On Wednesday, June 22, 2016 GOP nominee Donald Trump gave a speech at Trump SoHo in New York City. The speech addressed a number of issues facing America. He laid out his policies to address these issues, both domestic and in foreign policy.
Here is Mr. Trump’s full speech:
RELATED ARTICLE: GOP Senate Debates Gun Control Instead of Real Measures to Fight Terrorism
RELATED INFO-GRAPHIC:
Democrat Sarasota City Commissioner Susan Chapman made the above stunning statement during the June 21st, 2016 Commission meeting. According to ABC News Channel 7, Chapman said, “Up until Orlando, the mass killings were done mostly by–what we call–white Americans. Many of whom, the scary type, were here tonight frankly.”
Since September 11, 2001 13 mass causality terrorist attacks in the United States, not including Orlando, have been documented. All perpetrated by non-white followers of Mohammed.
These 13 terrorist attacks do not include those that have failed such as those of Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, and of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the underwear bomber.
The rhetoric used by Chapman, who is white, is endemic of the hate for ordinary Americans who want to protect their Second Amendment rights by exercising their First Amendment right to petition their elected officials. It also reflects Democratic hate against white Americans in general (e.g. the radical Black Lives Matter movement). Statements like Chapman’s may lead to more violence against white people.
Chapman’s statement is factually incorrect on multiple accounts:
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab
September 11th, 2001 has a special place for the City and County of Sarasota, Florida because it was at Booker Elementary School that President George W. Bush first learned of the attack. Florida was home to 11 of the 19 hijackers including Mohammed Atta, the leader, who learned to fly in Venice, Florida, not 30 miles from Sarasota. Florida is mentioned 57 times in the 9/11 Commission Report.
It appears Chapman is an angry white woman who believes her fellow white constituents are “the scary type.” Those citizens of the City of Sarasota, Florida may contact her directly if they wish.
Commissioner Susan Chapman
At-Large
1565 1st Street, Room 101
Sarasota, FL 34236
Phone: (941) 954-4115
Email: Susan.Chapman@sarasotagov.com
RELATED ARTICLES:
The Left Endangers the Rest of Us When It Uses Terms Like ‘Haters’ and ‘Bigots’
Banning “Assault Weapons” Will Not Save Lives
My take: Sarasota city manager learns a hard lesson about regulating firearms in Florida
Sarasota City Commissioners want to disarm gays, blacks and law abiding citizens
EDITORS NOTE: This column is based on an ABC News Channel 7 report stating:
In the wake of last week’s Orlando massacre where one person killed 49 people, Sarasota City Manager Tom Barwin wanted to pass a resolution against assault weapons.
Easier said than done.
[ … ]
In the end [Sarasota City] Commissioners reluctantly voted against the resolution for fear of being sued.
Commissioner Susan Chapman drew a reaction when she said, “Up until Orlando, the mass killings were done mostly by–what we call–white Americans. Many of whom, the scary type, were here tonight frankly.”
[Emphasis added]
Why we have to deconstruct a pervasive religious homophobia to stop attacks on the LGBT community from happening again.
In the early hours of Sunday morning, investigators were doing their best to block out the sound of the incessant ringing emanating from the pockets and purses of those who were murdered as their friends and family desperately tried to reach them. This was the scene after Omar Siddiqui Mateen, a U.S. citizen born to Afghan parents, entered Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida and killed 49 innocent people while injuring 53 more.
Just moments before the attack, Mateen called 911 to pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State. Later that day, the Islamic State’s Amaq news agency stated that Mateen was a “fighter” for the militant group. Mateen’s father, who has extolled the Taliban as “warrior brothers“, told NBC News after the attack that his son become incensed after he saw two men kissing a couple of months ago before stating that “This has nothing to do with religion”.
It is most unfortunate that the mainstream media, as well as Congress, have become foolishly fixated on the means Mateen used to carry out his attack as opposed to focusing on the root cause of his actions. Sure, it is profoundly troubling that Mateen was able to legally purchase a Sig Sauer .221 caliber assault rifle and a Glock 17 nearly one week prior to the attack after the FBI had questioned him multiple times, while former classmates recalled how he cheered as terrorists flew jumbo jets into the Twin Towers on 9/11.
However, we must eschew distractions and remain focused on the root cause of this tragedy – not the means. Indeed, the Boston Marathon bombings did not ignite a debate about the ubiquity of pressure cookers.
Try and imagine the media’s reaction to this horrible attack if the perpetrator had been a fundamental Christian.
An uproar from the mainstream media would ineluctably ensue while everyone would rightfully examine (and challenge) the roots of homophobia in Christianity while endeavoring to find out everything they could about what was being taught at this young man’s church. Journalists, activists, et. al. would stop at nothing to gain a better understanding of how this could have happened.
In fact, one of the main reasons that homophobic and/or intolerant Christians committing terrorist attacks all over the world on a quotidian basis against those they deem ‘deviant’ or ‘infidels’ is so rare today is because the mainstream media’s pushback against such hatred over the years has been as dependable as it has been commendable.
But Mateen was not a Christian; he was a Muslim.
