Democrats introduce bill to oppose Trump’s proposed Muslim immigration ban

/in , , , /by

“Beyer said the legislation is an attempt to ‘appeal to hope rather than fear.’” In our pusillanimous and puerile age, “fear” is not just a weakness of character, but a moral flaw: if you fear being beheaded or blown up by Islamic jihadists, you’re an evil person. And to be sure, fear is never to be encouraged or given into, but its opposite is not hope, it’s courage and resoluteness.

Beyer is not offering courage or resoluteness. He is proposing a ban on using someone’s religion as a reason for blocking them from entering the country based on the politically correct fiction that Islamic jihad terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, and that therefore to be concerned about jihad terrorists entering the country along with peaceful Muslim refugees is simply a manifestation of bigotry, racism and “Islamophobia.”

What Beyer is offering is “hope” and a rejection of “fear.” We should “hope” that there will be no jihadis among the immigrants. We should “hope” that there will not be another jihad attack a la San Bernardino perpetrated by another refugee like Tashfeen Malik, the San Bernardino jihad murderer who had passed five separate background checks from five separate U.S. government agencies. We should “hope” that the Islamic State will not make good on its threat to send jihadis into Europe and North America among the refugees. We should “hope” that we can continue to pursue self-destructive and suicidal policies without suffering any negative consequences.

To reject all of Beyer’s “hopes” would be, in his view, to succumb to “fear,” and remember: fear is morally wrong.

Don Beyer

Rep. Don Beyer, D-Virginia

“Democrats Introduce Bill That Would Oppose Trump’s Proposed Immigration Ban on Eve of His Capitol Hill Visit,” by Margaret Chadbourn, ABC News, May 11, 2016:

A group of Democrats on Capitol Hill are using Donald Trump’s visit to Washington this week to highlight their opposition to the presumptive Republican nominee’s immigration policies, including his past calls to ban Muslims from coming to the United States.

On Wednesday, they introduced legislation, which is just one paragraph, that would restrict the United States from using someone’s religion as a reason for blocking them from entering the country. The new bill, known as the Freedom of Religion Act, would do so by keeping religious tests out of the immigration process.

“It’s very narrow in scope. We’re not going to discriminate when it comes to immigration based on religion,” Rep. Don Beyer, D-Virginia, who authored the bill, told ABC News.

Following the December shootings in San Bernardino, California, Trump called for a ban on Muslims entering the United States “until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” His comments were condemned by Democrats and Republican congressional leaders, but he has not backed down on this stance.

Beyer said the legislation is an attempt to “appeal to hope rather than fear.”

The bill has little chance of advancing in the Republican-controlled House, but Democrats say that’s not the point. “At the very least, having the bill out there gives encouragement out there to Americans that Donald Trump’s ideas are not ruling the day on this issue,” Beyer said. “We’re pushing back with a strong, clear voice.”

Trump will hold high-profile meetings in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, including with House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, who is so far withholding his support for Trump, saying he wants learn more about how the candidate will unite the party after a divisive primary.

Democrats don’t want to let his visit go to waste and are trying leverage the attention surrounding the trip to score some political points.

“We didn’t plan it based on his visit but I think it is a coincidence is a fortuitous one,” Beyer said….

RELATED ARTICLES:

New Democrat Party: The Red-Green-Rainbow Troika

“Expert”: Muslims “radicalize” because they find it hard to criticize government

BBC is “too Christian” and “could broadcast Muslim prayers” to reflect growing Islamic presence in Britain

One Company Proudly Bringing Back the ‘Made in America’ Label

/in , , , /by

“The American manufacturing industry has been an icon for over a century – accounting for nearly 35% of the American economy and nearly $6 trillion dollars of GDP. Recently, we put together a video over at Liberty Tabletop that highlights many of the environmental and economic statistics American manufacturing has to offer,” states Phoebe Parlade, content manager for Liberty Tabletop.

Is it again time for consumers to buy only Made in America products?

Here is the video Parlade refers to which tells a chilling story that Made in America is not what it used to be:

Liberty Tabletop website notes:

Cheap products, imported from overseas, which so many Americans have bought in recent decades have not only cost jobs, and seen millions of overseas workers slave away in horrific conditions on unlivable wages, but are a big factor in the the shipping industry contributing to almost 5% of the whole world’s pollution.

Every time an American citizen buys an imported product, our trade deficit widens. Forbes calls it the ‘destroyer of jobs’. Every year, because we import more than we export, 3% of our economy and wealth is lost overseas. That doesn’t sound like much, but it soon adds up. Over the last 39 years we’ve lost 8 TRILLION dollars. All of that translates into lower wages, lower profits, weaker markets and more unemployment at home when we don’t support American made products.

There’s more than just the money we’ve lost forever, though. The health and safety of foreign workers is much less of a consideration in many developing manufacturing economies. Not only the health and safety of the workers though, your health and safety is put at risk too. We’ve seen radioactive steel and poisonous drywall as well as poisonous flooring imported to the US in recent decades. Our home-grown manufacturers share your values, and obey our laws, and are subject to some of the strictest, and most rigorous rules in the developed world. I know which spoon I’d rather feed my baby with!

Read more.

RELATED ARTICLE: Resource Guide: Buy American, Buy Union-Made

The Cruelty and Carnage of the Minimum Wage: The Case of Tad by Jeffrey Tucker

/in , , , /by

Not having a job means not participating in the fullness of life.

If your goal is to ruin the lives of young and marginalized population groups, raising the wage floor to $15 an hour is a good plan. Already, much of the current problem with youth unemployment is due to the high minimum wage increases we’ve seen over the last eight years.

After all, the original purpose of the minimum wage was to disemploy undesirables. Not having a job means not participating in the fullness of life. It’s a big deal.

A wage floor of any sort traps people in the economic basement. The higher the floor, the larger the basement. Today, millions are rattling around down there, unable to find their way out. Millions more will find themselves there once all this legislation goes through.

I feel a particular frustration with this issue, and it’s not only because of the economics texts I’ve read.

