Posts

VIDEO: Democratic Officials Responsible For ‘Chaos’ In Cities, Police Organization President Says At RNC

National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO) President Michael McHale lambasted Democratic leaders nationwide at the Republican National Convention Wednesday blaming them for the “chaos” that has occurred in American cities recently.

The death of George Floyd and the shooting of Jacob Blake have sparked mass anti-police protests and riots across the country. In the aftermath of Floyd’s death, police morale drastically declined, according to multiple police union officials.

“Chaos results when elected officials in cities like Portland, Minneapolis, Chicago, and New York make the conscious and very public decision not to support law enforcement,” said McHale, who is also the president of the southwest Florida chapter of the Police Benevolent Association. “Shootings, murders, looting and rioting occur unabated.”

He continued: “The violence we are seeing in these and other cities isn’t happening by chance; it’s the direct result of elected leaders refusing to allow law enforcement to protect our communities.”

WATCH:

McHale also attacked Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris for their views on law enforcement.

“I’m shocked and disgusted by how far left Joe Biden has swung and how anti-law enforcement he has become,” said McHale. “And Kamala Harris’ legislation to further restrict police would make our American communities and streets even more dangerous than they already are.”

He added: “Like many others on the left who want to defund the police, Senator Harris’ legislation provides less training, not more, for law enforcement.”

Harris said departments should be “reimagined” when asked about defunding the police in June.

Founded in 1978, NAPO is a coalition of police unions and associations, according to the organization’s website. It represents more than 241,000 law enforcement personnel and 1,000 police associations nationwide.

NAPO officially endorsed President Donald Trump’s re-election campaign for president on July 15, according to a letter addressed to Trump posted on the organization’s website.

“Our endorsement recognizes your steadfast and very public support for our men and women on the front lines, especially during this time of unfair and inaccurate opprobrium being directed at our members by so many,” the letter said.

The New York Police Benevolent Association, the largest police union in the United States, endorsed Trump on Aug. 14. It was the union’s first presidential endorsement in at least 36 years, according to its president Michael Lynch.

“We need your strong voice across the country to say, ‘We have the support of law enforcement across this country,’” Lynch told Trump at the endorsement event.

COLUMN BY

THOMAS CATENACCI

Reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Debate Rages On Police Reform, Role Of Police Unions In Wake Of Floyd’s Death

One Trend Is Clear After These Police Killings: Families Begging Rioters To Stop The Violence

The Deaths In Wisconsin Are Just The Latest In A String Of Fatalities Resulting From Nationwide Riots

‘My Family And I Are Very Hurt’: Julia Jackson, Mother Of Jacob Blake, Says Rioting, Looting Are ‘Not Acceptable’

EXCLUSIVE: Alleged Kenosha Shooter Told The Daily Caller He Was There To ‘Help People,’ Protect Property Before Shooting

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Dozens Of Minneapolis Businesses Consider Leaving, Cite Possibility Of Police Being Dismantled

Dozens of Minneapolis businesses are considering leaving downtown, citing concerns about the possibility of the police department being dismantled, CBS Minnesota reported.

A survey by the Downtown Council shows 45 business owners say they are considering leaving downtown Minneapolis because of the lack of people working and socializing in the area and also the idea that the police department could be dismantled, CBS reported.

One of the surveyed businesses that is considering leaving employs 600 people, deepening fears that the city could take another major blow to employment, which was hit by the coronavirus pandemic. The Council did not divulge which businesses are considering leaving.

“This is by far the biggest challenge that I’ve ever had in my 20 years of owning businesses downtown,” Erik Forsberg, who owns multiple restaurants in downtown Minneapolis told CBS. Forsberg’s restaurants have been reportedly closed since the pandemic began and crime multiplied.

“We are seeing a lot of restaurants take a hit right now,” realtor Kris Lindahl says, adding that he expects restaurants to downsize and possibly share kitchens, according to CBS.

“We are seeing business owners wanting to eliminate the overhead, especially in a world where it looks like there’s going to be a more hybrid approach happening – and people are going to be  working from home – business owners and companies are looking to downsize,” he continued.