As Douglas Murray stated back in 2015, “There are those who believe that the fight for gay rights, or indeed human rights in general, stops at the borders of Islam. Very few people seem to realize that they should not.” As a result, the mainstream media has failed to pick up on the story that a Muslim scholar who spoke at a mosque in Orlando a few months agoemphatically stated that Gays Must Die. The Washington Post published a piece earlier today that highlighted the countries where homosexuality may be punished by death, yet failed to point out how all of the nations on this entire list, with the exception of one nation, consisted of Muslim countries. Nigeria, the only non-Muslim country on the list, actually classifies homosexual behavior as a felony punishable by imprisonment according to their federal law; it is the states in Nigeria who have adopted sharia law that actually execute homosexuals.
It is hard to believe the Washington Post’s inability to shine a light on this fact can be attributed to inculpable ignorance.
How do you think the mainstream media would react if fundamental Christians were throwing homosexuals off of rooftops in Argentina, Iceland, or Zambia just as the Islamic State continues to do? It is simply dishonest to claim that the media would behave the same way that they do when these matters concern Islam. The mainstream media’s efforts to avoid bigotry have ironically caused them to practice the form that believes Muslims should be held to a lesser standard than those of other faiths.
There is nothing bigoted about acknowledging that Muslims must reform their faith the same way that Christians have been forced to do, however, it is bigoted to believe Muslims are not just as capable of doing so as Christians.
ABOUT BILL OZANICK
Bill Ozanick is a graduate student at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, DC. He has previously written pieces for The Clarion Project as well as for The Malaysian Insider, The Diplomat, Diplomatic Courier, Political Theology Today, and Qui Vive. He can be followed on Twitter @BillOzanick.
RECENT ARTICLES:
Terror in Florida: A Timeline Over the Years
Orlando Wasn’t the Only Islamist Incident in America This Week
Social Pathology in Turkey: Denying the Armenian Genocide
ISIS Fighter Slaughters Parents for Refusing to Hand Over Brothers
Here are comments from Marion Hammer, executive director of the Unified Sportsmen of Florida, a past president of the National Rifle Association, and current NRA board member.
“Lee, you asked me to comment on the Sarasota Commission’s proposed resolution to ask Congress and the Florida Legislature to discriminate against certain semiautomatic firearm because of the way they look.
Clearly, the Commission doesn’t even recognize what they don’t know. I guarantee you they don’t have a clue what their contrived term “military grade-high capacity assault weapons” even means because I don’t know what it means and neither will anyone else. It’s an open door to ban any guns they choose.
In a speech to the Capital Tiger Bay Club a while back I attempted to clarify the issue of AR-15s and ammunition magazines. Those who didn’t know anything about guns later told me told me they appreciated it because it gave them a better understanding of the issue. Here’s that part of my presentation:
The Second Amendment doesn’t say rifles or shotguns or handguns. It says ARMS. YOU get to choose what you want, what you can afford, and what fits you best.
And make no mistake, the Second Amendment is NOT about hunting. NEVER, at any time in our history, has it ever been about hunting.
It is and always has been about protection from tyranny. It is and always has been about protecting your right to defend yourself and your freedom.
The 2nd Amendment DOESN’T say the NEED to keep and bear arms – it says the RIGHT to keep and bear arms.
Why do you NEED an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle instead of single shot bolt action rifle?
Well, why do you need a car instead of a bicycle? Or why do you need a car with an automatic transmission instead of a stick shift?
How many of you came here today on bicycles or in cars with stick shifts? You are making your own choices – gun owners want to make theirs.
All semiautomatic firearms, are functionally IDENTICAL. It is the same technology that has been used for over 130 years.
You can take the gun – the mechanism – out of a beautiful, traditional, magnificent grain, shiny wood stock and put it in an ugly black, plastic, adjustable stock, with a pistol grip, and a barrel shroud and it fires exactly the same. The only difference is the way it looks.
That is no different from a lady in an elegant dress, nylon stockings, Christian Louboutin high heel shoes and some expensive jewelry – changing clothes – into blue jeans, a sweat shirt, Nike’s and a Timex watch. The only difference is the way she looks.
You might take that expensive gun in the traditional wood stock to a gun show to show it off but you don’t want to take it to the woods hunting on a cool wet rainy day.
And you might take that elegantly dressed lady to dinner at a fancy restaurant, but you don’t want to make her clean her house and scrub toilets dressed like that.
You have been willfully and intentionally deceived on the assault weapons issue.
Let talk for a moment about High Capacity Magazines – when you’re out in the driveway working on your car, do you leave your toolbox in the garage so that every time you need another tool you have to get up and walk back into the garage to get it? Of course not! If you’re smart you take the toolbox with you so it’s there if you need another tool.
That’s no different from trying to protect yourself while keeping your ammunition in your pocket so you have to dig it out and load a cartridge every time you need one. You want your ammunition where you need it. Modern technology makes that possible. There is nothing bad about that.
Would you rather have a car with stick shift and a 5 gallon gas tank? Or one with an automatic transmission and a 20 gallon gas tank?
The kind of car you drive doesn’t mean you’re going to use it to commit a crime.
It doesn’t mean you’re going to use it for a getaway car to rob a bank. And just because your speedometer registers up to 120 miles per hour doesn’t mean you’re ever going to go that fast.