My first real job was working maintenance at a department store. I was 15 (yes, I lied about my age; you could get away with that back then). My job was to clean toilets, crush boxes, pick pins out of the dressing room closets, wax the floors in the china shop, vacuum the place, and shine the glass.

It was a great job. I mean, truly great. I loved it because it was a hugely important job. If I didn’t clean the bathrooms well and replenish the toilet paper and towels, customers the next day might be grossed out and never come back. I played a big role in ensuring the profitability of this store.

My Coworker Tad

I especially loved my co-worker. His name was Tad. The department store would close, leaving just the two of us to have so much fun doing all this wonderful work. We would sing together, thrill to the danger of the wax machine, gross out at the mucky bathrooms, and just have that wonderful feeling that comes with having a real work partner.

You see, Tad was not a normal kid. He had some physical deformities. His face was oddly shaped and had what looked like a large stain on half of it. He couldn’t move around that well, really. I had to help him and assign tasks carefully. He was also mentally retarded. He spoke in a muffled way, and you had to be very clear about instructions.

But I tell you what, when he was happy, it made me happy. To see that big smile come across his face when I would praise the way he shined up a counter just gave me a huge lift. Every day I would try to find ways for him to be both delighted and productive. We were a wonderful team. I wanted it to stay this way.

One day, a poster appeared in the workroom. It was from the Department of Labor. The minimum wage was going up by 40 cents. Tad pointed the sign out to me. He said, “Look, we are getting a raise!”

I was a bit suspicious. I was pretty sure that the boss was the one who set the wage, not some weird distant government thing. I didn’t quite believe it was true. Still, I was happy that he was happy.

The next day, I showed up at the usual time after school. I was getting the mop ready, running hot water in the pail and prepared to do my thing.

Tad wasn’t there. I asked the boss, “Where’s Tad today?”

Well, he explained that he had hired Tad only because he was a boy he knew from church. He needed work. He knew that he would require a lot of help, which was one reason he was excited that I was able to work with him. In the end, he said, this was charity, because he knew that I could do the job by myself. It worked for us to be together so long as he could afford it. But this new minimum wage changed things. The store’s profit margins were very thin, and the wage requirement applied to the whole staff. So he had to make a hard decision.

The long and short of it: Tad had to be let go.

The Death of Tad

I was devastated. I stared at the Department of Labor sign again. Cursed thing! That sign just ruined a kid’s life. It stopped a great act of charity. And look what it did to me. I now had to work alone.

I suddenly felt guilty about my own job. I kept mine at his expense. And why? It was pure accident of birth.

Management left, the lights dimmed, and I heard the familiar click of the doors leading outside. I would have to clean alone today. I did all the tasks I had to. But there was no more music, no more laughter, no more clowning around, and no more beautiful smiles. Tad was somewhere else, probably at home, confused and sad.

I didn’t call him. I was too embarrassed and I didn’t know what to say. So I let our friendship go.

He died a few years later.

This is what the minimum wage means to me. So you can say that I have a vendetta. When the president announces that he is raising wages to make everyone better off, I can’t help but think of the millions of Tads that will lose that opportunity to do wonderful things in this world and with their lives.

Jeffrey A. TuckerJeffrey A. Tucker

Jeffrey Tucker is Director of Digital Development at FEE and CLO of the startup Liberty.me. Author of five books, and many thousands of articles, he speaks at FEE summer seminars and other events. His latest book is Bit by Bit: How P2P Is Freeing the World.  Follow on Twitter and Like on Facebook. Email.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Minimum Wage Should Be Called the Robot Employment Act – Wall Street Journal

Government Shouldn’t Decide Who Uses Which Bathroom by Doug Bandow

/in , , , , , /by

There’s Simply No Single Right Answer.

The North Carolina legislature voted in March to require that people use the bathroom designated for their biological sex. The state was criticized for violating gay and transgender rights. The Obama administration may cut federal education, housing, and transportation aid to North Carolina in response.

Bathroom use has been an issue in other states, including Illinois, Texas, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Kansas, Missouri, Mississippi, Tennessee, and South Dakota. Legislation proposed and passed differs by state on how to define gender — ranging from chromosomes to birth certificate to anatomical sex. Obviously, people can’t change their chromosomes. They can, however, change their gender identity and its associated physical traits, which is where the controversy begins.

The president’s position appears to be that people have a legal right to use the bathroom of their choice, regardless of their gender, however defined. With the club of federal funding, he is attempting to socially engineer America.

This is central planning run riot.

Good people should approach anyone in the midst of gender change with humility and compassion. For most of us, it is unimaginable what would cause someone to desire to shift genders. It is a personal issue of the most profound nature. It shouldn’t be debated and decided in the public square.

And politicians aren’t doing a good job addressing the question. It may not make sense to most people for someone who looks like a guy to use the ladies room, however he sees himself, but neither does it seem right to force someone who looks like a guy to use the ladies room because he was born female. And it certainly makes no sense to let one person or group of people force everyone else to comply with their preference, even when that group is a majority of voters.

Bathroom use shouldn’t be a question for bureaucrats, politicians, lawyers, or judges to answer.

Who should use which bathroom? If it’s in your home, you decide. Likewise, a private company or other private organization should set the rules for its building. What does the owner want? What do customers or members prefer? What is the best way to balance competing interests given the community’s dominant moral sense?

Most people in most places probably believe that people should use the bathroom that matches their physical characteristics, whether changed or not. And we know from the current debate that many (if not most) people prefer not to share a bathroom with someone who appears to be of the other sex, irrespective of the gender with which he or she identifies.

However, one can imagine a “progressive” individual, business owner, or group deciding otherwise. And whether that decision reflected special solicitude for vulnerable individuals or a desire to shape public attitudes, it would be no cause for complaint.

There’s simply no single right answer — and no justification for government to intervene in such intimate, private decisions.

What about bathrooms in public facilities, such as a government office, school, airport, or military base? These are all theoretically “owned” by everyone. Everyone has a stake in the issue — and thus a “right” of some sort — but there’s no accepted, overarching principle that determines with whom you must share a bathroom. A local majority may need to rule in such cases, but someone will always be unhappy with the result, especially if the relevant decision-makers are far away, protected from the consequences.