The president of the Downtown Council, Steve Cramer, has explained to council members that the mention of dismantling the Minneapolis police department has deterred business owners. He believes there will still be police, but they would have crisis support.

Efforts to dismantle the Minneapolis Police Department began after the May 25 death of George Floyd, who died after an officer knelt on his neck for several minutes.

The City Council has pushed to replace the police department with a “Department of Community Safety and Violence Prevention,” which has an approach that hasn’t been fully defined but would prioritize “a holistic, public health-oriented approach” that called for a division of licensed peace officers, allowing for some armed police officers.

However, a Minneapolis commission decided Wednesday that it would take more time to review the City Council amendment to dismantle the police department after concerns that the process was being rushed. “The council says ‘Trust us. We’ll figure it out after this is approved. Trust us.’ We’ll I don’t, and we shouldn’t,” Berry Clegg, chairman of the Charter Commission said according to CBS News.

The stalling of the amendment by the commission means the issue will not appear on ballots in November, since there will be no final decision by the deadline.

Violent crime in Minneapolis has surged to levels not seen in several years, as the number of police officers on the street is scaled back. Officers have reportedly also taken longer to respond to 911 calls, in part because of the shrinking size of the force, Democratic Mayor Jacob Frey said according to MPR News.

COLUMN BY

MARLO SAFI

Culture reporter.

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Minneapolis Is One Step Closer To Abolishing Police Department After Unanimous City Council Vote

Minneapolis Commission Blocks Ballot Question On Dismantling Police Department

Juan Williams Claims Protest Violence Footage Is ‘From The First Night Way Back,’ Gets Fact-Checked Immediately

‘These Are Killers’: Rudy Giuliani Calls Black Lives Matter ‘Terrorist Group’

Man Pleads Guilty For Threatening To Burn Down Black Church In Virginia

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

‘They Are Terrorists’: DHS Says Investigations Into ‘Criminal Rioters’ Continue

A senior official from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said Thursday that rioters across America are under active observation and that “hundreds” of ongoing federal investigations are focusing on “criminal rioters.”

“So there are hundreds of federal investigations running into these criminal rioters, that’s what they are,” Acting Deputy Secretary Ken Cuccinelli told BlazeTV. “They are terrorists.” He informed the media outlet that most of the investigations are still in progress and that details have not been released to the public.

President Donald Trump and Attorney General William Barr announced Wednesday that 200 federal agents were heading to Chicago and Kansas City, respectively, to “help save lives,” in Barr’s words.

When asked if federal authorities are attempting to discover whether riots and looting across America are being coordinated by certain groups, Cuccinelli told BlazeTV that “we are looking at anywhere there is organization behind criminal activity.”

“Now, realize, that a group that calls itself Black Lives Matters in Washington may not be connected to a group that calls itself Black Lives Matter in Minneapolis,” the acting deputy secretary observed. “So we have to connect the dots evidentially, not just in terms of them taking similar positions. They have to coordinate action to count as a group.”

He noted that DHS continues to gather and assess that kind of intelligence.

Protests and riots in Portland have resulted in tens of millions of dollars in damages to the community, according to the Portland Tribune.

Despite almost 60 days of nightly rioting in Portland, political leaders there are resisting federal assistance.

Democratic Oregon Rep. Earl Blumenauer said Monday that “Portland, Oregon is not out of control” during a speech on the House floor. A demonstration began peacefully Thursday night, but soon deteriorated into chaos with crowds shouting, “Pigs go home.”

COLUMN BY

DAVID KRAYDEN

Ottawa bureau chief. Follow David on Twitter. Send tips to Krayden@dailycaller.com.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Maxine Waters: Sending ‘Paramilitary Police’ To Cities May Be Trump’s Plot To Stay In Power

EXCLUSIVE PHOTOS: Portland Rioters Burn American Flag, Break Down Fencing At Federal Courthouse As Officers Respond En Masse

‘Stop Cops’: Large Crowd Gathers As Portland Heads Into Seventh Straight Week Of Protests

‘Feds Go Home’: Protest Leaders Say ‘War Zone’ Demonstrations Haven’t Taken Away From Their Message

Demonstrators Swarm Chicago Mayor’s Home After Phone Call With Trump

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot Calls Police Union Leader A ‘Clown’ In Leaked Text Messages, Won’t Apologize

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

PODCAST: Rioters’ ‘Defund The Police’ Push Puts Democrat Candidates On Defense!