What legitimate reason could anyone have to deprive law-abiding people of property they have every right to own?
Why pretend that taking YOUR guns will keep them out of the hands of criminals? You know it doesn’t work that way.
Banning guns because of the way they look is political eyewash. It’s nothing less than an attempt to make it look like they’re doing something when they know they’re not.
There is no such thing as an ‘assault weapon.’ There are ‘assault people.’ No gun ever walked into any place and started pulling it’s own trigger and changing it’s own magazines. Only terrorists and other evil people do that.”
EARLIER: On Monday June 20, Sarasota City Commissioners will vote on a resolution asking Congress and/or the Florida Legislature to “strictly limit the availability and use of military grade-high capacity assault weapons to bona fide law enforcement agencies and to do so with the sense of urgency and commitment which is warranted in the face of the ongoing, tragic and unnecessary loss of life triggered by mass shootings with high powered, military grade, high
capacity magazine assault weapons.”
Video by Brevard County Sheriff Wayne Ivey titled “It’s Time To Fight Back”:
To be clear, the city commissioners themselves lack the statutory authority to create a gun ban of their own. Florida’s powerful preemption statute gives only the state legislature the authority to regulate firearms. If local officials create their own gun laws, they’re subject to criminal charges, fines and removal from office.
The city’s resolution lacks any real authority. It’s not an ordinance or law. It’s merely a way for an elected body to express an opinion.
It appears to have been created by Sarasota City Manager Thomas Barwin.
Sarasota City Manager Thomas Barwin
Barwin did not immediately return calls seeking comment for this story.
It also appears to have the support of Sarasota Police Chief Bernadette DiPino.
DiPino did not immediately return calls seeking comment for this story.
Barwin has a history of anti-gun policies. While he was village manager in Oak Park, Illinois, his actions got the village sued by the National Rifle Association. The NRA won the suit, and the village was forced to pay their legal fees.
Barwin’s current proposal contains several inaccuracies.
It states that “a majority of the American public, including legal gun owners, support extensive background checks for gun ownership and limiting the availability of military grade, high capacity magazine assault weapons to bona fide and highly trained law enforcement agencies.”
I’ve never met a “legal gun owner” who believes only police should have ARs, much less a “majority of legal gun owners” who believe that the rifles belong only in the hands of law enforcement.
The resolution also claims that “military grade, high capacity magazine assault weapons” have been “disavowed by most reputable pro-hunting organizations.” Again, I’d like the names of these alleged pro-hunting groups that have “disavowed” ARs for hunting.
One of my colleagues encountered Barwin at a public meeting Thursday, and asked him for the names of these pro-hunting groups. Barwin said he could not recall their names “off the top of his head.”
Given the makeup of our city commission, this resolution will most likely pass.
It will then be sent to the Republican-dominated state legislature where,
most likely, no action will be taken.
It’s been a while since the city commissioners have dabbled, or better yet attempted to infringe, upon Second Amendment issues.
In September 2013, they voted to make repealing “Stand Your Ground” one of their legislative priorities.
Just days after that vote, the Sarasota GOP created an online petition to support the “Stand Your Ground” statute.
The move also prompted a recall effort for the commissioners who voiced support for the repeal — an effort that fizzled.
Please check back, as I will update this story throughout the day.
RELATED ARTICLE: Obama administration’s absurd priorities
fter the attack at Pulse night club in Orlando, Hillary Clinton looked past the obvious enemy – radical Islamic terror – and instead said “weapons of war have no place on our streets” and that we need to ban AR-15s immediately.
AR-15s are fine for Hillary and her family.
They’ve been protected by armed guards who use them for three decades. But average Americans who watch the news and feel genuine fear for their safety, and their families’ safety—Hillary wants to deny them the level of protection she insists upon herself.
BELLEVUE, Wash. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Attempts by both President Barack Obama and Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton to exploit the terror attack in Orlando and further their gun control agenda are outrageous, the Second Amendment Foundation said today.
“Americans should be appalled that both President Obama and Clinton chose to attack the Second Amendment rights of legitimate gun owners instead of radical Islamist terrorists,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Their priorities are upside down.”
During his Sunday response to the Orlando atrocity, the president found time to insert a remark about gun control, insisting, “This massacre is therefore a further reminder of how easy it is for someone to get their hands on a weapon that lets them shoot people in a school, or a house of worship, or a movie theater, or a nightclub. And we have to decide if that’s the kind of country that we want to be.”
“We want a country where the Second Amendment is treated as the fundamental, individual civil right it protects,” Gottlieb said in response. “Americans want a country where they’re not demonized and treated like criminals just because they want to exercise that right.”
Clinton, meanwhile, said “weapons of war” must be removed from the streets, according to published reports.
Gottlieb’s response was blunt: “Hillary Clinton needs to open her eyes. Terrorists are at war with us and are bringing that war to our streets. The murderous attacks in San Bernardino and Orlando underscore the need for all Americans to be able to fight back. But in the world Obama and Clinton want to create, they would disarm the citizens and deny that the terrorists exist.
“The European gun control model did not stop the Paris terrorists from getting guns to commit their atrocity,” he added. “When you trade the means to protect your personal security for the promise of government protection you end up with neither.