For Washington pols to insist that, say, teenage girls in a small town in downstate Illinois accept as a bathroom mate a child who appears to be a boy is an act of extraordinary chutzpah. The girls’ refusal to do so does not necessarily reflect malevolent discrimination; it may simply be an understandable reaction to basic biology. Politicians have no right to impose their particular agenda.

Of course, differing opinions don’t justify ignoring the interests of those in the midst of gender change, whether it involves surgery or not. Access to a bathroom is critical for almost everything people do — going to school, working outside your home, going shopping, and traveling. Some kind of accommodation should be made. But what kind?

Again, there’s no single solution that fits every public establishment, let alone private entity, across the country. Larger buildings could offer more options, such as separate bathrooms, like family-friendly single facilities. Communities and student bodies differ in attitudes and openness. Even those who are transgender may desire different outcomes in different circumstances.

Most important, all participants need to demonstrate understanding and sensitivity. No one of goodwill wants to add to the distress of someone changing gender. At the same time, those going through the process should not try to use government to impose their preference on schoolmates, neighbors, coworkers, and others. People should look for alternatives and compromises to work it out. Compromise, compassion, private property rights, and decentralized decision-making are enough to resolve this issue.

Politicians already control education, manage health care, provide social services, and underwrite businesses — and now they even decide who should use which bathroom. It’s time to return life’s most important decisions to the people. A good place to start would be keeping government out of our bathrooms.

Doug BandowDoug Bandow

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and the author of a number of books on economics and politics. He writes regularly on military non-interventionism.

RELATED ARTICLES:

New Democrat Party: The Red-Green-Rainbow Troika

What will happen when a Muslim girl showers with a male who thinks he’s a girl?

Three reasons why Trump’s support of transgender bathrooms is wrong

EDITORS NOTE: Congressman Vern Buchanan (FL-District 16) did an email survey of constituents on the issue of transgender bathrooms. Here is the question and responses as of May 16th, 2016:

Do you support the new Obama administration directive requiring all public schools to allow transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms of their choice?
  • Strongly support
  23.16%
  • Somewhat support
   8.39%
  • Somewhat oppose
   5.59%
  • Strongly oppose
  62.84%

When Christianity is Removed All Hell Breaks Out

/in , , , /by

bus-640x480Just recently, when perusing news stories, I happened upon a most heartbreaking story headline.  It proclaimed “London’s iconic red buses to declare glory to Allah.”  After getting over the initial shock I was a bit embarrassed.  Considering the massive evil in-roads the devoted Muslims have made making deep intrusions into British society for decades, I should not have been shocked one little bit.

The dangerous habit of western societies to sacrifice their own well-being just to appease those who have pledged to convert them or destroy them is miles beyond stupid. Britain’s largest Islamic charity says it wants to “break down barriers” and portray Islam positively by launching a new advertising campaign which will slap the phrase “glory to Allah on the sides of London buses.  Muslims reading the advertisements are told to “gather the rewards of Ramadan,” that they must donate Islamic relief.  That is a Muslim organization which used to have an account with banking giant HSBC.  The accounts were closed due to major “concerns that cash for aid could end up with Muslim terrorist groups throughout the world.”

Public transport has been chosen for the Islamic re-branding in London, Manchester, Leicester, Birmingham, and Bradford.  All of the locations have large growing bigoted Muslim populations.  That the announcement of the new campaign came a day after London “foolishly” crowned it’s first Muslim mayor Sadig Khan.  Islamic Relief called it a “nice irony” that the two events coincided.  “Uh yeah”  Imran Madden, a British traitor “cough” convert to Islam and director of Islamic Relief’s United Kingdom branch said, “there is a lot of negativity around Muslims at the moment involving things such as counterterrorism issues.  “We want to change for the better the perception of Islam.  The London bus campaign is about breaking down barriers and challenging misconceptions.”

I could only laugh at Mr. Imran Madden’s little message about changing the perceptions of Islam.  Because, if Muslims were serious about changing the perception of Islam, they would have to stop being Muslims.  Because Muslims are instructed in the little quaran’ that it is permissible to be cruel to non Muslims.  Whether it is through DHIMMI status, where in Muslim cultures, non-Muslims are not allowed to build new places of worship, not possess arms; they have to allow Muslims to participate in their private meetings.  That is only three out of the 20 major restrictions against non-Muslims who reside where Muslims have taken over.

Ironically, Christian groups have fared less well when it comes to advertising on London buses.  For example, Former London mayor Boris Johnson stepped in to ban a positive message by a Christian organization in response to a pro-homosexual advertising Campaign.  After it is all said and done, Christian groups have for many years been denied access to purchase advertising space on London buses and elsewhere.

The sad thing about all of this that for too long, Christians have been a soft touch in London, throughout Europe, Africa and America.  Unfortunately, Christians have bought into the misnomer that loving your neighbor and turning the other cheek means allowing yourself to be abused and pushed around.

Both Great Britain and the United States at one time were greatly influenced by Christian principles.  Thus both nations were blessed beyond compare.  In fact, at one time the saying was “the sun never sets upon the British Empire.”  Her land holdings spanned entirely around the globe.  Before the ascent of the United States, Great Britain was the standard of the world.  But something very foolish happen in 1957.  Stupidity overtook wisdom and England gave up it’s major Seagate, the Suez Canal which opened the door to the ultimate destruction of British invincibility.  At the same time the Brits  turned away from the God of Christianity as fast as someone turns their nose away from a bottle of bleach.  Thus the decline of Britain became etched in stone.

In life, if you move your feet, you lose your seat.  Or if you give up your God given wisdom and authority, someone else becomes the boss.  It is plain to see that the good elements that paved the way toward building the great city of London and the once mighty empire of Britain have been replaced.  In their place are the deceptive, brutish and nation killing elements that are disintegrating one of the greatest civilizations in human history.  In many cases, both the British and Christians have no one to blame but themselves for the horrors British society is experiencing today.  Gosh do I miss the likes of the Iron Lady Margaret Thatcher.

Until Britain and the United States decide to stand up for themselves and reconnect with the principles and the influences of the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob they will continue to be torn down by the followers of the death God of Islam.

