VIDEO: Gun Control Debate in the Sunshine State

Christian Ziegler, the Republican Party of Sarasota State Committeeman was on the Alan ABC Channel 7 to debate President Obama’s Executive Order on gun control. Ziegler was on the Alan Cohn Show. Cohn is anchor and managing editor of ABC 7 News at 7:00 p.m

In an email Ziegler wrote:

I appeared on WWSB ABC 7 tonight to debate Ed James III, Democrat for FL House, about President Obama’s Executive Order on Gun Control.

Click here to watch the debate and then, if you have any thoughts about this issue, please reply back to this email [Inform@christiangop.com] and share them with me.

-Christian Ziegler
State Committeeman, Sarasota County

Here is the video of the Alan Cohn Show debate:

RELATED ARTICLE: The Facts Behind 4 of Obama’s Claims About Guns

The End of European Civilization?

Having visited Austria and Germany just months ago, and recalling the indescribable beauty of that part of the world and the cheerful, hard-working people who live there, it is hard to visualize the dark fate that awaits them in the weeks, months, and years ahead.  An October 26 article by Leo Hohmann for WorldNetDaily, describes the massive invasion of Muslim refugees flooding into Europe and the frantic attempt by locals to purchase guns in countries that have made it all but impossible to own a firearm.  It provides a chilling picture of things to come… not only in Europe, but in America as well.

In Austria, for example, where gun ownership is legal, the shops struggle to meet the demand.  Because the Muslim immigrants feel that European women are theirs for the taking because they appear in public provocatively dressed (by Muslim standards), most Austrian gun-buyers are women.  Across Europe, sexual assaults by Muslim men have become endemic and police officials refuse to describe the sexual holocaust for what it is for fear of agitating the Muslims.

European and American police and government officials need not worry any longer about when and where the first shots in the war to save western civilization will be fired.  Those shots were fired in the heart of Paris on an otherwise peaceful autumn evening in November 2015, and they were fired at a Christmas party in sunny San Bernardino, California on December 2, 2015.

In an article titled, Tet, Take Two: Islam’s 2016 European Offensive, author Matt Bracken provides a most chilling prediction of what the people of Europe have in store for them in the weeks and months ahead.  If Bracken is correct in his assessment… and I believe he is… what we will witness in the coming year will be, literally, the beginning of the end of European civilization.  He predicts a violent 2016 showdown and collision that will, in historical terms, be on par with the First and Second World Wars.

Unless I am mistaken, Bracken may underestimate the horror of what is about to occur on the European continent.  During World War II, allied bombers targeted cities and towns that were home to a wide variety of industries critical to the German war effort, while units of infantry, armor, and artillery came behind, shelling strategically located towns and villages until German forces were driven out.  Many cities, towns, and villages across Germany escaped relatively unscathed.  The same will not be true during the coming Muslim holocaust.

Bracken points out that, right now, approximately a million new Muslim migrants… at least 75% of them men between the ages of 18 and 40… are struggling to find a warm place to sleep and something to eat.  None of the European countries have food or living quarters for that many cold and hungry people, so what will happen when the worst part of the European winter arrives with blizzards, high winds, and sub-zero temperatures?  Bracken speculates that, “When the snow is deep in Germany and across Europe, these men are going to enter local houses, demanding to be taken in as boarders… or else!  Where it is useful, small migrant children will be held up in front as human shields for their emotional blackmail value; elsewhere, they will be discarded.  One way or the other, Muslim migrants will be attempting to move into German homes and apartments seeking heat and food, and the young Muslim men will be seeking undefended infidel or kafir women to slake their lust (which is their right under Islamic law).”

To put the coming Muslim holocaust into perspective, Bracken uses as a yardstick the September 2004 school siege at Beslan, in the Russian Federation.  The siege began on September 1, 2004, when armed Chechen Muslims occupied a school in Beslan, taking 1,100 hostages, including 777 children.  Three days later, Russian security forces stormed the school with heavy weapons.  At least 385 hostages were killed, including 186 children.

As we sit before our Christmas trees and our fireplaces this Christmas season, surrounded by family and friends, it’s difficult to imagine the horrors that await the good people of Europe who’ve seen their Muslim population grow from 29 million to 55 million in the years between 1990 and 2013… before the massive invasion of Muslims in 2014 and 2015.  Bracken asks us to visualize not just one Beslan-style incursion by Muslim jihadists, but ten or twenty such atrocities occurring simultaneously all across Europe.

Already, in cities, towns, and villages, from Italy and Austria to Norway, Sweden, and Finland, we hear the anguished screams of women and young girls as they are gang-raped by bands of Muslim hijra invaders.   Such savagery will tear the hearts out of the male population of Europe until they decide that death is preferable to such humiliation.  Then, and only then, will they begin to fight back with all the ferocity they can muster.  Bracken predicts that this is what lies ahead for the people of Europe who have silently allowed their socialist governments to disarm them in the years since World War II.

So who is to save them from their all-but-certain fate… the United States?  Let us not forget, we have a political party in our country… the Democratic Party… which has a record of importing potential voters from abroad, no matter who and what they are, so long as they will ultimately vote Democratic.

According to U.S. government statistics, nearly 50,000 Muslim immigrants were granted permanent residency status in the United States in 1992.  By 2009, that number had increased to more than 115,000.  If current trends continue, by the year 2030 roughly 130,000 Muslims are expected to be granted permanent residency status in the United States annually.

A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that, among likely Republican voters, 59% support a temporary ban on Muslim immigration until the federal government is able to develop a fail-safe method for screening out violent jihadists, while 82% of Democrats oppose such a ban.  Overall, party affiliation aside, only 36% of Americans favor such a ban, yet 60% feel that Obama’s handling of the terrorist threat has been a failure.