“If we lose our Second Amendment rights,” Gottlieb warned, “the radical Islamist terrorists win.”
ABOUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION
The Second Amendment Foundation is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.
BELLEVUE, Wash. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Gun owners responding to an online presidential preference poll conducted by the KeepAndBearArms.com website show an overwhelming preference for presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump over prospective Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms reported today.
During the first week of polling, the lopsided response shows gun owners by a margin of almost 28-to-1 say they should vote for Trump (86.4%) rather than Clinton (3.1%). Meanwhile 10.5% of poll respondents think gun owners should vote for “another” candidate, but did not specifically say who. The survey will continue at the KeepAndBearArms.com website, which is jointly owned by CCRKBA and the Second Amendment Foundation.
Voting is continuing at KeepAndBearArms.com.
“The most important conclusion to be drawn from the poll results so far,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, “is that America’s gun owners understand the critical nature of this election and what is at stake if Clinton gains the presidency. She would be making cabinet appointments and nominating judges and Supreme Court justices, and there is every indication that none of her appointments would be friendly to the Second Amendment.”
Clinton was caught on audio at a private gathering last fall, stating that in her opinion “the Supreme Court was wrong on the Second Amendment.” She further stated that she would “make that case” every chance she gets.
“Instead of just making that case,” Gottlieb observed, “a ‘President Hillary Clinton‘ would be able to make appointments to the Supreme Court that could undo the progress we’ve made over the past eight years. Since the 2008 Heller ruling, and the 2010 McDonald decision, we have been fighting unjust and unconstitutional gun laws across the country. From the first-week poll results, it appears gun owners realize that the Second Amendment is on the ballot in November.
“We recognize that many people are not sure about Trump,” he noted, “but they appear to be absolutely certain about Clinton, and in a very negative way. The poll results show how important it will be for every gun owner to be a registered voter this fall, and to cast a ballot in the Nov. 8 general election.”
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 (www.ccrkba.org) 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.
BELLEVUE, Wash. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Today’s endorsement of Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton by two major gun prohibition lobbying groups should come as no surprise, considering her highly-publicized attacks on the Second Amendment, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said in response.
As reported by the New York Times, Everytown for Gun Safety President John Feinblatt declared in a prepared statement, “Gun Sense Voters have a champion in Hillary Clinton. Our litmus test is simple: does a candidate side with the public or with the gun lobby? Hillary Clinton passes that test with flying colors.”
“It’s no surprise that the gun prohibition lobby has a litmus test based on erosion of the Second Amendment, and it is less of a surprise that Hillary Clinton passed it with flying colors,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “If there were any remaining doubts among American voters about Clinton’s intentions if she wins in November, these endorsements make it clear that she is determined to rip the right to keep and bear arms from the American fabric.”
Early last fall, Clinton was caught on audio at a private fund raiser declaring that “The Supreme Court was wrong on the Second Amendment.” Gottlieb said today’s endorsements by Everytown and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America – two organizations supported by anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg – amount to “damning proof” that a Clinton presidency would pose a direct threat to the individual right to keep and bear arms.
“Today’s Washington Examiner noted that Clinton has promised to push gun control on her very first day in office,” Gottlieb noted. “That’s not a sign of leadership. It’s a symptom of fanaticism against a fundamental individual civil right.
“Throughout her public career,” he observed, “Hillary Clinton has never been a friend of gun owners, and today’s double endorsement merely confirms that she is their avowed enemy.”
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.
RELATED ARTICLES:
NRA Response to Gun Control Lobby’s Endorsement of Hillary Clinton
Hard-line Hillary Bashes Heller Again! Calls Supreme Court’s Decision “Terrible”
“Journalists” Renew Attack Upon “Assault Weapons”
What “Strong Case” for Gun Registration?
EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of the National Rifle Association.
Early last week, school officials at Southeast Elementary in Brighton, Colo. suspended a 5-year-old kindergartner for bringing a “fake weapon” to school. Illustrating the fanatical manner in which school weapons policies are enforced throughout the country, the “weapon” in question was a battery-powered clear plastic gun that blows bubbles when the trigger is pulled. The item’s clear plastic construction may not have been enough for the administrators to distinguish it from an actual weapon, but if the zealots had been in less of a fervor to punish the young student they might have noticed the portrait of two Disney princesses on the toy.
In an interview with Denver’s KDVR, the young girl’s mother made clear that she was upset with how her daughter had been treated, telling a reporter, “If they had contacted me and said can you make sure this doesn’t happen again, we just want you to be aware, I think that would have been a more appropriate way to handle the situation. Could we have a warning? It blows bubbles.”
Princess Bubble Gun
Despite attention from the local media, Southeast Elementary officials issued the following statement defending their actions:
While we hear and understand the parents of this student being concerned about this discipline in light of the student’s age and type of item, this suspension is consistent with our district policy as well as how Southeast has handled similar situations throughout this school year. This has involved similar situations where students have brought items such as Nerf guns to school and also received one-day suspensions. The bringing of weapons, real or facsimile, to our schools by students can not only create a potential safety concern but also cause a distraction for our students in the learning process. Our schools, particularly Southeast because of past instances with students bringing fake weapons to school, make a point of asking parents to be partners in making sure students are not bringing these items to school. This includes asking parents to check backpacks.