Gird your loins Nevada: Ready or not Muslim migrants on the way to Reno

/in , , , , , /by

I’ve been reporting in recent weeks about the new sites being targeted for refugee seeding by the the UN/US State Department Refugee Admissions Program (most recently yesterday it was Rutland, VT***).

Carina-Black-main

Carina Black

It is my educated guess that the federal resettlement contractors are wearing out their welcome in the 190 or so places in the US where refugees are already being resettled(and in many cases have been resettled for decades) and that perhaps one of the limiting factors is government-funded housing (not to mention other important things like lack of jobs!) and are thus scouting fresh territory.

Also, remember that Obama has upped the refugee stream to America this year from the 70,000 number of recent years to 85,000 by September 30th.

Starting October 1, Obama says he will be recommending 100,000 for FY2017 (even though he will be out of the White House for most of it).

Digressing for a minute, Congress will have a huge role to play in September when Obama makes his final determination about the number of refugees coming for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 and we will be watching to see if the gutless Congress does anything about it!

So back to Reno (and other sites) which are being prepped for the even bigger wave of refugees expected to begin October 1. By the way, I’m wondering if the low-skilled refugees will compete with Nevada’s large Hispanic population for jobs.

From KUNR radio:

The U.S. State Department has greenlighted a Northern Nevada nonprofit to help resettle refugees escaping hotbeds of conflict around the globe beginning this fall.

Carina Black, executive director of the Reno-based Northern Nevada International Center, says their application to become an official resettlement agency was approved in February. They’ve since been laying the groundwork, and building a stakeholders’ network, before those first few families arrive.

“Those stakeholders include people from the health industry, from education, from ESL… people in the faith communities have been coming forward and showing a huge interest in helping us,” she says. “So we’re still basically conducting a lot of training…and getting ready for this new endeavor.”  [Remember readers that you are a stakeholder too! Maybe since you are paying for all of it, the biggest stakeholder of all!—ed]

Black says initially about two families — approximately 10 people — could arrive by September. For the federal fiscal year running Oct. 2016 through 2017, they’ve asked to resettle at most 75 refugees.

[….]

The full list of countries include: Cuba, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Eritrea, Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq.

El Salvador and Guatemala have never been refugee-sending countries, that is, until Obama magically turned the unaccompanied alien minors from Central America into refugees.  He was re-writing the Refugee Act of 1980 without Congress and Congress let him get away with it!

The mayor had concerns.  It is up to citizens of Reno to speak up NOW if you have similar concerns!

Mayor Hillary Schieve was quoted last November saying she would prefer a “pause” on the program, following the terrorist attacks in Paris, but Black says she’s since had productive meetings with Schieve and other city council members to assuage their concerns.

Recently we told you that sites are getting ready to open in Ithaca, NY, Missoula, MT, and Rutland, VT.  I’m betting there are at least 30 new sites in the works where plans are being made in secret to bring the joys of multiculturalism to your neighborhood.  The only way you or I will know if your town is next, is if it appears in a local news story like this one. And, you can bet you will not see any of this in the mainstream media or cable news!

You might want to visit ‘Ten things your town needs to know‘ by clicking here.

***The major refugee contractor for both Rutland and Reno is the US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (more to come on this!).  Stay tuned!

RELATED ARTICLES:

These Palestinians are illegal alien criminals, not heroes for trekking across the world to get here

Vermont: Rutland citizens say, let’s take care of our own first!

One more Somali terror trial underway in Somali capital—Minneapolis

Socialist Lies: From Stalin to the Clintons, Obamas, and Sanders

/in , , /by

social lies book cover simona pimpkoIn my new book I explain that the Soviets are alive and well and to survive the young people have to know our enemy and the rest of the world should know it too. The young people are our future and the vast majority of them are not aware that our foremost enemy is constantly attacking us. Moreover, the absence of truth has allowed political crooks and intellectually dishonest educators to deceive and seduce our youth.

We live in a world driven by a hideous ideology: if you do not know this you are blind, deaf, and defenseless and need to open your eyes to what is happening.

chronicles the last seven years of catastrophic world events during the Obama administration and points out its secret collaboration with socialism worldwide and Russia in particular. Socialist Lies is a quick read that’s hard to put down, showing the aggressive role Russia plays in its war against Western civilization and how the Democratic Party is destroying its free enterprise legacy and adopting socialism. Meanwhile, the Republican establishment is being shaken to its core by member anger at its inaction on critical issues.

This nonfiction work chronicles the last seven years of catastrophic world events during the Obama administration and points out its secret collaboration with socialism worldwide and Russia in particular. Socialist Lies is a quick read that’s hard to put down, showing the aggressive role Russia plays in its war against Western civilization and how the Democratic Party is destroying its free enterprise legacy and adopting socialism.

Meanwhile, the Republican establishment is being shaken to its core by member anger at its inaction on critical issues.

I set the stage with the prologue, a firsthand narrative from her unique childhood under socialism in Russia. I then demonstrate how Marxist theory, which opened a Pandora’s Box in the nineteenth century, marched across the globe to the twentieth century. I call Marxism a combination of fraud with a Utopian concept, which has been used by adventurers, charlatans, and criminals to acquire power. The leader who exemplified all these characteristics was Joseph Stalin.

A dogmatic Marxist, brought up within the Islamic culture, Stalin invented the marriage of communism and Islam—the reason we have been dragged into war today; it is the ideology I called Soviet Fascism.

Stalin laid out the agenda for a One World Government under the Kremlin auspices—the agenda of WWIII against Western civilization.

To purchase Socialist Lies: From Stalin to the Clintons, Obamas and Sanders click here.

What will happen when a Muslim girl showers with a male who thinks he’s a girl?

/in , , , , /by

After all, you have to laugh sometimes! Our reader domstudent11 posed this little query which demonstrates so hilariously how the Left will tie itself into knots with its political correctness nonsense!

From domstudent11:

restroom sign

Here’s what baffles me: at the same time that Obama is suing North Carolina for it’s “bathroom” law and trying to bully schools into mingling boys and girls in bathrooms and locker rooms, he is “importing” thousands of Muslims who would find it permissible to attack a non-relative male seen with any of their women.