When European civilization is seriously challenged in the weeks and months ahead, those

numbers will likely change dramatically in favor of a ban on Muslim immigration.  While Democrats are quite sanguine about security matters, so long as someone else’s “ox is being gored,” even they exhibit a bit of common sense when their own lives and property are at stake.

As an indicator of how far the Democratic Party is out of touch with reality, a group of 123

Democrats have introduced HR 4269, titled The Assault Weapons Ban of 2015Introduced on December 16, 2015, the stated purpose of the bill is, “To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.”

This, of course, comes at a time when the people of Europe are scrambling to get their hands on weapons of any kind to protect themselves and their families from rampaging hordes of Islamic butchers and rapists.  At a time when the people of Europe will do almost anything to get their hands on weapons and ammunition, and the Obama administration conspires to import at least an additional 100,000 unvetted Muslim immigrants into the United States, Democrats continue their effort to disarm the American people.  When the Islamic holocaust of 2016 comes to full fruition and European civilization teeters on the brink, the gun control issue in the United States will be brought into sharp focus and the gun control zealots of the Democratic Party will finally be exposed for the fools they truly are.

Matt Bracken reminds us that the Vietnamese Tet Offensive of 1968 was carried out by just 80,000 Viet Cong fighters.  He asks us to consider the killing and the bloodshed that will occur at the hands of 800,000 well-armed muhajirs flooding into Europe, many of them intent upon killing as many non-believers as possible.  When asked by German journalist Jurgen Todenhofer, in a rare interview for Jewish News, if ISIS was prepared to kill every Shiite Muslim, ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi scoffed, “150 million or 500 million, we don’t care; it’s only a technical problem for us.  We are ready to do that.”

The question is, are Europeans and Americans ready for an intra-Islamic genocide of that magnitude and the implications such savagery holds for the future of western civilization?  If ISIS considers the difference between killing 150 million or 500 million Shia to be a mere “technicality,” a matter of “scale,” how will the people of Europe handle a full-scale onslaught by such people?  In response, will they be willing to carpet-bomb major Islamic cities, much as Dresden was carpet-bombed during World War II?  Or are they simply too war weary from having two world wars fought on their soil to even defend themselves?

With an all-out, no-holds-barred effort by the civilized world… including an unlikely coalition comprised of the United States, Canada, Great Britain, Russia, China, Germany, and the rest of NATO, excluding Turkey… the forces that now comprise the Islamic State can be utterly destroyed.  But even if we are able to achieve that result, we must not allow ourselves to be deluded into thinking that this will be the end of the matter.  Even if the world of Islam is temporarily chastened by the loss of millions of their believers, they will lick their wounds for a few years and then they’ll be back with even greater force and bloodlust than before.

We in the west have just two options: 1) we must either find a way to bring about a massive reformation among the 1.6 billion Muslims of the world… a solution that is given little or no creative thought whatsoever in western nations, or 2) we must be prepared to defend ourselves against an unending onslaught of radical Islamists who wish to either convert us or kill us.  There are no other alternatives.

Given what we see as the near term future of Europe, we might wish to warn our European allies, “The last ones out of Europe, please turn out the lights.”

The Wanderer: A short film about a woman, a gun and survival

This short film features unique guns, interesting characters and professional cinematography, but the star of the film is the location: a defunct nuclear missile silo.

EDITORS NOTE: For more information on the video: http://tinyurl.com/qfof2f8. For more information on Weapon Outfitters: http://tinyurl.com/oe9vk7w. See more at: http://www.recoilweb.com/

Connecting the Dots in Chicago: Most 2015 shootings in Black Neighborhoods

Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun ownership laws in the United States. So where do most of the shootings in Chicago occur? In black neighborhoods.

The Chicago Tribune released a graphic of shooting victims to date in 2015. In 2015 to date there have been 2,901 shootings. In 2014 there was a total of 2,587. Shootings are up by 314 and the year is not over.

The map below left shows where people were shot in Chicago, broken down by community area. Darker shades of blue indicate a greater numbers of victims in those community areas. The map on the right is of the African American population in Chicago according to the 2011 census.

Do you see the correlation?

black population in chicago map

Blacks in black neighborhoods are most likely to be involved in a shooting. Perhaps it is time to arm the law abiding black citizens of Chicago? Perhaps the Black Lives Matter people in the featured image need to talk to blacks in Chicago?

Guns don’t shoot people, people shoot people. In Chicago it is black people shooting black people.

RELATED ARTICLE: What Rising Murder Rates in U.S. Cities Mean for 2016

FLORIDA: Patients who own guns are protected — 11th Curcuit rules in their favor

Anti-gun doctors in in the Sunshine State may be feeling a little queasy after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11thCircuit handed them a third straight loss in their ongoing challenge to a Florida law designed to protect patients from harassing and unwarranted grilling about firearm ownership. Should these symptoms persist, the physicians should note they have a simple and foolproof remedy: simply refrain from using the doctor-patient relationship to advance a non-medical ideological and political agenda.

The plaintiffs in the case, Wollschlaeger v. Gov. of Fla., assert that their First Amendment rights are being violated because the law prohibits them from documenting or inquiring into patients’ firearm ownership or harassing or discriminating against patients who own firearms. The law provides exceptions, however, for situations in which the doctors believe, in good faith, the actions are “necessary” or “relevant to the patient’s medical care or safety, or the safety of others.”