Note the word “facsimile.” The Southeast Elementary Student Code of Conduct cites a school district weapons policy that states:
Carrying, using, actively displaying or threatening with the use of a firearm facsimile that could reasonably be mistaken for an actual firearm on district property, when being transported in vehicles dispatched by the district or one of its schools, during a school sponsored or district-sponsored activity or event, and off school property when such conduct has a reasonable connection to school or any district curricular or non-curricular event without the authorization of the school or school district is prohibited. Students who violate this policy provision may be subject to disciplinary action including but not limited to suspension and/or expulsion.
Facsimile typically connotes an exact copy, however, the policy does broaden the definition to allow for punishment if a student brings an item that “could reasonably be mistaken for a firearm.” It is hard to imagine how any reasonable person could mistake a clear, Disney-branded bubble toy for an actual firearm. But, here lies the problem, this kindergartner was clearly not interacting with reasonable individuals. Worse, the school’s response reveals that this type of unreasonable behavior is standard procedure for the school’s administrators.
Incidents like this are why NRA has supported legislation in some states to protect children and parents from the abuse of weapons policies by overzealous school officials. In Florida, NRA helped enact the “Right to be a Kid” Act, also known as the “Pop Tart” bill – referring to a well-publicized incident where a student was disciplined for chewing a breakfast pastry into the shape of a firearm. This law targets some of the worst abuses, by making clear that “Simulating a firearm or weapon while playing or wearing clothing or accessories that depict a firearm or weapon or express an opinion regarding a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is not grounds for disciplinary action or referral to the criminal justice or juvenile justice system.”
Given an apparent pattern of weapons policy abuse by Southeast Elementary school administrators, Colorado lawmakers would be wise to better define how school officials deal with innocuous toys and other harmless items and behavior. Such harmful encounters with school officials can have a lasting negative effect on students. As the mother in this this case explained to a reporter, “What bugs me is this is going to be something they can refer to if we have any issues in the future which I don’t foresee, but it’s always going to be lingering there in her school file.”
Google-search “Katie Couric, gun control, edited” and you’ll see what we’re talking about. Actually, you’ll see what most news organizations are talking about.
Fox News: Katie Couric slammed for ‘deceptive’ documentary about gun rights
Washington Post: Audiotape: Katie Couric documentary falsely depicts gun supporters as “idiots”
New York Times: Audio of Katie Couric Interview Shows Editing Slant in Gun Documentary, Site Claims
Reason: Katie Couric Anti-Gun Doc Deceptively Edited to Suggest Gun Rights Activists Don’t Have Answers
The Blaze: Katie Couric Documentary Accused of Deceptively Editing Gun Rights Activists—Here’s the Evidence
Washington Free Beacon: Audio Shows Katie Couric Documentary Deceptively Edited Interview with Pro-Gun Activists
Daily Caller: Katie Couric Edited Gun Documentary to Silence Pro-Gun Opinions
The articles’ titles pretty much tell the story, but the details go something like this: Couric has produced a documentary promoting gun control. Lest there be any confusion on that point, the documentary’s website says that its partners include Everytown, Moms Demand Action, the Brady Campaign, the Violence Policy Center, the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, and other anti-gun groups. And it urges people to “Reject the NRA” and to contact lawmakers, urging them to support background check legislation and other gun control efforts.
In the documentary, Couric interviews members of a local, Virginia-based pro-Second Amendment group. She asks them why they don’t support “universal” background check legislation. What is shown on camera thereafter is the interviewees sitting speechless for a full nine seconds, after which time the video cuts away, as if they never figured out an answer and the cameraman gave up and turned the camera off. The implication? Couric had proven once and for all that gun control opponents are incapable of producing a single argument against gun control.
But an audio-only tape of the interview, available here, proves that several of those being interviewed answered Couric immediately and at considerable length. Couric’s team simply deleted their answers, and inserted the “speechless” video footage in their place.
The articles linked above make clear that Couric and her director, Stephanie Soechtig, set out not to “document” anything, but to persuade viewers to adopt their anti-gun views. All of this reminds us that Couric is the same political activist that she has always been, first as a “journalist” that would bend the truth to propagandize audiences, and now as a “filmmaker” that will do the same.
According to CNN, Couric says she is “very proud of the film.” Her hubris notwithstanding, it remains to be seen if Couric’s legacy is forever tainted – as it should be – from her attempt to mislead the American public into believing a false narrative on gun control.
Fairfax, Va.— The chairman of the National Rifle Association’s Political Victory Fund, Chris W. Cox, released the following statement on Friday:
“The stakes in this year’s presidential election could not be higher for gun owners. If Hillary Clinton gets the opportunity to replace Antonin Scalia with an anti-gun Supreme Court justice, we will lose the individual right to keep a gun in the home for self-defense. Mrs. Clinton has said that the Supreme Court got it wrong on the Second Amendment. So the choice for gun owners in this election is clear. And that choice is Donald Trump. That’s why the National Rifle Association of America is announcing our endorsement of Donald J. Trump for President of the United States.”
The full speech by Donald Trump at the NRA:
ABOUT THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION
Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen’s group. More than five million members strong, NRA continues to uphold the Second Amendment and advocates enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation’s leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the armed services. Be sure to follow the NRA on Facebook at NRA on Facebook and Twitter @NRA.