GUESTS AND TOPICS:

SUSAN CRABTREE

Susan Crabtree is a White House and national political correspondent for RealClearPolitics where she covers President Trump, his administration and their conflicts with Capitol Hill, the 2020 election, spending battles and national security. She previously served as a senior writer for the Washington Free Beacon, and five years as a White House Correspondent for the Washington Examiner. Prior stints include seven years as a senior editor and investigative reporter for The Hill. She is a frequent guest political analyst on Fox News as well as numerous conservative talk radio shows. Susan has written for several magazines, including The Weekly Standard and The Economist-owned Capital Style, where she was a senior writer.

TOPIC: Rioters’ ‘Defund The Police’ Push Puts Democrat Candidates On Defense!

ANN MARIE HANCOCK

Ann Marie Hancock is an award-winning journalist, radio and television personality, and talk show host who has interviewed many famous people. She has appeared on Bertice Berry, Rolanda, NBC’s The Other Side, The Angel Show and Inside Edition.Hancock is the author of two previous books: Be A Light and Wake Up America. Her latest book, You Can’t Drive Your Car to Your Own Funeral, is based on the three-year journey of caring for her terminal mother and the spiritual as well as practical lessons she learned along the way.

TOPIC: “You Can’t Drive Your Car to Your Own Funeral”

KARYN TURK

Karyn Turk is a political commentator, actor, and news broadcaster. She is a prominent Trump supporter and has been vocal about her support for Donald Trump on various media interviews. She is married to Palm Beach attorney Evan Turk, and the couple has been involved in fundraisers for Roger Stone and hosted the Roger Stone Legal Fund in March and September 2019. Karyn’s career started in marketing when she joined CBS Radio. She also worked with InnoMed Technologies Inc., a medical device company. In 2016, Turk won the Mrs. Florida U.S. continental pageant to mark a milestone in her modeling career. In the same year, Turk got a job as a broadcaster on Eye On channels, a Florida-based news channel. Karyn was named one of Florida’s Top Power Women and Influencers.

TOPIC: THE TRUTH ABOUT THE COVID19 PLANDEMIC. GATES EXPOSED!

©All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Body found in Minneapolis pawnshop that was torched in George Floyd protests

RELATED VIDEO: Brad Johnson speaks to the curious actions of Seattle City Council to eliminate the police.

Keith Ellison: ‘Blacks don’t have an obligation’ to obey government

he Muslim Brotherhood-linked Keith Ellison, the first Muslim to be elected to Congress, also has past ties to the Nation of Islam — a black Islamic supremacist, anti-white, anti-gay, anti-Catholic and virulently anti-Semitic group. He conveniently denounced his involvement with the group when it suited him in 2006, after it became an issue during his first run for Congress.

It would seem that no matter how much hatred Ellison has spewed against the U.S. and Israel, his documented Islamic supremacist ties, and his facilitating of the crudest divisions in racial politics, he is still a trusted and influential Democratic leader, and likely soon to be the Chair of the DNC.

“Keith Ellison Once Said Black People Don’t Have ‘Obligation’ To Obey Government”, by Peter Hassan, The Daily Caller, February 23, 2017:

Democratic congressman and DNC chair front-runner Keith Ellison once said that “black people don’t live in a democracy” and “don’t have an obligation” to obey the government.

Ellison made the comments at a 1992 protest after white police officers were acquitted in the beating of Rodney King. At least 63 people died in the racially charged riots following the verdict.

Minnesota newspaper the Star Tribune quotes Ellison as telling a group of protesters in Minneapolis that “Black people do not live under a democracy.”

“You don’t have an obligation to obey a government that considers you to be less than human,” Ellison said.

Ellison, the nation’s first Muslim congressman, has come under fire for his history of making racially inflammatory comments, as well as his past association with notorious anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan, whom Ellison has since renounced. (RELATED: Democratic Donor: Keith Ellison ‘Clearly An Anti-Semite’)

Ellison once called for American blacks to have their own nation and called the U.S. Constitution “best evidence of a white racist conspiracy to subjugate other peoples.”