As we detailed earlier this year, the 11th Circuit has already issued two opinions against the plaintiffs. The original opinion characterized the regulated behavior more as conduct – i.e., medical practice – than pure speech. On its own initiative, the court later revisited that determination and revised the earlier opinion with a more detailed analysis of the law’s First Amendment implications. The second opinion held that even to the degree the law regulates speech protected by the First Amendment, the state has sufficient justification to curtail it. The court took into account the nature and context of the speech, the interests advanced by the law, and the law’s limited scope.

Following publication of the second opinion, however, the 11th Circuit asked the parties to submit further written arguments concerning how a recent U.S. Supreme Court case, Reed v. Town of Gilbert, might affect the way the case should be analyzed. In its latest opinion, the 11th Circuit finds that Reed might require a more stringent standard of review on the First Amendment issue than was used in its second opinion, but it goes on to hold that the challenged regulations nevertheless survive that review.

The third opinion also represents a relatively rare example of a regulation surviving “strict scrutiny” analysis in the face of a constitutional challenge. Strict scrutiny requires the state to show that the law furthers a “compelling interest” and that “the Act is narrowly tailored to advance that interest.”

The compelling interest identified by the 11th Circuit is “the State’s interest in regulating the practice of professions for the protection of the public,” and the protection of Second Amendment rights and privacy in particular. “We do not hesitate to conclude,” the court writes, “that states have a compelling interest in protecting the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.”

Regarding the tailoring prong of the analysis, the court dismisses the plaintiffs’ suggestion that they are not actually interfering with Second Amendment rights. “It is of course an interference with Second Amendment rights for a trusted physician to tell his patient – for no medically relevant reason whatsoever – that it is unsafe to own a gun.” The court also explains that the law focuses on subjects that, once entered into a patient’s medical record, could be used to “harass or profile” that individual, an outcome the Florida legislature has determined is contrary to public policy.

The court goes on to note the narrow scope of the law’s actual prohibitions and emphasizes that they are subject to “physicians’ own good-faith judgments about whether such inquiry or record-keeping is medically appropriate in the circumstances of a particular case.” “[W]hat narrower way to advance [the state’s interests in protecting privacy and chilling of Second Amendment rights] could there be,” the court asks rhetorically, “than by requiring physicians to base any inquiry or record-keeping about firearm ownership on a genuine, subjective determination of medical need?”

The court also rejects the plaintiffs’ claim that the law is unconstitutionally vague, deciding its text is “sufficiently clear that a person of common intelligence need not guess as to what it prohibits.” It also reiterates that “so long as a physician is operating in good faith within the boundaries of good medical practice, and is providing only firearm safety advice that is relevant and necessary, he need not fear discipline” under the law. In other words, competent, ethical doctors will not be adversely affected.

Throughout the history of this case, anti-gun doctors and their media collaborators have been committing rhetorical malpractice by misrepresenting the law’s scope, effects, and burdens in the court of public opinion. Fortunately, in the court of law, the 11th Circuit soberly and carefully judged the law for what it is: a means to prevent abuse of the doctor-patient relationship and exploitation of medicine’s prestige to browbeat Florida residents into giving up constitutional rights.

Thus, while the 11th Circuit’s analysis has changed in its various opinions, its message to Florida doctors has been consistent: Physician, control thyself and stick to patient care, and you will have nothing to fear from this law.

Poll: 61% Believe NRA’s Firearms Policies Make America Safer

In this News Minute video from the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, Jennifer Zahrn reports that a Rasmussen poll released this week found that 61 percent of Americans agree that the NRA’s position on gun rights protect them.

RELATED VIDEO: President Obama’s last act against America will be a massive push to strip away Second Amendment rights. Video by Bill Finley:

VIDEO: Guns We Can Believe In

Time for some “common sense” gun policies that will have liberals screaming like chimpanzees!

Gun Violence Is a Serious Problem — Gun Confiscation Isn’t a Serious Solution by Trevor Burrus

On Saturday, for the first time in 95 years, the New York Times published an op-ed on the front page, position A1, above the fold. The subject of that op-ed: “End the Gun Epidemic in America.” The piece is filled with tired arguments and moralistic fervor, and it even includes the most vacuous of all public policy arguments: We gotta do something.

The title itself is odd. By focusing on guns themselves as an “epidemic” rather than on the ever-decreasing rate of gun violence, the Times seems to confirm that its editorial staff has a problem with gun ownership per se, regardless of its effects on public safety. The placement of the piece on the front page also suggests that the Times prefers moralizing to simple fact-checking.

But it is even worse than that. At a time when the Times could have placed a meaningful and trailblazing op-ed on the front page, perhaps calling for an end to the drug war and the thousands of gun deaths associated with it, they instead chose to advocate for an impossible public policy goal that will have little to no effect on the problem at hand.

The piece was clearly animated by the recent spate of disturbing mass shootings. First of all, because it apparently needs to be said again and again, focusing on mass shootings when discussing firearms policy is deeply problematic. Not only do victims of mass shootings constitute one percent or fewer of gun deaths (depending on how “mass shooting” is defined), but the perpetrators of mass shootings are the hardest to affect with public policy changes.

This is an incredibly important point to remember for those who are interested in mature and serious public policy solutions rather than vociferous caterwauling. Mass shooters are not marginal perpetrators of gun violence. They are committed to their cause, and will work hard to overcome obstacles in their path.

Both sides of the gun control debate often ignore questions on the margins to focus on non-marginal actors. For the gun rights crowd, they often postulate the “over-motivated criminal,” that is, the person who will stop at nothing to get the weapons he wants and, therefore, will not be affected by background checks, waiting periods, etc. Conversely, the gun control crowd often focuses on the “under-motivated criminal,” a lackadaisical maniac who would have committed a crime but was thwarted by forms and other paper barriers.