What does he think will happen when Muslim girls are forced to shower with males who “think” they are female?

What does he think will happen when a Muslim husband sees a man (who “feels” like a woman) following his wife into a public restroom?

The only solution I can see is that public facilities and schools will be expected to provide an additional bathroom/locker room for Muslim girls only. Muslim boys would be free, of course, to share the facilities with infidel girls (if they are feeling like girls on any given day). Fair isn’t it?  Other suggestions?

This post is archived in our ‘Comments worth noting’ category, here.

Afterthought: Where is the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) on Obama’s bathroom policy?

RELATED CARTOON: 

liberal logis gays mulim islamophobia graphic

EDITORS NOTE: Here are passages from the Qur’an and Hadith on sodomy:

“Do you approach males among the worlds. And leave what your Lord has created for you as mates? But you are a people transgressing.” They said, “If you do not desist, O Lot, you will surely be of those evicted.” He said, “Indeed, I am, toward your deed, of those who detest [it].” — Quran, Sura 26 (Ash-Shu’ara), 165-168

And [mention] Lot, when he said to his people, “Do you commit immorality while you are seeing? Do you indeed approach men with desire instead of women? Rather, you are a people behaving ignorantly.” — Quran, Sura 27 (An-Naml), 54-55

“If you find someone doing the deed of the people of Lot, then execute the doer and the one to whom it was done.” reported by Ibn Abbas, Book of Legal Punishment, Sunan al-Tirmidhi, Book 17, Hadith 40 [Number 1456], Hasan.

Those who commit unlawful sexual intercourse of your women – bring against them four [witnesses] from among you. And if they testify, confine the guilty women to houses until death takes them or Allah ordains for them [another] way. And the two who commit it among you, dishonor them both. But if they repent and correct themselves, leave them alone. Indeed, Allah is ever Accepting of repentance and Merciful. — Quran, Sura 4 (An-Nisa), 15-16

Here are passages from the Qur’an on the roles of men and women:

Quran (4:34) – “Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them.”

Quran (2:228) – “and the men are a degree above them”

Quran (33:59) – “Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them…” Men determine how women dress.

Quran (33:33) – “And abide quietly in your homes…” Women are confined to their homes except when they have permission to go out.

Quran (2:223) – “Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will.” Wives are to be sexually available to their husbands in all ways at all times. They serve their husbands at his command. This verse is believed to refer to anal sex (see Bukhari 60:51), and was “revealed” when women complained to Muhammad about the practice. The phrase “when and how you will” means that they lost their case.

Quran (66:5) – “Maybe, his Lord, if he divorce you, will give him in your place wives better than you, submissive, faithful, obedient, penitent, adorers, fasters, widows and virgins” A disobedient wife can be replaced.

New Democrat Party: The Red–Green–Rainbow Troika

/in , , , , , /by

As the primaries are winding down it is time to focus on the political parties. Let’s start with the Democratic Party.

I have written that President Obama’s greatest political achievement has been to fundamentally transform the Democratic Party. The New Democratic Party (NDP) is an alliance which I call the Red-Green-Rainbow Troika or RGRT. It consists of new groups that Democrats have not historically allied themselves with, until now.

The Democratic Party is no longer the party of President John F. Kennedy. Seldom does one hear JFK’s name invoked by Democrats. Why? Because JFK was a war hero, a lifetime member of the NRA, a Catholic, he hated Communists and fought communism, he and his brother Bobby fought organized crime by profiling Italian Americans and he loved America.

Today JFK would be labeled by his own party as a Constitutional conservative.

The NDP has made it its mission to protect the “civil rights and civil liberties” of groups that are both incompatible with one another and with mainstream America.

The groups are incompatible for a number of reasons including:

  1. Communists hate Muslims and gays.
  2. Muslims hate Communists and execute gays (sodomites).
  3. Gays hate all religions, but make an exception for Islam (i.e. the enemy of my enemy is my friend).

At some point these divergent groups will turn on one another. But for the time being they have work to do. That work includes:

  1. Implementing a secular Marxist/Leninist/Socialist/Collectivist system of government in the USA.
  2. Implementing Shariah (Islamic) law in the USA, which, while totalitarian, is incompatible with #1 because it is not secular but rather based upon a strict interpretation of the Qur’an and Hadith.
  3. Demanding rights and privileges at the expense of others rights and privileges, an area of common ground but defined differently by each member of the RGRT.

RGRT is neither compatible with American society and culture nor mainstream ideas and ideals. For example the RGRT believes:

  1. Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance.
  2. Men should use women’s bathrooms
  3. Sex is not determined by science, biology or genetics. It is a choice.
  4. Some lives matter (black) more than others (white, Hispanic, American Indian, Asian, etc.).
  5. Civil rights and civil liberties trump religious liberty, which is the freedom to choose not be believe what the RGRT believe.
  6. Socialism (collectivism) is better than capitalism (individualism) because capitalism is unfair. Some people win and others lose due to differences in ability, education, skills and merit.
  7. All religions are male centered, homophobic, intolerant and bigoted, except Islam.
  8. The enemy (anyone who is not a member of RGRT) must either submit or be destroyed at all cost.
  9. The existing Constitutional Republican form of government must be replaced, by violent means if necessary, in order for the RGRT to survive and thrive.
  10. The U.S. Constitution was written by old men who never foresaw the RGRT new world order.
  11. Utopia is within the grasp of the collective.
  12. Man can change the weather by changing his behaviors (e.g. stop using all fossil fuels).
  13. More government (tyranny) is better than less government (democracy).

As 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.