While speaking to an atheist group in 2007, Ellison compared the Sept. 11 attacks to the Reichstag fire, stopping just short of accusing then-President George W. Bush of having a hand in the attacks.

“It’s almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that,” Ellison said of 9/11, according to reports at the time. “After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it, and it put the leader [Hitler] of that country in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted.”

Ellison went on to say he wouldn’t suggest the U.S. had a hand in the attacks because “you know, that’s how they put you in the nut-ball box — dismiss you,” before later walking back his comments…

RELATED ARTICLES:

DNC Chair Frontrunner Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) Hides from his Radical Anti-gun Record

NYPD commissioner to officers: Defy Trump’s immigrant deportation order

UK: Man who renounced Islam forced to move after harassment from Muslims

Trump phones Trinidad PM to stem Islamic State recruitment

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Jihad Watch.

Who is Ira Madison III and why does he hate Asian children and America?

Daily we see the fringe become more fringe. The latest example is a MTV News reporter named Ira Madison III. Madison, who is black, hates America, loves Obama and takes cheap shots at the grandchild of U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions. Katie McHugh from Breitbart reports:

Culture writer for MTV News Ira Madison III attacked Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions and his Asian-American granddaughter as a “prop” to distract from his “racism.”

ira-madison-iii1

Ira Madison III (left).

In the article “Ira Madison III: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know” by  from Heavy.com describes Madison’s background:

Madison was named in the piece as a “young activist-writer” who was “deeply entrenched” in “identity politics.”

[ … ]

According to his LinkedIn page, Madison is a gradaute [sic] of Loyola University of Chicago where he studied theater and NYU where he studied dramatic writing.

[ … ]

When asked about racism in America, Madison said, “I think at this point, the world has changed so much where I don’t afford people the right to have “different perspectives” if they’re damaging to others. Like, if you’re an asshole and homophobic and racist now, you were the same when you were younger and you knew it was wrong then.”

[ … ]

The day after Donald Trump won the presidency of the United States, Madison posted this throwback photo on Facebook. Madison regularly posts photos of the first family on his photostream. A few days later on his MTV.com column, Madison wrote, “This week, all of America needs to get deleted. You made Barack Obama utter the words “President-elect Donald Trump” and I will honestly never forgive my country for this.”

Here is Madison’s tweet, which has since been taken down:

iramadison-tweet-sessions-granddaughter

Can you feel the hate and anger in this black man for an innocent Asian child?

ira-madison

Ira Madison III

After taking down the above tweet Madison attempted to justify himself by Tweeting, “Why is she a prop? Sessions argued for policy that in the 1880s was used to discriminate against Asian Americans https://t.co/sZitqzLBS4.” The link is to a Think Progress article about a 2013 U.S. Senate committee meeting on comprehensive immigration reform, of which Senator Sessions was a committee member. When you go to the link you find that Senator Sessions was not arguing to discriminate against Asian Americans at all. Rather Senator Sessions asked the President of the Asian American Justice Center Mee Moua “if a country should legitimately decide that it wants to admit one productive family member, but not another, less motivated individual.” Sessions noted:

It’s perfectly logical to think there are two individuals, let’s say in a good friendly country like Honduras. One is a valedictorian of his class, has two years of college, learned English and very much has a vision to come to the United States and the other one has dropped out of high school, has minimum skills. Both are 20 years of age and that latter person has a brother here. What would be in the interest of the United States? …

Clearly it would be in the best interest of the United States to only grant a visa, work permit or citizenship to those who benefit the host country, in this case the United States. Immigration is a key issue for Americans and impacts the economy, jobs, security of the homeland, education, public policy and the criminal justice system.

As the U.S. Attorney General Senator Sessions will be dealing with law and order issues and enforcing the immigration laws of the United States. Laws that make it illegal for someone to come here without permission.

That is something Madison, Obama, Democrats and others fail to understand. When you lose elections, just as when you break the law, there are consequences.