Yet, just as there is someone who would decide not to buy a Subway sandwich if the price was raised 20 cents, there are marginal criminals and would-be criminals who can be affected by some restrictions on guns.

The important question is: does the person who is stopped by these restrictions forego violence altogether or do they choose other methods, either via bludgeoning or stabbing weapons or by substituting another weapon such as a hunting rifle? The second question is: do restrictions on guns keep weapons out of the hands of marginal law-abiding citizens who could have used those guns to save a life or stop a crime?

Mass shooters are the quintessence of an over-motivated criminal, and in a country with over 300 million guns, there are very few (if any) realistic gun control laws that could stop mass shooters. Policy proposals that focus on identifying would-be mass shooters and protecting would-be victims of mass shooters have a much better chance of succeeding than any proposal that focuses on guns.

If there were a magic button that eliminated what the Times call “weapons of war,” there would likely still be the same number of mass shootings. Many if not most “hunting rifles” have identical functionality to so-called “assault weapons,” not to mention the eternal presence of illegal markets.

Yet, the Times insists that “certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.”

Yes, they argue for confiscation. In other words, in order to enact a policy that would have little to no effect on gun violence, the Times advocates a confiscation scheme that would violate civil liberties and likely result in violence.

But don’t take my word for it. Last year, in what evidently was a fleeting moment of lucidity, the Times published an op-ed by Lois Beckett from ProPublica, “The Assault Weapon Myth,” that thoroughly demolished their own argument:

It turns out that big, scary military rifles don’t kill the vast majority of the 11,000 Americans murdered with guns each year. Little handguns do.

In 2012, only 322 people were murdered with any kind of rifle, F.B.I. data shows.

The continuing focus on assault weapons stems from the media’s obsessive focus on mass shootings, which disproportionately involve weapons like the AR-15, a civilian version of the military M16 rifle. This, in turn, obscures some grim truths about who is really dying from gunshots.

Annually, 5,000 to 6,000 black men are murdered with guns. Black men amount to only 6 percent of the population. Yet of the 30 Americans on average shot to death each day, half are black males.

I hesitate to co-opt the phrase “black lives matter,” but it is telling that — among those tucked away safely in their homes in middle-class neighborhoods— the poster child for gun violence is an “assault weapon”-wielding mass shooter.

Most gun violence is perpetrated with handguns and largely involves our inner cities and black males. These guns are often connected to and trafficked in the illegal drug trade. Perhaps the explanation for this disconnect is simple: well-to-do liberals can more easily imagine themselves on a college campus than in a run-down and dangerous inner city neighborhood.

There are things that can be done about gun violence, but few of them involve focusing on guns. Ending the drug war would do more than any other discrete policy proposal, and focusing on alleviating poverty, fixing schools, and providing assistance to troubled youths would also go a long way.

As Beckett writes, “More than 20 years of research funded by the Justice Department has found that programs to target high-risk people or places, rather than targeting certain kinds of guns, can reduce gun violence.”

Finally, as it must be constantly reiterated, we’ve done a pretty good job drastically reducing gun violence. For whatever reason (this is constantly debated), crime has dropped precipitously over the past 20 years, but over half of Americans are unaware of this fact. Gun homicides are down 49 percent since 1993, and in that same time, we added approximately 100 million guns to the country’s gun stock. At the very least, those facts disrupt the simple “more guns, more crime” narrative.

Hopefully, the next time the Times decides to publish a front page editorial, they put a little more thought into it.

This post first appeared at Cato @ Liberty.

Trevor Burrus

Trevor Burrus

Trevor Burrus is a research fellow at the Cato Institute’s Center for Constitutional Studies. His research interests include constitutional law, civil and criminal law, legal and political philosophy, and legal history. He is a member of the FEE Faculty Network.

Florida Sheriff: ‘Be Ready And Be Armed For Active Shooter Incidents’ [Video]

iveySome very wise suggestions from a Law Enforcement Leader who get’s it.  while not stepping into politics steps away from those who march lockstep in the effort to disarm and render defenseless law abiding citizens.

It’s telling to note this man’s honesty and understanding when he refers to himself as an armed citizen.

The Florida Family Association reports in an email titled “CAIR plays roll in President Obama’s lecturing Americans over Islamophobia”:

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued a news release hours before President Obama’s December 6, 2015 national address titled “CAIR Asks President Obama to Condemn Islamophobia During Address to Nation on Terror. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, is calling on President Obama to include a condemnation of rising Islamophobia during tonight’s prime-time address to the nation …

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued a news release immediately following President Obama December 6, 2015 address titled “CAIR Welcomes President Obama’s Rejection of Islamophobia in Oval Office Address. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), today welcomed President Obama’s rejection of Islamophobia during tonight’s prime-time address to the nation … President Obama repudiated the view that there should be a war on Islam, acknowledged that the vast majority of the victims of terrorism are Muslims and that extremists are a “tiny fraction” of Muslims worldwide …

Islamization and radicalization are two distinct Islamist movements which threaten America. Islamization is the process of infiltrating and changing American public policy to conform to Sharia. Radicalization is the manifestation of the violence advocated by the Quran and perpetuated by Imams. Unfortunately, while radicalization garners the headlines the president and many elected officials, including Republicans, and a multitude of media moguls, including talking heads at Fox News, give Islamization a dangerous pass out of political correctness.