Here are some of the absurdities that have become the official ideology of the neo-Democrat Party:

  • The greatest national security threat is climate change (i.e. formerly global warming).
  • White Christian men are a greater threat than the Islamic State, Iran and the Black Lives Matter movement.
  • Spending on social programs is more important than spending on national security.
  • Engagement and dialogue with America’s enemies (i.e. Iran) is preferred to any form of confrontation.
  • Nationalized health care (the Affordable Care Act) is affordable.
  • Deficit spending is good for the economy and will create jobs.
  • Putting more Americans on the public dole is good for creating more government jobs.
  • Anyone who disagrees with the neo-Democrat Party policies is racist, homophobic, Islamophobic and a national security threat.
  • People don’t kill people, guns kill people (e.g. need to outlaw guns).
  • Public schools must teach children what to think, not how to think (i.e. Common Core).
  • Aborting the unborn and selling their body parts is noble.
  • Bigger government, more regulations and centralized powers and greater control over the behaviors of citizens is good.
  • Coal, oil and natural gas are evil.
  • Saving the planet is more important than saving the human race.
  • A weak America is good for world peace.
  • The Judeo/Christian God is dead.

On November 8th, 2016 millions will vote for the RGRT candidate for president. If that happens then the policies of the current administration will become the new social order.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Danger of the “Black Lives Matter” Movement

Black Lives Matter’s LGBTQ Agenda

Louisiana Democrats Purge Thomas Jefferson, the Man Who Acquired Louisiana

Virginia Congressman and 9 Jewish organizations want to block Trump’s Muslim ban

/in , , , , , , /by

Rep. Don Beyer represents the Virginia district just across the river from Washington, D.C. and has a large number of Muslim constituents.  More on the story here.

From Daily Sabah:

Don Byer

Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA). Photo: ABC News

Nine Jewish organizations have joined a call supporting a bill that would prevent banning entry to the United States on the basis of religion, a step taken after GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump proposed ban on Muslims entering the U.S.

“Concerns about national security are mixing with unchecked anti-Muslim bigotry and fomenting unjust fear and scrutiny of Muslim refugees and immigrants,” said the statement released Tuesday, a day before Rep. Don Beyer, D-Va., is due to unveil the legislation.

The groups expressed their support for a bill announced by Virginia congressman Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) Wednesday that would make it illegal for the US to block an immigrant based on his or her religion.

The statement backing Beyer’s bill was organized by Interfaith Alliance, a group directed by Rabbi Jack Moline and include umbrella bodies for the Reform, Conservative and Reconstructionist movements, as well as the Anti-Defamation League, the National Council of Jewish Women, J Street, Habonim Dror, Bend the Arc Jewish Action and T’ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported.

Beyer, a Democrat of course, is a first term Congressman.

Once the Hijra is advanced, and the Muslim population reaches a certain level in the U.S., guess which religion will be persecuted first?

Yukon Senator Calls for Release of Amir Amirgholi, salutes four Iranian-Canadian women who promote human rights

/in , , , /by

11 May 2016, Ottawa, ON – Yukon’s Senator, Daniel Lang joined his colleagues in the Senate on Tuesday in calling attention to the human rights abuses in Iran and the detention of numerous political prisoners. Specifically, Lang raised the plight of Ali Amir Amirgholi, a 33-year-old human rights activist and former university student who is currently held in Ward 8 of Tehran’s notorious Evin Prison.

According to one survivor of the Evin Prison, Ms. Shabnam Assadollahi: “There is only one experience worse than being tortured; having to listen to others scream and beg, not for their lives but for their death. . . . At night, I would count around 60- 70 bullets, which meant 60 to 70 souls had been executed and I was hearing the last shot they would give the victim in the head.”

Senator Lang noted that “despite Amir’s being a prisoner of conscience, he is reportedly being held in a cell with dangerous prisoners who suffer from life- threatening diseases, rather than a cell for political prisoners. Colleagues, if the Iranian authorities have their way, Amir will be a prisoner for the next 20 years, if he survives his confinement.”

The Revolutionary Court in Tehran, presided over by Judge Salavati, sentenced this non-violent activist to a 21-year prison term on the basis of outlandish charges, such as insulting religious sanctities, insulting the supreme leader and propaganda against the regime. In 2014, The Guardian, in the U.K., identified Judge Salavati as one of Iran’s most corrupt judges owing to his leading role in cracking down on free speech and pro-democracy activities.

Through his peaceful activism in 2014, Amir was defending the human rights of Iranians and participated in a peaceful protest outside the United Nations’ office in Tehran in solidarity with the people of Kobane, Syria, who were then under siege. A couple of months later, Amir was arrested by Iranian authorities and transferred to a solitary confinement cell in Evin Prison, where he endured two months of interrogation and torture.

Lang noted that “In light of this torture and the unreasonable political sentence of 21 years in jail for standing up for democracy and human rights, and countless similar human rights abuses in Iran, I call upon the Senate to pay close attention to the human rights abuses in Iran, and particularly the plight of imprisoned pro-democracy activists like Amir Amirgholi. Mr. Amirgholi is a courageous man, not a criminal, one who is willing to sacrifice his life to stand up for what is right and just.”

Senator Lang Shabnam Assadollahi Senator Frum

Senator Lang (left), Shabnam Assadollahi (center), Senator Frum (right)

In addition to raising the case of Mr. Amirgholi, Lang saluted the work of four Iranian Canadian women, Ms. Nazanin Afshin-Jam, Ms. Homa Arjomand, Ms. Sayeh Hassan, and Ms. Shabnam Assadollahi, all of whom were very fortunate to escape to Canada from the Ayatollah’s Iran and are actively leading efforts nationally and internationally to promote Human Rights and democracy.

Ms. Nazanin Afshin-Jam is an international human rights activist and author and co-founder of Stop Child Executions. She has utilized her role as a pageant winner to become a voice for those who need to be heard. She continues to champion causes, which makes all Canadians proud.

Ms. Homa Arjomand continues the struggle for freedom, supporting Iranian children’s and women’s rights. She also works with battered women and girls in Canada through the Let’s Talk program with abused children. She is also the coordinator of the International Campaign Against Shari’a Court in Canada. Ms. Arjomand appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence last year during our study on radicalization and threats to Canada. She was most eloquent in her presentation and in describing her escape from Iran to a UN refugee camp and then on to Canada.

Ms. Sayeh Hassan is a prominent criminal defence lawyer and pro-Iranian democracy advocate who collaborates with Iranians and other transnational activists to advance the cause of human rights and democracy in her oppressed ancestral homeland. Through her blog focusing on the pro-democracy movement and regime changes in Iran, she stays in close contact with activists in Iran and retains contact with various human rights and pro- democracy organizations abroad. She regularly speaks at conferences and has appeared on television and radio and in numerous publications in Canada.

