grunwald and Clinton campaign staff, potential attacks on Sanders were discussed. Specifically, the emails contemplated using the gun issue to attack Sanders’ support among African Americans. In one email, Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook wrote, “We may need to use guns tactically in the AA community–just like we’ll have tactical skirmishes on crime bill, etc.”

During the Democratic primaries, Sanders called on Clinton to produce the transcripts of her paid speeches to Goldman Sachs. Clinton refused, but WikiLeaks obtained the transcripts and has made them available to the public. While much of the speeches address financial and foreign policy, during a June 4, 2013 question and answer session with Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, Clinton used the forum to take a swipe at NRA.

Despite NRA being a nonpartisan organization that routinely supports candidates across the political spectrum, Clinton blamed NRA, in part, for what she perceived is an increase in partisanship that stymied her preferred agenda. In doing so, Clinton gave a ham-handed retelling of an instance where NRA pursued the best interests of our members by supporting the opponent of a Tennessee lawmaker that had obstructed the passage of important Right-to-Carry legislation. Clinton characterized NRA’s vigorous defense of the rights of the state’s gun owners as unreasonable.

With respect to selecting a running mate, the emails have a tale to tell here as well.  In Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Clinton chose a running-mate with a 20 year record of unwavering support for severe gun control. However, a March 17 email written by Podesta shows that several of the other candidates for the position were equally hostile to the Second Amendment.

Among those listed was former Attorney General Eric Holder, who called the Obama administration’s inability to convince Congress to enact new gun control measure, “my single failure.” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who led an anti-gun filibuster on the Senate floor in June, was also considered.

Most disturbing, Podesta’s list included the gun control movement’s primary financier, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Worse, other emails suggest that Bloomberg could still hold a position in a potential Clinton administration. In a June 3, 2015 email, Center for American Progress President Neera Tanden asked Bloomberg adviser Howard Wolfson, “Is there something Mike Bloomberg would want to do in his life in an Admin?” Wolfson responded, “Secty of state.” Tanden then forwarded the email to Podesta, with the line, “Something to know for down the road.” The influence a potential Secretary of State Bloomberg could exert over U.S. policy pertaining to international efforts to restrict the private ownership of firearms is an obvious concern to law-abiding gun owners.

The new emails also further reveal Clinton’s resolve to illegitimately use executive authority to attack gun rights. Over the course of the 2016 presidential campaign, Clinton has shared her intent to flout federal law and the U.S. Constitution by unilaterally restricting the private transfer of firearms. More specifically, on October 5, 2015, Clinton formally proposed to restrict the private transfer of firearms at gun shows by executive action. As this journal noted last week, under current federal law the president cannot use their executive authority to curtail private transfers at gun shows, or anywhere else; as evidenced by the actions of the Obama administration.

Shortly after Clinton formally announced her proposal, the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent authored a story titled, “Obama administration has doubts that key Hillary gun proposal can work,” that severely undercut Clinton’s plan. In it, Sargent cites “current and former senior administration officials,” who noted that the Obama administration had already explored Clinton’s private transfer proposal multiple times and determined that it was unworkable in practice and subject to legal challenge.

It seems that the Obama administration’s acknowledgement of federal law, and Sargent’s reporting, didn’t sit well with the Clinton campaign. On October 7, 2015, Tanden emailed Sargent’s article to Ann O’Leary, a senior policy advisor for the Clinton campaign, along with the sentence, “What is the White House doing?” O’Leary responded, “Being really annoying,” adding, “We should all check in with our folks there about it – health care (Robert Pear article); guns; and it is going to get worse…”

While the Clinton campaign might find the Obama administration’s public recognition of the limits of their own power to restrict firearms “annoying,” many Americans are sure to find Clinton’s plans to usurp the Congress’ legislative power downright obnoxious.

As more of the Clinton staff emails are made public, vigilant gun owners are provided with a greater understanding of the wide-ranging and sophisticated attack on their rights. It is vital that all gun owners are made to understand the scale of threat we face and the deception our opponents are willing to employ to achieve their goals.

WIKILEAKS: Clinton’s Emails Reveal True Gun Control Intentions

/in , , , , /by

No matter the outcome of the 2016 U.S. Senate and House races, Hillary Clinton, if victorious, intends to attack your gun rights. Recently leaked emails of Clinton campaign staffers published by WikiLeaks show that the candidate plans to bypass Congress to enact gun control by executive order. Moreover, undercover video of U.S. Senate candidate Russ Feingold, released this week by James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas, further exposed Clinton’s intent to impose new gun restrictions by executive fiat.