Politically correct public officials and media moguls call Islam a peaceful religion and say that most Muslims are moderate. However, the facts reported in the following surveys contradict such political correct supposition:

  • Eighty one (81%) percent of respondents to Al Jazeera survey say they support ISIS. In a recent survey conducted by AlJazeera.net, the website for the Al Jazeera Arabic channel, respondents overwhelmingly support the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, with 81% voting “YES” on whether they approved of ISIS’s conquests in the region. The poll, which asked in Arabic,“Do you support the organizing victories of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS)?” has generated over 38,000 responses thus far, with only 19% of respondents voting “NO” to supporting ISIS.
  • Center for Security Policy “Poll of U.S. Muslims Reveals Ominous Levels Of Support For Islamic Supremacists’ Doctrine of Shariah, Jihad” was released on June 23, 2015.Nearly one-fifth of Muslim respondents said that the use of violence in the United States is justified in order to make shariah the law of this country. According to a new nationwide online survey (Below) of 600 Muslims living in the United States, significant minorities embrace supremacist notions that could pose a threat to America’s security and its constitutional form of government.   The numbers of potential jihadists among the majority of Muslims who appear not to be sympathetic to such notions raise a number of public policy choices that warrant careful consideration and urgent debate, including: the necessity for enhanced surveillance of Muslim communities; refugee resettlement, asylum and other immigration programs that are swelling their numbers and density; and the viability of so-called “countering violent extremism” initiatives that are supposed to stymie radicalization within those communities. Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., is the president of the Center for Security Policy.
  • Study finds that Sharia minded Imams recommended studying violence-positive texts in 84.5% of United States mosques. The study was conducted by Dr. Mordechai Kedar and David Yerushalmi, Esq. who are highly regarded experts on Sharia. David Yerushalmi, Esq. who runs the American Freedom Law Center with Robert J. Muise, Esq. is called The Man Behind the Anti-Shariah Movement … by the New York Times. Dr. Mordechai Kedar of Bar-Ilan University is an academic expert on the Israeli Arab population. Survey abstract: A random survey of 100 representative mosques in the U.S. was conducted to measure the correlation between Sharia adherence and dogma calling for violence against non-believers. Of the 100 mosques surveyed, 51% had texts on site rated as severely advocating violence; 30% had texts rated as moderately advocating violence; and 19% had no violent texts at all. Mosques that presented as Sharia adherent were more likely to feature violence-positive texts on site than were their non-Sharia-adherent counterparts. In 84.5% of the mosques, the imam recommended studying violence-positive texts. The leadership at Sharia-adherent mosques was more likely to recommend that a worshipper study violence-positive texts than leadership at non-Sharia-adherent mosques. Fifty-eight percent of the mosques invited imams known to promote violent jihad. The leadership of mosques that featured violence-positive literature was more likely to invite imams who were known to promote violent jihad than was the leadership of mosques that did not feature violence-positive literature on mosque premises.

During President Obama’s December 6, 2015 national address he irresponsibly scolded American’s who dare be afraid (ie Islamophobic) of Muslims who want to eliminate them simply because they are infidels. Obama’s scolding of rational American’s concern over Radicalization and Islamization reinforce political correctness which is dangerous to the public safety of all Americans. A neighbor of the two Islamists in San Bernardino witnessed them receiving suspicious packages which turned out to be used in their Jihad on innocent American citizens. The neighbor did not report the suspicious behavior out of fear of being labeled an Islamophobe. President Obama’s irresponsible address gave greater weight to erring not to be an Islamophobe over the public safety of Americans.

Spike Lee Lays Another Egg

When acclaimed director, actor, producer, Spike Lee broke onto the Hollywood scene in the 1980s; he truly had to fight the power.  Hollywood was not ready for a young, brash, provocative filmmaker like Lee.

He burst on the scene with provocative movies like She’s Gotta Have It, School Daze and Do The Right Thing.  These movies created spirited debates in the Black and White communities centered on the hot social issues of the day; feminism among Black women; racism within the Black community; and race relations between Black and White.

Back then, you may not always agree with Lee’s movies, but you could count on him to stimulate heated conversations throughout America.

Lee has never tried to hide or shy away from his liberal beliefs and his public support for Democrats and Obama; thus his latest movie, Chi-Raq.

The movie is a profanity laced, liberally biased, finger pointing diatribe that blames Republicans and Whites for all the murders taking place in Chicago.

Of course, as usual for Lee’s movies, there is the perfunctory swipes and ridicule of Black Republicans; in this case Ben Carson.

This is why it is extremely imperative that Republicans have an active surrogates program.  Black Republicans are constantly ridiculed in movies, TV sit-coms, and in pop culture.

I have constantly expressed to party leaders the necessity of having a vibrant surrogates program where Black Republicans are seen on TV, heard on the radio, and interviewed in newspapers.

In marketing, if you product or message is not seen, heard, or read about in the media, then you and your product does not exist.  Politics, after all is nothing but the art of marketing.

So, as is common for liberals like Lee, they never miss an opportunity to blame the murder rate in cities like Baltimore, New York, or Chicago on the National Rifle Association (NRA); though he never mentions that these cities are all run by liberal Democrats.  He never mentions that each of these cities all have some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the country

Spike couldn’t bring himself to lay the blame where it belongs—at the feet of liberal policies being propagated by Democratic politicians.

Spike couldn’t bring himself to blame Obama for the dismal unemployment rate in the Black community; the lack of job training in cities like Chicago; or the lack of access to capital for Black owned businesses who are the job creators.

He couldn’t bring himself to blame Rahm Emmanuel, the sitting Democratic mayor of Chicago for having absolutely no answer to the crime wave taking place in his city.  William Hale Thompson was the last Republican mayor of Chicago.  He left office in 1931, so you are talking about 84 years ago.

Since Republicans refuse to create a surrogates program for Black Republicans, we continue to be caricatured as “sell-outs” to our community and those who want to run from our Blackness.