Lang noted that at the beginning of these remarks I described life in Evin Prison where Mr. Amirgholi is held. These words were from a brave survivor, Ms. Shabnam Assadollahi, who is here with us today in the gallery. Ms. Shabnam Assadollahi is an outstanding democracy activist who writes and broadcasts in Canada. Through her international network, she exposes clandestine Iranian influence activity in our country.

In conclusion, Lang stated “as we bring much-needed attention to the issues in Iran through this inquiry, let us urgently redouble our support for Ali Amir Amirgholi. In doing so, we salute courageous Canadian women of Persian heritage who are leading human rights efforts nationally and internationally to help bring attention to Iran’s vile and brutal regime and the plight of individuals like Mr. Amir Amirgholi.”

Read the full statement by clicking here.

RELATED: Human Rights Abuses in Iran

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Yukon Senator Dan Lang. Photo: Jesse Winter/Yukon News

Are you comfortable with the ‘Troika’, or are you ready for the ‘Quartet’?

/in , , /by

By Wallace Bruschweiler and William Palumbo –

It has been the longstanding belief of these authors that Obama’s White House, especially its foreign policy penchant for supporting jihadis (both Sunni and Shiite), is run by a troika.  The front man of the troika is obviously Barack Hussein Obama, who uses his position as President of the United States of America to cajole the U.S. and the rest of the world to accept terrorists as politically legitimate players.

Obama’s deputy, and often his mouthpiece, is Secretary of State John Kerry.  Kerry is indirectly related through his daughter’s marriage to the Iranian foreign minister, Javad Zarif.

The brains of the troika is and always has been the consigliere, Iranian-born Valerie Jarrett.  Jarrett began negotiations with Iran’s government even before Obama’s inauguration.  Jarrett, through Obama, refused to support the Iranian Green Movement (a secularist reform party) in 2009.

With the addition of a new player, fiction writer Ben Rhodes, the White House troika must be totally reconfigured and renamed a “quartet.”

Last week’s feature story in the New York Times about White House advisor Ben Rhodes should not have come as a shock to anyone who follows this administration closely.  Finally, however, the public at large was alerted that a failed novelist had taken his talents to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and turned his fiction into harsh real-world realities that we will be dealing with for decades to come.

Rhodes’ induction into the big leagues is justified by his own statement: “I don’t know anymore where I begin and Obama ends.”  Although Rhodes has no formal experience in foreign affairs outside of speechwriting, he has literally written the book on Obama’s foreign policy.  Like his prior failed works, it’s purely and only bad fiction.

Ben Rhodes’ official title is “Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communication.”  In the administration of Barack Hussein Obama, these long-winded positions often perform duties well above Cabinet level positions – think back to all those “Czars” who sabotaged our economy with their destructive policies and regulations.  It seems Rhodes’ job within the administration is to create storylines that attempt to justify a foreign policy that otherwise couldn’t have been justified in reality.

Let’s take the two most infamous examples:

Arab Spring:  Ben Rhodes was a primary author of Barack Hussein Obama’s notorious 2009 speech in Cairo, “A New Beginning.”  In this speech, delivered before a hand-picked audience of terrorists of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, Obama praised Islam while simultaneously apologizing to the Muslim world on behalf of the United States.  Later, in 2011, Egypt’s government was overthrown by the Muslim Brotherhood with the backing of the Obama administration, leading to chaos, purges of Egypt’s religious minorities, and a hostile stance toward Israel.  Rhodes’ played a major role in presenting the entire Arab Spring fiasco, i.e. replacing stable, strongman governments with the Muslim Brotherhood’s shabby characters, to the general public.  (Also refer to The Betrayal Papers.)

The Iranian Nuclear Deal: As the New York Times piece makes clear, Rhodes was and is instrumental in manipulating the American media into praising wholeheartedly the Iranian nuclear deal.  Preying on the media’s incompetence and laziness, Rhodes fed them misinformation justifying the administration’s overtures to the terrorist-supporting regime in Tehran.  Iran’s longstanding support for worldwide terrorism was simply ignored.  (For more information on the Iranian nuclear deal, please refer to House of Bribes: How the United States led the way to a Nuclear Iran.)

There is no discussion about it: the world is a mess.  But, if you’re listening to the so-called pundits in our media and reading the fiction of Ben Rhodes, the administration’s idiocies and betrayals always seem to have a happy ending.

VIDEO: Hungary’s Prime Minister Delivers Historical Speech To Stop Migration

/in , , , , , /by

Hungarian Prime Minister,Viktor Orban, revealed his thorough grasp of the mass migration of Europe back in September of 2015 when hundreds of thousands of immigrants were pouring into Europe. He stated then,

“Let us not forget, however, that those arriving have been raised in another religion, and represent a radically different culture. Most of them are not Christians, but Muslims. This is an important question, because Europe and European identity is rooted in Christianity. Is it not worrying in itself that European Christianity is now barely able to keep Europe Christian? If we lose sight of this, the idea of Europe could become a minority interest in its own continent.”

His speech from just a month ago however, deserves widespread attention as it rises to the level of Churchill-like content and stark reality at a time in which most world leaders seem to be governing from an emotional level and do not tolerate truth spoken above a whisper.

More truth was spoken from the mouth of the prime minister in the second half of his speech, than Obama has spoken in his tenure as president.

Consider if our circumstances do not drastically change, how soon we too will be in the same predicament. Context to follow or video with subtitles.