Gun owners have come to expect a certain amount of anti-gun bias from the mainstream press and entertainment industry. Unfortunately, in recent years this noxious prejudice has found its way into a wider variety of media, even some directed at members of our armed services.
Late last week, Military Press published a movie review on a new Katie Couric-produced gun control documentary titled, “Under the Gun.” To describe the review as “glowing” (it labeled the documentary a “must-see”) would be a severe understatement.
The California-based reviewer fawns over the film’s producer and content, and notes appearances by representatives from gun control groups such as Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety, Brady Campaign, Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence (formerly Legal Community Against Violence), and Americans for Responsible Solutions. Finally revealing the scale of her bias, near the end of the piece the reviewer notes, “I am all for hearing gun-owners out and speaking with a cool head and I heard what they said in the documentary. That being said, I still don’t understand their reasoning behind safely, security and precautions.”
While the critic is entitled to her opinions (even if arrived at without critical thinking), the piece veers wildly off-course when she presents several gun control talking points to the reader as undisputed fact.
First, the author notes, “The rise of mass shootings has become an epidemic.” This is not the case. As we have noted before, mass shootings have been, and remain, rare. A 2015 Congressional Research Service study, which defined a “mass shooting” as “a multiple homicide incident in which four or more victims are murdered with firearms, within one event, in one or more locations in close proximity,” found that shootings covered by the study accounted for a mere 0.66 of all murder victims from 1999 to 2013. As for a purported increase in frequency, respected criminologist James Alan Fox of Northeastern University has repeatedly made clear that there has not been a dramatic rise in mass shooting incidents. In 2013, Fox wrote a piece for USA Today where he explained, “it is important to dispel the widely held notion that mass shootings are on the rise.” Following the release of the CRS study, Fox reiterated that in regards to mass shootings, “There’s no solid trend,” and, “No matter how you cut it, there’s no epidemic.”
Later, the author uses a well-worn gun control talking point, noting, “Gun violence is the second leading cause of death in children from 10-19.” This is a slight variation on a misleading classic that we have repeatedly exposed. In short, gun control advocates mislabel 18 and 19-year-old young adults as “children” and purposefully exclude certain ages in order to concoct a favorable statistic.
The critic then goes on to state the ridiculous claim perpetuated by handgun prohibitionist organization Violence Policy Center that, “The manufacturing and distribution of teddy bears is more tightly regulated for health and safety than handguns.” Firearms are not subject to the authority of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, thanks to the efforts of gun rights activists and our friends in Congress. Firearms are specifically exempted from CPSC’s authority because some have shown an interest in using the agency to ban entire classes of firearms. Instead, firearms manufacturing and distribution are extensively regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Anyone who doubts the rigor with which the manufacture and distribution of firearms are regulated should take a moment to peruse ATF’s Federal Firearms Regulations Guide.
This is not the first time Military Press has revealed an anti-gun ignorance and bias. The April 1, 2013 edition of the publication contained an item titled, “Gun control debate rages on.” In part, the article discusses the debate over whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms or merely a state’s right to maintain a militia. Incredibly, the article makes no mention of the landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago, both of which made clear that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to arms. Rather than confront reality, the article states, “so far, probably to both sides’ frustration, the courts have never fully defined the Second Amendment and its implications.”
It should come as no surprise that those with anti-gun views would seek to influence members of the armed forces with their political propaganda. Current and former members of the military are, as a group, almost universally well-respected, and on a more individual basis, are often pillars of our communities. Further, those who would restrict our rights are aware of the deep support the military community and NRA provide each other.
Current and former members of the armed forces comprise an indispensable segment of NRA membership, and as such, NRA understands a special obligation to pursue issues that uniquely affect this group. In this effort, NRA has worked to enact Right-to-Carry laws that waive training requirements and fees for those with military experience. NRA has also fought for changes that would allow military personnel to carry the means of self-defense while on military installations. Most importantly, NRA has led the fight to reform the Department of Veterans Affairs’ unconscionable practice of stripping veterans of their gun rights based solely on a determination that the veteran needs financial assistance managing his VA benefits.
The anti-gun community’s efforts to misinform the unsuspecting public are distasteful, however, these efforts take on a particularly repugnant character when the propaganda targets those who fought to protect the very liberties they would destroy. NRA will continue to expose these attempts wherever they arise.
On May 7, at a campaign rally in Lynden, Wash., likely Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said, “Hillary Clinton wants to abolish the Second Amendment. She wants to abolish it. Hillary Clinton wants to take your guns away. She wants to abolish the Second Amendment.”
Trump is correct.
However, in the days since this statement, the Annenberg Foundation’s FactCheck.org and PolitiFact have bent over backwards to defend Clinton from this legitimate description of her positions. These outlets’ attempts to contort Clinton’s record to suit their agenda is so shameless one hopes the efforts prompt Columbia University to create a Pulitzer Prize for cognitive dissonance.
Here, in order to claim that Trump is wrong, both FactCheck.org and PolitiFact take a handful of statements Clinton and her campaign have made at face-value, while dismissing more candid statements by Clinton and her daughter Chelsea.