Republicans constantly allow liberals to spew all sorts of lies about them and allow them to go unchallenged; and as we know, a lie that goes unchallenged becomes the truth.

Name me the last big city Democratic mayor that made lives of the Black community better.  It wasn’t until Republicans Dick Riordan took over from Democratic Mayor Tom Bradley in Los Angeles or Giuliani took over from Democratic Mayor David Dinkins in New York City that Blacks began to flourish.

Why Republicans continue to allow liberals to blame them for the woes of liberalism simply baffles me.  The murder rate in Chicago has nothing to do with the NRA; but have everything to do with liberalism.

Liberalism says that the breakdown of the Black community has to do with the legacy of slavery; or because of Reagan and Bush; or racism.  Of course, none of this is true.

Liberal policies like welfare are to blame for the breakdown of the Black community.  Liberal policies like open borders for illegals are responsible for the high unemployment rate for Blacks in cities like Chicago.

So, if you are a liberal and like to blame others for the plight of the Black community, then you will love Spike Lee’s Chi-Raq; but I think a better title for the movie would me Chi-radebecause the movie is exactly that, a charade.

When will President Obama tell Muslims to stop clinging to their religion and guns?

President Obama has scheduled a broadcast to the nation to address the recent attacks in Paris, Mali, San Bernardino and today in London. His administration has made it a point to never blame Muslims for their individual actions, nor to blame Islam for its hate of non-Muslims and Muslims alike.

Perhaps it is now time for President Obama to face the reality that Muslims cling to their religion and guns. The difference is they use their guns to further their religion. Christians and Jews do not.

Paul R. Hollrah reports:

On Thursday, Dec. 5, 2015, Attorney General Loretta Lynch threw down the gauntlet in a speech before the Muslim Advocate’s 10th Anniversary dinner in Arlington, Virginia.  Speaking just one day after Muslim terrorists, Sayed Rizwan Farook and his Saudi wife, Tashfeen Malik, murdered fourteen innocent people in an unprovoked terror attack on the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, California, Lynch said, “On behalf of our nation’s Justice Department, I am grateful to count you as partners in our work to promote tolerance, to ensure public safety, and to protect civil rights (emphasis added)

This is the official narrative of the Obama administration.

As I pointed out in my column “The neo-Democrat Party: Devout followers of Marx, Mao and Mohammed“:

I believe what President Obama has truly done is fundamentally transformed the Democratic Party of JFK to the Democrat Party of BHO. I use the word Democrat because the Party of Obama is not Democratic, as envisioned by Thomas Jefferson. The membership of the neo-Democrat Party are made up primarily of the devout followers of Marx, Mao and Mohammed.

Those who oppose Obama and the neo-Democrat Party, including JFK Democrats, are subject to ridicule, rejection and bullying.

Extremism in the name of the collective is the over riding strategy of the neo-Democrat. Radicalism is the tactic. The more extreme the ideal, the more it is embraced. This leads to what some have labeled a form of political insanity. I call it political suicide. History teaches us that tyrants and tyranny ultimately lose the support of the masses. Why? Because the policies implemented harm the masses.

[ … ]

The ideal of collectivism is alive and well in the neo-Democrat Party. Collectivism is what drives the followers of Marx, Mao and Mohammed, those who make up the core of the neo-Democrat Party.

[ … ]

The Democratic Party of JFK has morphed into the neo-Democrat Party by dint of constant pressure from the radicals and the constant retreat of the Jeffersonian Democrats.

Today the Democrat Party has fundamentally transformed into the party of Marx, Mao and Mohammed.

It is a struggle between the civilized man and the uncivilized man (savage).

dietrich bonhoffer quoteI expect President Obama to defend Muslims and Islam in the name of tolerance and civil rights. But whose tolerance and who’s civil rights? Not those of Christians and Jews.

Ayn Rand wrote:

“The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other – until one day when they are suddenly declared to be the country’s official ideology.”

I expect President Obama will express more absurdities, which have become his administration’s and the Democrat Party’s official ideology.

Senate Holds the Line on Second Amendment Rights

On Thursday, December 3, the U.S. Senate took up H.R. 3762, the Restoring Americans’ Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act. Despite the seemingly innocuous title, the bill set up a dramatic showdown over Second Amendment rights.

The bill was brought under budget reconciliation, an expedited legislative procedure for a budget resolution to meet fiscal targets. Under this procedure, the bill required only 51 votes to pass the Senate and was limited to 20 hours of debate. It was also subject to a rule which prohibits non-budget related provisions from being added.

Anti-gun Democrats were nevertheless determined to exploit both the bill and recent tragedies to attach as many gun control amendments as possible. To proceed to debate on these out-of-order amendments, however, they had to reach a supermajority of 60 votes to suspend the rules. The pro-gun Senate you elected held the line. Every anti-gun amendment was defeated.

Long-time Second Amendment opponent Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) offered a far-reaching amendment that would have given the U.S. Attorney General what amounted to a discretionary veto on gun sales to anyone “appropriately suspected” of having some connection to “terrorism.” Anti-gun bureaucrats would have been empowered to deny Second Amendment rights based merely on their own “reasonable belief” concerning someone’s present or future intentions.

Gun control advocates have made clear, however, that they don’t trust anybody with a gun, and they have slandered pro-Second Amendment Americans as dangerous “rightwing extremists” and worse. Equally clear is that many supporters of this amendment have no stomach for effective measures to keep America safe from terrorists, chief among them ensuring that foreign nationals involved in or supportive of terrorist groups are kept out of America in the first place. Feinstein’s Amendment failed by a vote of 45-54.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) also dredged up his ill-fated ban on private firearm transfers between friends and many family members. That was defeated by a vote of 47-50 – receiving seven votes less than it got two years ago. Manchin’s background check bill has been a rallying cry for anti-gun activists since its historic defeat in 2013. Fortunately, that cry once again fell on deaf ears as reason prevailed over hyperbole and opportunism.