FULL TEXT

“Ladies and Gentlemen,

Europe is not free. Because freedom begins with speaking the truth. Today in Europe it is forbidden to speak the truth. Even if it is made of silk, a muzzle is a muzzle. It is forbidden to say that those arriving are not refugees, but that Europe is threatened by migration. It is forbidden to say that tens of millions are ready to set out in our direction. It is forbidden to say that immigration brings crime and terror to our countries. It is forbidden to point out that the masses arriving from other civilizations endanger our way of life, our culture, our customs and our Christian traditions. It is forbidden to point out that those who arrived earlier have have already built up their own new, separate world for themselves, with its own laws and ideals, which is forcing apart the thousand-year-old structure of Europe. It is forbidden to point out that this is not an accidental and unintentional chain of consequences, but a preplanned and orchestrated operation; a mass of people directed towards us. It is forbidden to say that in Brussels they are concocting schemes to transport foreigners here as quickly as possible and to settle them here among us. It is forbidden to point out that the purpose of settling people here is to reshape the religious and cultural landscape of Europe, and to reengineer its ethnic foundations. — thereby eliminating the last barrier to internationalism: the nation-states. It is forbidden to say that Brussels is now stealthily devouring more and more slices of our national sovereignty, and that in Brussels many are now making a plan for a United States of Europe — for which no one has ever given authorisation.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Today’s enemies of freedom are cut from a different cloth than the royal and imperial rulers of old, or those who ran the Soviet system; they use a different set of tools to force us into submission. Today they do not imprison us, they do not transport us to concentration camps, and they do not send in tanks to occupy countries loyal to freedom. Today the international media’s artillery bombardments, denunciations, threats and blackmail are enough — or rather, have been enough so far. The peoples of Europe are slowly awakening, they are regrouping, and will soon regain ground. Europe’s beams that rest on the suppression of truth are creaking and cracking. The peoples of Europe may have finally understood that their future is at stake: Now not only are their prosperity, cosy lives, jobs at stake, but our very security and the peaceful order of our lives are menaced as well. At last, the peoples of Europe, who have been slumbering in abundance and prosperity, have understood that the principles of life that Europe has been built on are in mortal danger. Europe is the community of Christian, free, and independent nations; equality of men and women; fair competition and solidarity; pride and humility; justice and mercy.

This time the danger is not attacking us the way wars and natural disasters do, suddenly pulling the rug from under our feet. Mass migration is a slow stream of water persistently eroding the shores. It is masquerading as a humanitarian cause, but its true nature is the occupation of territory. And what is gaining territory for them is losing territory for us. Flocks of obsessed human rights defenders feel the overwhelming urge to reprimand us and to make allegations against us. Allegedly we are hostile xenophobes, but the truth is that the history of our nation is also one of inclusion. and the history of intertwining of cultures. Those who have sought to come here as new family members, as allies, or as displaced persons fearing for their lives have been let in to make a new home for themselves. But those who have come here with the intention of changing our country, shaping our nation in their own image, those who have come with violence and against our will, — have always been met with resistance.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

At first, they talk about only a few hundred, a thousand or two thousand relocated people. But not a single responsible European leader would dare to swear under oath that this couple of thousand will not eventually increase to tens or hundreds of thousands. If we want to halt this mass migration, first we must curb Brussels. The main danger to Europe’s future does not come from those who want to come here, but from Brussels’ fanatical internationalism. We should not allow Brussels to place itself above the law. We shall not allow it to force upon us the bitter fruit of its cosmopolitan immigration policy. We shall not import to Hungary crime, terrorism, homophobia and synagogue-burning anti-Semitism. There shall be no urban districts beyond the reach of the law, there shall be no mass disorder, No immigrant riots here, and there shall be no gangs hunting down our women and daughters. We shall not allow others to tell us whom we can let into our home and country, whom we will live alongside, and with whom we will share our country. We know how these things go. First we allow them to tell us whom we must take in, then they force us to serve foreigners in our own country. In the end we find ourselves being told to pack up and leave our own land. Therefore we reject the forced resettlement scheme, and we shall tolerate neither blackmail, nor threats.

The time has come to ring the warning bell. The time has come for opposition and resistance. The time has come to gather allies to us. The time has come to raise the flag of proud nations. The time has come to prevent the destruction of Europe, and to save the future of Europe. To this end, regardless of party affiliation, we call on every citizen of Hungary to unite, and we call on every European nation to unite. The leaders and citizens of Europe must no longer live in two separate worlds. We must restore the unity of Europe. We the peoples of Europe cannot be free individually if we are not free together. If we unite our forces, we shall succeed; if we pull in different directions, we shall fail. Together we are strength, disunited we are weakness. Either together, or not at all — today this is the law.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

In 1848 it was written in the book of fate that nothing could be done against the Habsburg Empire. If we had then resigned ourselves to that outcome, our fate would have been sealed, and the German sea would have swallowed up the Hungarians. In 1956 it was written in the book of fate that we were to remain an occupied and sovietised country, until patriotism was extinguished in the very last Hungarian. If then we had resigned ourselves to that outcome, our fate would have been sealed, and the Soviet sea would have swallowed up the Hungarians. Today it is written in the book of fate that hidden, faceless world powers will eliminate everything that is unique, autonomous, age-old and national. They will blend cultures, religions and populations, until our many-faceted and proud Europe will finally become bloodless and docile. And if we resign ourselves to this outcome, our fate will be sealed, and we will be swallowed up in the enormous belly of the United States of Europe. The task which awaits the Hungarian people, the nations of Central Europe and the other European nations which have not yet lost all common sense is to defeat, rewrite and transform the fate intended for us. We Hungarians and Poles know how to do this. We have been taught that one can only look danger in the face if one is brave enough. We must therefore drag the ancient virtue of courage out from under the silt of oblivion. First of all we must put steel in our spines, and we must answer clearly, with a voice loud enough to be heard far and wide, the foremost, the single most important question determining our fate: The question upon which the future of Europe stands or falls is this: “Shall we be slaves or men set free — That is the question, answer me!”

Go for it Hungary, go for it Hungarians!”

Please go to: RestoretheUSA.net to download a petition to be hand carried to your Congressman urging them to defund the Refugee Resettlement Program, until proven safe for all Americans.

Military Press Peddles Anti-Gun Propaganda to Service Members

/in , , , , /by

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.

Trump is Right: ‘Fact Checkers’ Embarrass Themselves Covering for Hillary

/in , , , /by

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.

“Hillary Clinton wants to abolish the Second Amendment.”

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.

“Hillary Clinton wants to take your guns away”

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.

Clinton’s Record Proves She Warrants Skepticism

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.