Ignorant Judge Lets “Trans” Man Legally Change His “Sex”

In an unprecedented move, an Oregon judge has allowed a so-called “transgender” man to legally change his sex from female (he had previously been allowed to choose female) to “non-binary.” It’s newsworthy enough to have made it to Drudge, but even that fact doesn’t do justice to the grave threat presented by Multnomah County Circuit Court Judge Amy Holmes Hehn’s ruling.

I’ll cut to the chase. Even if you accept the legitimacy of “transgender” status (more on this later), here’s what must be understood:

Psychologists and transgender activists do not say “sex” and “gender” are synonymous.

Rather, they often take pains to point out — sometimes quite dogmatically — that “sex” is a biological distinction while “gender” is a psychological one. As MedicalNewsToday.com wrote in March, “In general terms, ‘sex’ refers to the biological differences between males and females, such as the genitalia and genetic differences. ‘Gender’ is more difficult to define but can refer to the role of a male or female in society (gender role), or an individual’s concept of themselves (gender identity).” You can find essentially the same definitions at Monash University’s website and numerous other places.

Even the man who petitioned Judge Hehn for the “sex change,” a fellow going by the name “Jamie” Shupe, has in so many words acknowledged the above. As The Oregonian reports, “I was assigned male at birth due to biology,” Shupe said. “I’m stuck with that for life. My gender identity is definitely feminine.”

Judge Hehn is clearly operating far above her pay grade. Like most people, she apparently views “gender” as a synonym for “sex,” oblivious to the evolution (or devolution) of the term and concept.

Up until relatively recently, “gender” was mainly used in grammar, pertaining to the categories into which words are divided, such as masculine, feminine and neuter. It was not traditionally used in reference to people.

This started to change with the now discredited quack psychologist Dr. John Money. In 1966, he originated the debunked “gender neutrality” theory and appears to have been the first person to popularize the application of “gender” to people. Even so, such usage of the term didn’t really catch on until the last 20 or 25 years.

And what was the purpose of this language manipulation? You couldn’t convince people many decades ago that there were more than two sexes, because that there are only two was rightly cemented in their minds. The biological distinction was the only thing people conceptualized and accepted. But “gender” was the perfect term as it included more than two categories: masculine, feminine and neuter. And thus did we see an attempt at the 1995 Conference on Women in Beijing to adopt language stating that a family could comprise up to five “genders”: male heterosexual, female heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian and bisexual (the attempt failed owing to Vatican opposition). Of course, that’s now old hat — the shape-shifting libertines now define scores of “genders.”

But no matter. Once the term caught on and most everyone accepted that a person could have “gender” — and once a minority had accepted that there could be more than two — the next step was to add to the concept the notion that a person could be “transgender” and transition from one to another. It’s incrementalism; step by step, inch by inch.

And now that even more people have accepted the fluidity of “gender” and virtually everyone confuses the term with “sex,” we’re witnessing the next step: the attempt to eliminate the concept of the biological distinction itself. The idea is that there will only be “gender,” and “sex” will just be a term describing what you do with a sentient biped (in most cases) who, hopefully, won’t transition in the middle of the act.

So first was just the correct concept of “sex” (biological), then the introduction of a new concept, “gender” (perception of what a person is). Then there was the confusion of the two terms attended by the expansion of the new concept and advent of another new concept, “transgender.” Now, with the terms long viewed as synonyms, we’re seeing the attempted elimination of the concept of “sex.” And just as the man on the street mindlessly adopted the term “gender,” expect to see a concerted effort to eliminate the term “sex’s” use in the legal realm.

And the proof is in the pudding. Note that among the more than 60 “genders” now imagined by the sexual revolutionaries is “cisgender,” whose definition is, “denoting or relating to a person whose self-identity conforms with the gender that corresponds to their [sic] biological sex; not transgender.” In other words, normality is now listed as just one of scores of flavors of the day along with abnormality. In this way of “thinking,” it’s no better to be a normal woman than a cross-dresser masquerading as a woman. So the first step was to try to normalize the abnormal, and now the effort is on to “denormalize” the normal.

Do you now see why I and a few others warned, for years and years and years and years, that we shouldn’t use the word “gender” in reference to people or embrace any aspect of the Lexicon of the Left? The side that defines the vocabulary of a debate wins the debate.