In the days leading to the vote, gun prohibitionists and their allies in the media had whipped themselves up to a veritable frenzy. The pressure they brought to bear on the Senate was intense. Nevertheless, cooler heads prevailed, backed by sound research and empirical evidence.

No doubt the defeated anti-gunners will be venting their displeasure over yet another round of clear defeats. Please make sure to let your Senators know in the days ahead how you felt about their votes. In particular, those who stood on the side of freedom deserve to hear a hearty thanks and well-done!

Syed Farook and San Bernardino: MSM narrative fails, Muslim CAIR steps in

mass-shooter-syed-farook-islam-in-america-religion-of-peace-933x445

As America reacted to Wednesday’s horrific mass shooting at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, California, in which 14 people were killed and 17 wounded, some mainstream media were racing to craft their preferred narrative.

That narrative creation process was in high gear throughout the early afternoon, while the situation was still quite “fluid,” as some would say. At about 3:20pm, MSNBC was reporting that a Planned Parenthood clinic was “only a few blocks away.” After Twitter erupted with ridicule once people began checking their Google Maps, Bloomberg Business tweeted at 4:29pm,”San Bernadino [sic] shooting happened less than two miles from a Planned Parenthood health clinic.”

Bloomberg’s “less than” qualifier was “less than” sufficient to convince anyone the attackers were somehow targeting PP. Aren’t all map apps and GPS more accurate than within a two mile radius?

Calls for gun control from President Obama and Hillary Clinton failed to address why San Bernardino’s gun-free zone status did not prevent the shooting.

By mid-afternoon EST, the Liberal narrative had failed, and details were beginning to leak out.

The facts released thus far present a complex scenario with the main suspect, Syed Farook, having possible connections to a person investigated for terrorism a few years ago, and having travelled recently to Saudi Arabia.

RT France was first to report the chief suspect’s name, Syed Farook. NBC followed a few hours later, citing multiple sources. Soon after, the New York Daily News had interviewed Syed Farook’s father, who described the suspect to be a “very religious” Muslim.

Over at CNN, ex-CIA analysts were describing the assault as having “the hallmarks of the sort of attacks you see in the Middle East,” multiple shooters, IEDs, etc.

The Daily Beast seems to be the first news organization to locate and approach the Farook family’s home in Corona CA:

Farook lived at a home with his wife and children in Corona, California. The Daily Beast knocked on the home’s door and was met by a man who said, “My name is Farook.” When asked if he knew Sayed, the man said, “Of course I know him but I have nothing to say.” When asked about Syed being named as a suspect, he said, “I have nothing to say.” […]

Five minutes after he answered the door, Farook got into a white car and drove away, answering questions again with, “I have nothing to say.”

The Daily Beast contacted Farook’s sister, Saira Khan, by phone on Wednesday shortly after the shooting. She said the media was jumping to conclusions on identifying the suspect and said that her brother was at work. Khan said she would try to get in touch with her brother and pass along his contact information.

Some additional pieces to the puzzle have emerged:

CNN reports that Farook had “abruptly left” the holiday event for county employees. And from the Wall Street Journal: “Government records show Mr. Farook, a U.S. citizen, traveled to Saudi Arabia last year.” (Thanks to Breitbart News for these links.)

The NY Times reports on possible international connections:

One senior American official said that Mr. Farook had not been the target of any active terrorism investigation, and he was not someone the bureau had been concerned about before Wednesday’s shooting. Other officials said the F.B.I. was looking into a possible connection between Mr. Farook and at least one person who was investigated for terrorism a few years ago.

There were also accounts by investigators that one of the attackers had recently had a dispute with fellow employees, according to law enforcement officials who did not want to be identified.

Chief Burguan confirmed that someone left the party after a dispute, “but we have no idea if those were the people that came back.”

This last assessment seems at odds with CNN’s reporting cited above.

At the late evening press conference, however, Fox News reports, “I’m now being told…[police] are going on the premise there wasn’t a disagreement…he was there to case the location.”

MSNBC relates a survivor’s account:

The shooters who opened fire in a conference room at a California center for the developmentally disabled Wednesday didn’t say anything before they started spraying the room with bullets, the husband of a woman who was shot but survived said.

Salaheen Kondoker’s wife, Annie, an environmental engineer who works for San Bernardino County, was inside the conference room when gunfire erupted at around 11 a.m. local time.

“They just started shooting … they didn’t yell or say anything beforehand,” Salaheen Kondoker said his wife told him.

News reporting continued late into the evening at a San Bernardino police press conference, with tantalizing bits of evidence being tweeted. From Raheem Kassam at Breitbart:

20-21 officers in shootout with suspects, both dead. First suspect Syed Rizwan Farook, 28. Second is Tashfeen Malik, 27.

“There was a relationship” between Farook and Malik…
“It really looks like we have 2 shooters…”
“We have not ruled out terrorism…”
“Based upon what we’ve seen… how they were equipped… there had to be some level of planning”
Journalist asks if any connection to ISIS: “I’m not gonna weigh in on that one” says police spox
“We have multiple addresses for [the suspects]…”

Did political correctness enable the shooter’s plot to be carried out? Will Carr of Fox News tweeted this:

@KNX1070 reporting a neighbor did not call authorities about suspicious activity bc she did not want to racially profile

CAIR steps in

Once Syed Farook’s name was released as one of the suspects, CAIR-LA immediately scheduled a press conference. The full text of CAIR-National’s press release can be read here. The key statement reads:

“We condemn this horrific and revolting attack and offer our heartfelt condolences to the families and loved ones of all those killed or injured,” said CAIR-LA Executive Director Hussam Ayloush. “The Muslim community stands shoulder to shoulder with our fellow Americans in repudiating any twisted mindset that would claim to justify such sickening acts of violence.”