On September 24, 2015, at a fundraiser held at the New York City home of John Zaccaro, Clinton made her views on the Second Amendment abundantly clear. An audio recording of the private event captured the candidate stating, “the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.”
On April 21, 2016, while campaigning for her mother in Maryland, Chelsea Clinton reiterated her mother’s opposition to the Supreme Court’s individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment. Chelsea told the crowd, “It matters to me that my mom recognizes the role the Supreme Court has when it comes to gun control. With Justice Scalia on the bench, one of the few areas where the Court actually had an inconsistent record relates to gun control. Sometimes the Court upheld local and state gun control measures as being compliant with the Second Amendment, and sometimes the Court struck them down.”
In recent years, there have been two landmark cases that have determined the meaning of the Second Amendment, District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago. In both cases, the Supreme Court found that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. Further, the cases made clear that a jurisdiction may not enact a complete ban on handguns or a ban on possessing functional firearms for self-defense in the home. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Heller.
Clinton has not, to our knowledge, sought to initiate the Article V constitutional amendment process to remove the Second Amendment from the U.S. Constitution. However, these statements make clear that Clinton wants to abolish the Second Amendment as it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court, and is understood by the vast majority of Americans; as protecting an individual right to keep and bear arms.
For most Americans, the Second Amendment is synonymous with protection of the individual right to keep and bears arms, thus an effort to eliminate the latter is rightly thought of as an attempt at abolishing the former. Illustrating this link in the minds of the vast majority of Americans, a USA Today/Gallup poll from February 2008 found that 73-percent of respondents understood the Second Amendment to protect “the rights of Americans to own guns,” rather than “members of state militias such as National Guard units.” In 2009, a similar CNN poll found that 77-percent of Americans endorsed the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment.
Further, the vast discrepancy between Clinton’s privately shared beliefs and the public opinion data, is all the more reason to discount her more carefully prepared public statements on the topic as political pandering. It is fair to assume that Clinton and her campaign staff understand the American public’s position on this matter and have crafted their official statements accordingly.
Remarkably, the FactCheck.org piece attempts to make a case against Trump’s statement by contending that Clinton’s views on the Second Amendment are in line with those of Justice Stephen Breyer in Heller. Justice Breyer signed onto Justice John Paul Stevens’ dissent that rejected the correct individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment for a “sophisticated” collective rights meaning, and wrote his own dissent rejecting the position that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to self-defense. FactCheck.org may be correct in claiming Clinton’s view of the Second Amendment is similar to Breyer’s. However, this would be further evidence that Trump’s statement is correct. Clinton wants to abolish the Second Amendment as it is currently understood by the Supreme Court and most Americans, who soundly reject Breyer’s position.
To reject this statement, the “fact checkers” dismiss Clinton’s recent comments supporting an Australian-style firearms confiscation scheme by contending that she misspoke or did not understand the nature of Australia’s gun control measures. We give Clinton, who has been versed in the gun control issue for well over two decades, more credit than that. In 1996, Australia embarked on an effort to confiscate semi-automatic and pump-action firearms, forcing owners to turn in their firearms for a set amount of compensation.
On October 16, 2015, while speaking before an audience in Keene, N.H., Clinton was asked, “Recently, Australia managed to get away, take away, tens of thousands, millions, of handguns. And in one year, they were all gone. Can we do that, and why if we can’t, why can’t we?” The question is straight-forward. The audience member asked about an effort to “take away” firearms in order make sure they were “all gone.” This does not comport with a question about voluntary “buybacks,” more accurately termed turn-ins.
In her response, Clinton, exhibiting a knowledge of the contours of the Australian confiscation scheme, stated, “In the Australian example, as I recall, that was a buyback program. The Australian government, as part of trying to clamp down on the availability of automatic weapons, offered a good price for buying hundreds of thousands of guns.” Clinton concludes her answer by noting, “So I think that’s worth considering. I do not know enough detail to tell you how we would do it, or how would it work, but certainly the Australian example is worth looking at.”
PolitiFact contends that Clinton’s answer may endorse some sort of voluntary turn-in, as in part of her answer she mentioned the voluntary turn-ins common to some U.S. communities. However, in the closing of her answer, Clinton makes clear she is referring to Australia, stating, “the Australian example is worth looking at.” Further, are we to believe that Clinton, whose husband presided over controversial and unsuccessful federally-funded voluntary turn-in programs is unclear of the difference between those efforts and the Australian experience? Again, Clinton deserves more credit.
An overarching theme in the FactCheck.org and PolitiFact pieces is an unshakable deference to Clinton’s more moderate statements on gun control and the Clinton campaign’s explanations for her more radical admissions. What is there in Clinton’s history on the issue of gun control that would warrant such deference? Rather, the evidence from Clinton’s nearly 25-year public record of supporting extreme gun restrictions suggests she deserves the opposite.
In 1993, the Clinton-chaired President’s Task Force on National Health Care Reform contemplated a sin tax on firearms to offset the cost of her husband’s universal healthcare plan. At a Senate Finance Committee hearing on the health care proposal, Clinton endorsed a 25-percent tax on firearms suggested by Sen. Bill Bradley (D-N.J.), stating, “I’m all for that.”