Starting on October 7, WikiLeaks began releasing batches of emails purportedly hacked from Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta. The Clinton campaign emails have caused a great deal of controversy as they exposed the campaign’s collusion with a fawning press, its efforts to defeat Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and campaign staffers’ disparaging remarks about Latinos and Catholics. Among the several thousand emails released by WikiLeaks were several dispatches that pertained to the campaign’s approach to gun control.

Of particular note is an October 4, 2015 email written by Clinton campaign press secretary Brian Fallon, which detailed the campaign’s intent to share with reporters the types of gun control proposals a President Clinton would support. The email stated:

Circling back around on guns as a follow up to the Friday morning discussion: the Today show has indicated they definitely plan to ask bout guns, and so to have the discussion be more of a news event than her previous times discussing guns, we are going to background reporters tonight on a few of the specific proposals she would support as President – universal background checks of course, but also closing the gun show loophole by executive order and imposing manufacturer liability.

Less than a week after WikiLeaks released this email, activist James O’Keefe released an undercover video filmed in August that bolsters the disturbing content of Fallon’s email. The video shows a disguised O’Keefe and a fellow activist attending a fundraiser for U.S. Senate candidate Russ Feingold of Wisconsin being held in Palo Alto, Calif. O’Keefe’s partner approaches Feingold and asks the candidate, in regards to guns, “If there’s still Republican control in Congress, and if Hillary is elected, is there anything she can do?” Feingold answers, “Well, there might be executive order.”

The video also includes footage of one of the hosts of the fundraiser, Integrated Archive Systems CEO Amy Rao, expressing how she thinks Clinton would pursue control. In regards to guns, Rao told O’Keefe, “Hillary wants to shut it down,” adding, “If we can get guns away from everyone in this country, she’ll close loopholes, she’ll get rid of assault weapons, she will get rid of being able to buy, you know, unlimited bullets…” Rao also hosted a fundraiser for Clinton last August.

That Clinton is intent on pursuing gun control by executive order shows not only her contempt for gun owners, but also the rule of law. The president does not have the legitimate authority to unilaterally restrict private firearm transfers at gun shows; and this fact is supported by the behavior of the Obama administration.

In their eagerness to burden gun owners, the Obama administration has already stretched existing federal law to, and in some cases far beyond, its limits. In late 2015, White House Deputy Press Secretary Eric Shultz told reporters that Obama “has asked his team to scrub existing legal authorities to see if there’s any additional action we can take administratively,” adding, “The president has made clear he’s not satisfied with where we are, and expects that work to be completed soon.” Given these statements and the Obama administration’s antipathy towards firearms, it is difficult to imagine that if an executive order of the type Clinton contemplates were permissible the Obama administration would not have pursued it. Perhaps Obama, unlike Clinton, acknowledges the Constitution imposes at least some limits on the power of the executive.

As is custom, the Washington Post rushed to defend Clinton from the gun control leaks. However, rather than deny Clinton’s illegitimate plans to restrict gun rights, the Post sought to brush it off as old news. Indeed, NRA has previously highlighted Clinton’s plans to unilaterally impose new gun controls. However, as is so often the case, the Post fails to grasp the concerns of gun owners and the fact that any further information regarding the contours of Clinton’s anti-gun efforts, and statements from a candidate for U.S. Senate on this matter, are of significant interest to those seeking to protect their fundamental rights.

Aside from the matter of executive gun controls, the Clinton campaign emails published by WikiLeaks include a number of other items of interest to gun rights supporters. Several emails detail the Clinton campaign’s orchestrated attacks on Sanders’ gun control record. An email titled “Sanders Hits,” contains a “Guns” “hit” to be “deployed” against Sanders. Other emails chronicle the campaign’s development of a Clinton anti-gun op-ed for the New York Daily News, including a debate over how hard to “hit Sanders.”

A leaked email that has received significant attention makes clear that Clinton believes “you need both a public and a private position” on a given policy. Other emails appear to show this strategy at work on gun control, as her aides expressed concern about the candidate publicly supporting New York’s ill-named SAFE Act.

On November 19, 2015, Clinton was presented with an award and spoke at a Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence gala in Manhattan. The event was also attended by N.Y. Governor Andrew Cuomo. In the run-up to the event, Clinton campaign research director Tony Carrk and policy advisor Corey Ciorciari discussed the extent to which Clinton should endorse the SAFE Act. Ciorciari emailed Carrk, “Don’t see a need to fully embrace the SAFE Act. There are some controversial items in there.” Carrk concurred, responding, “I agree. SAFE is not a safe bet.”