Breitbart reports Farook’s family was “in shock”:

At the CAIR press conference, Syed Farook’s brother-in-law Farhan Khan is present and delivers a statement. “I have no idea why he would he do something like this. I have absolutely no idea. I am in shock myself.” Khan does not answer questions from reporters. Executive Director of CAIR-LA says “We unequivocally condemn the horrific act that happened today.”

The reaction of some to the CAIR presser is that it seemed odd:

Toby Harnden: Weird weird weird @CNN right now. No mention of Islam & then live to CAIR presser w multiple people saying it’s nothing to do with Islam.

toddstarnes: Not quite what to make of that CAIR presser….Odd.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Obama on SB: “We do not yet know why this terrible event occurred”

San Bernardino-area man didn’t report suspicious activity for fear of being called racist

VIDEO: Demons At Our Door

When evil knocks on our doors, Americans have a power no other people on the planet share:

The full-throated right to defend our families and ourselves with our Second Amendment.

The National Rifle Association fights for the protection of these liberties. The NRA is Freedom’s Safest Place.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Obama on SB: “We do not yet know why this terrible event occurred”

San Bernardino-area man didn’t report suspicious activity for fear of being called racist

Little Spike Yaps Again

If an automobile is purposefully used to run over pedestrians, do you condemn the wayward motorist or do you rail against auto manufacturers for the existence of cars? I tried to find a subject to ask about that could make as little sense as a recent comment spewed forth by progressive movie director Spike Lee. Little Spike was recently yapping on an episode of CNN Tonight. He was promoting

his new movie which I will refrain from identifying. Why? Because Spike Lee stated in the interview with host Don Lemon “You have to take on the National Rifle Association” thus that is a major component of his film. The little liberal continued yapping “Well, we have to, I think that we’re at the tyranny on (sic)  the NRA and the gun manufacturers, because there’s a profit… in what they do. And that means that…they’re putting profits over a human life.”

After which, the smitten CNN host, Don Lemon showing no objectivity praised the film saying “I’d tell everybody: to go see this movie now.” It is hilarious how Little Spike Lee actually believes that gun manufacturers, the National Rifle Association and probably the second amendment recognition of our right of self-protection as the main reasons black Americans are bumping other blacks off at record rates in urban neighborhoods throughout America.

To me that makes as much sense as blaming automobile manufacturers and wealthy motorcar collectors for the actions of those who choose to use their vehicles in criminal activities such as running over pedestrians. But unfortunately, that is representative of the mindset of typical progressives like little Spike Lee. Rather than seeking to identify the authentic causes regarding the vast numbers of black Americans blasting away at other blacks throughout our republic, they foolishly on entities that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual problems they claim to be so concerned about.

One of the numerous mistakes in judgement among the many progressives like Spike Lee are guilty of is not seeking authentic solutions to problems. In addition, when it comes to laying blame, the progressives try not to blame actual evildoers for their actions. (Muslim terrorists come to mind)

American gun manufacturers are not any more guilty of black Americans murdering other black Americans than Ford Motors would be guilty of murder if a nut job driver were to plow through a group of people strolling on a sidewalk.

One of the hallmarks of a society where individual rights and liberty are trumpeted and enforced is that liberty is known to be comprised of both freedom and responsibility. In other words, you are free to do whatever you want, as long as you do not harm other individuals and, or their property. Another major reason we witness the vast numbers of blacks murdering other blacks is because for the last two generations, young people have not been properly taught in regards to right and wrong.

Also, for several liberal/progressive reasons, the family structure has been decimated throughout most of the American black community.

When I was a little boy growing up in Cleveland, my Dad (God rest his soul) stressed the need to learn the difference between good and evil and to always try and do what is right. Dad encouraged me to do good, not just for personal gain, but also for the betterment of society as a whole. The upbringing I was blessed with blows massive holes through the concepts of the liberal/progressive philosophy of today. I was raised in a home where Dad had several rather nice looking firearms. But instead of simply

squirreling them away in some dark closet where they would be totally inaccessible if they were quickly needed, Dad had a different approach which was common where I grew up.

First of all, he taught me that under no uncertain or certain terms were the weapons to be sought out to be played with, because they were not toys, but rather necessary tools. Eventually, Dad taught me how to properly shoot the firearms. He also instructed me on how to maintain them through proper cleaning.

Soon after I reached a slightly older age, none other than dear old Dad himself taught me the correct rudiments of shooting the firearms. A great follow-up was the rather in-depth instructions on the first ten amendments of the United States Constitution that Dad gave me. The most emphasis on the second amendment. He was the absolute first person to inform me that the second amendment insures the rest will remain intact.

Horrendous incidents like the San Bernardino, California terrorist attack are not logical reasons to disarm law abiding legal sovereign citizens. Hillary Clinton’s inflammatory remarks regarding closing loopholes at gun shows is not solution oriented, but rather Alinsky oriented toward shutting down our right to own and bare arms against street thugs, terrorists and government tyranny. While I am at it, don’t forget that gun free zones attract terrorists, and other assorted cowards who desire the prey upon the disarmed or weaker, like Muslims do all over the world.

Through the grace and wisdom of God almighty, may America shake herself free from the progressive mantra that only multiplies problems and return to the Providential guidance and wisdom that made the United States of America the greatest nation ever known. God bless you, God bless America and may America bless God.