In 2000, while giving a speech at a Brady Campaign event during her first senatorial campaign, Clinton stated, “I’m the only candidate in this race who supports federal legislation to license handgun owners and register handguns.” Earlier that year, Clinton described her gun control agenda at the Newspaper Association of America’s Annual Convention. This included licensing of all handgun owners, a national registry of all handguns sales or transfers, a national ballistics fingerprinting database, a ban on affordable handguns, handgun rationing, and granting the Consumer Product Safety Commission the power to regulate firearms.
In 2004, Clinton took to the Senate floor to oppose the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which protects firearm manufacturers and dealers from liability arising from the unlawful actions of a third party. On March 6, after having been repeatedly attacked by Clinton for not opposing the PLCAA, Clinton’s opponent for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), said of her position, “what you’re really talking about is people saying let’s end gun manufacturing in America. That’s the implications of that. And I don’t agree with that.”
In 2014, at the National Council for Behavioral Health Conference, Clinton attacked the Right-to-Carry, telling an audience, “I think that we’ve got to rein in what has become an almost article of faith that anybody can have a gun anywhere, anytime.”
Given Clinton’s well-documented history of supporting the most radical types of gun controls and her own candid remarks regarding the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court, and Australia’s gun control measures, for purported “fact checkers” to blindly accept the Clinton campaign’s spin reveals a severe bias. Such naked prejudice does more to diminish these media outlets’ own credibility than that of those they target with their spurious analysis.
Brit Hume Tweeted a link to a new anti-Trump Hillary Clinton campaign political ad. It gives a list of things that a President Trump and his administration will do on the first day in office and beyond.
Hume Tweeted, “And so it begins in earnest. This is just a sample of what Trump will be facing.”
Question: Does the anti-Trump ad benefit Trump?
The GOP primary has shown that the more Trump is attacked, the more votes he gets. In Indiana 64,000 negative ads were run against Trump and he won the Hoosier state in a landslide. Is Brit Hume wrong in his Tweet?
Twenty years ago, David Brooks longed for “confidence and vigor” in a president. Doesn’t this video show a president with confidence and vigor? Do voters see confidence and vigor in Hillary Clinton? That is the question on the November 8th ballot.
Some think Hillary’s ad will backfire because it depicts a strong, principled and vigorous president. Some view the ad as pro-Trump. It reinforces his policy statements at a time when voters are looking for a strong America and a different direction.
Will the voters see Hillary’s ad and think this is exactly what America needs?
You may view the full ad below:
Does this ad make the case for why people should vote for Trump?
Please leave a comment and tell us what you think.
RELATED ARTICLES:
Feminism Misunderstands What Women Really Want
Trump’s Foreign Policy Speech: Did He Jump Into Bed With Putin?
Collaborators: Understanding Trump’s Rebellion
The Pharisees of Our Time vs. the Blue Collar Billionaire
RELATED VIDEO: Young Mexican kids give the finger and yell obscenities at Trump supporters. In this video clip a group of Mexican immigrants and their children, some as young as 10, yelled obscenities at cars loaded with Trump supporters that would make the creepiest truck drivers blush. The kids yelled ‘f_ _k trump’ and called people ‘puta’, the Spanish word for whore. WARNING VIDEO GRAPHIC LANGUAGE AND GESTURES:
Where are all of those so-called concerned activists when cruel injustice is on full display?
The dragon media has ignored this example of a black robe gone wild with a level of defiance that would make all the democrats who defiantly want open borders proud. One such case was brought to my In Macomb County MI, On the night of July 14, 2014, two people in a large pickup truck were feeling their oats and viciously harassed Mark Anthony Varner.
Mr. Varner was simply taking his customary drive home after work. The bullying truck drivers kept motoring very close behind with their bright lights glaring. Their tail gaiting then turned into trying to run Varner off the road. Mark Varner was driving a much smaller two door Fiat. He made numerous tries to evade the treacherous truck drivers who just would not leave Varner alone. According to Mark Varner’s sister, he even pulled off the road to avoid the haranguing truck drivers.
After a few moments Mark proceeded on his journey home, when suddenly the big truck appeared from behind again. Eventually, the truck pulled alongside Mark and the driver fired off several gunshot blasts toward his vehicle. In all the details I never learned if Mr. Varner’s car was ever hit by the volley of bullets.
By now, Mark a licensed gun owner and a former Marine who possessed a concealed carry permit license (CPL) began to fear for his life and figured it was time to defend himself. He fired back at the truck and quickly pulled over again to call 911. Mark was instructed by the 911 operator to remain where he was located and await a squad car, which he did.
Moments later, the officers arrived and Mark immediately informed them that he is a licensed CPL gun owner and that the weapon is in the car. That is standard practice when you own a CPL. Despite no investigation whatsoever, Mark was automatically deemed by the police the be the trouble starter in the scenario. Thus he was immediately placed in the back of the police squad car. The driver of the truck also called the police and were met by the police at a nearby location, but he and his passenger were never put into a squad car.
Mark was handcuffed and taken to the police station and arraigned the following morning.
To add insult to injury, the police never investigated to even see if the truck driver had a gun. Because they assumed Mark Varner was the one who initiated the hostilities.