Throughout her career Clinton has supported gun controls that exceed the SAFE Act’s onerous restrictions. Illustrating Clinton’s dual nature, while at the Brady event Clinton was careful to navigate around the controversial SAFE Act, but less than two months earlier Clinton contended that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to bear arms when she told the attendees of a private Manhattan fundraiser, “the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment…” In District of Columbia v. Heller the court ruled that the federal government could not restrict an individual from keeping an operable handgun in their home for self-defense.

The recent email and undercover video revelations serve as just the latest entries in a voluminous and wide-ranging dossier of evidence showing that Clinton intends to demolish our fundamental rights. However they are important, as Clinton and her camp’s repeated acknowledgments that they intend to usurp Congress’ sole authority to legislate in order to attack our rights reveals the full character of the danger gun owners face.

VIDEO: Hillary’s Moronic Gun-Grab to Stop Terror

/in , , , , /by

On this new special edition of The Unknown, Anni Cyrus focuses on Hillary’s Moronic Gun-Grab to Stop Terror, asking: Will taking Americans’ guns away really stop Jihad and Sharia?

And make sure to watch Anni discuss Honor Killing Your Own Sister for Islam, in which she wonders if Hillary will stand up for the memory of Farideh and tweet about her: CLICK HERE.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Here are All 25 Answers Hillary Clinton Just Gave About Her Email Server Under Penalty of Perjury

Bulgaria bans face veils — and offenders will lose their benefits

Lejla Colak Video: What My Experience With Islam Tells Me About “Islamophobia”

Reports: N.J. School Officials Suspend Student Over Pro-Gun Presentation

/in , , , , , /by

The general stifling of academic freedom reared its ugly head again this week, as reports from NJ.com and News12 New Jersey detailed the story of a New Jersey high schooler who was suspended for his participation in a gun-related school assignment. According to the reports, Frank Harvey, a junior at Manville High School in Manville, N.J. was removed from school after creating a video that advocated against gun control.

According to an account Harvey gave News 12, last year Harvey’s teacher for his College and Career Readiness class tasked him with creating an anti-gun-control video. Harvey’s video, supplied to NJ.com, correctly identified one of the chief problems with gun control; that criminals by definition do not obey the law, and therefore firearms restrictions merely encumber the law-abiding. The video also includes a story of an armed citizen defending his family from home invaders and two political cartoons making light of “gun free” zones. According to Harvey, he completed the assignment without incident and received an “A.”

However, according to NJ.com, on Monday, Harvey left a flash drive containing the video in a school computer lab, where it was discovered by an individual who reported the contents to school administrators. The incident prompted an investigation by the Manville Police Department, who, according to Harvey’s mother Mary Vervan, “looked at his presentation and found nothing wrong.”

The school was less understanding. School administrators suspended Harvey and mandated that he undergo a psychological examination before being permitted to return to school.

Complicating matters for Harvey, his College and Career Readiness teacher has claimed that she never gave him the assignment. Refuting this claim, Harvey told NJ.com, “She said my project would be perfectly fine…I presented the video to the class and took a few questions from my classmates. My presentation went over well. The whole idea of the assignment was to expose students to an idea they hadn’t considered before.”

Rather than submit to the school’s mandate for a psychological evaluation, Harvey withdrew from Manville High School and now plans to obtain his GED. Vervan is reportedly exploring the family’s options for removing this incident from Harvey’s school records. Suggesting that the potential consequences of this episode go beyond Harvey’s enrollment at Manville High, Vervan told NJ.com, “If the police doesn’t [sic] think there was a problem, why is the school taking these extreme actions and harassing us with child services?”

For their part, Manville school administrators contend that Harvey and his mother are lying about the nature of this incident. Superintendent Anne R. Facendo told the media that Harvey and his mother are using student privacy laws “to publicize a blatantly false, one-sided account of what occurred.” Now that Harvey has withdrawn from Manville High School, it is unclear whether any additional information regarding this case will be made public. 

Whatever the precise facts surrounding this incident, the ongoing harsh public response against the Manville school administrators shows that the general public has no difficulty believing that public school officials would punish a student for benign gun-related conduct. Following incidents where students have been punished for toy guns, drawing pictures of guns, pictures of guns on their clothing, and even chewing their food into the shape of a gun, the public is likely prepared to believe that the anti-gun prejudice of some school administrators is limitless.

Of course, if the facts of this latest incident are as Harvey and his mother contend, the Manville school administrators’ conduct would be particularly reprehensible. The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that the First Amendment protects students from viewpoint-based restrictions on their speech. In the landmark Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the Court famously noted, “In order for the State in the person of school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, it must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint.”

As noted, there are conflicting sides to this story, and any final conclusions should be reserved until more facts are made available. However, thanks to the actions of some of their more feckless colleagues throughout the country, public school administrators no longer enjoy the benefit of the doubt.