As for Judge Hehn, I doubt she’s sophisticated enough to understand any of the above. She likely was just operating on misconceptions and emotion. But as former “transsexual” Alan Finch said in 2004, “You fundamentally can’t change sex. … Transsexualism was invented by psychiatrists.” No, you can’t change sex. You don’t have “gender” unless you’re a word. And you shouldn’t be able to change sex in legal documents, either. You are what you are.

Judge Hehn’s ridiculous, destructive ruling should be overturned if possible, and she should be removed from the bench. Judges who can’t separate fact from fiction, emotion from reason or, even, boys from girls, need to be playing with blocks, not with our laws.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

Civil War: America’s Enemies Hiding in Plain Sight

Russian born American writer and novelist 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.”

Janie Johnson posted the above photo of Black Lives Matter (BLM) protestors on her Twitter page. Janie wrote, “On [the] bottom of the signs is the inscription: revcom.us. To see who printed them, go to: .”

The organization that printed these BLM posters is the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA (RCP-USA). The stated strategic approach of the RCP-USA is to:

“Fight the Power, and Transform the People, for Revolution…to take up a revolutionary viewpoint and revolutionary values and morals as they join with others to resist this system’s crimes and build up the basis for the ultimate all-out revolutionary struggle to sweep this system away and bring in a whole new way of organizing society, a whole new way of being…to become emancipators of humanity.” [Emphasis RCP-USA]

The RCP-USA signs brought to mind several banners carried by BLM protestors in Ferguson, Missouri.

FergusonPalestine

Robert Spencer in his November 2014 column Islamic supremacist groups connect their jihad to Ferguson riots wrote:

In the photo above (thanks to Kay), Leftist demonstrators relate the strife in Ferguson to the “Palestinian” jihad. And Pamela Geller has a great deal of information on how Islamic jihadists and supremacists, including the Hamas-linked terror organization CAIR, have tried to co-opt the Ferguson riots as part of their own jihad. Most noteworthy is the active presence in Ferguson of “Palestinian” jihad activist Bassem Masri.

The connection between Ferguson and “Palestine” (and the global jihad in general) is clear: both the Islamic supremacists and the Ferguson rioters think that the American system is corrupt and must be brought down.

isis banner ferguson

Islamic State banner carried by Black Lives Matter protestors in Ferguson, Missouri. Photo: CNN

In a November 2014 column Ferguson: The beginning of an American Intifada I wrote:

This spiral of death and destruction scenario is used across the globe to incite riots, mayhem and violence. It is used to recruit those with real or perceived grievances against those in authority. It is being used by the Islamic State to recruit in Ferguson, Missouri.

Ferguson is the beginning of the American intifada in the black community. This same strategy is being used by terrorist organizations like HAMAS, Hezbollah, Boko Haram and al Qaeda. Grab the headlines and make your point via political violence. The problem is the narrative is routinely false, even based upon lies, but by the time the facts are presented it is too late. The damage has already been done.

Lessons learned from Ferguson:

  1. Appeasement of the protesters leads to more violence.
  2. Coalitions of outside organizations including radical homosexual, Muslim and minority groups makes for a deadly mix.
  3. The targets are the law and law enforcement. The demand is for two legal systems, one for minorities and one for whites.
  4. The creation of no-go zones where police and firefighters cannot or will not go due to the threat of violence.
  5. The manipulation of the media in the name of “equality” and “social justice” to create a scenario where a radical agenda may be furthered that denies both.
  6. The use of violence even when blacks, like President Obama, call upon their fellow blacks to be non-violent.
  7. The creation of a atmosphere where law enforcement officers will hesitate to enforce the law or ignore the law in order not to become a target.
  8. Lawlessness with an anarchist’s political objective – to destroy the status quo.

A race war is upon America because some minorities want it more than they want to be Americans.

I fear that these groups will once again come together in Cleveland to disrupt the Republican National Convention and Donald Trump’s nomination. This Red/Green/Rainbow alliance has already showed itself at Trump rallies. The Red/Green/Rainbow alliance is emboldened and becoming more violent.

These protestors want to bring a civil war to America in order to fundamentally transform the country. 

America is a land of laws and requires order. Protest if one wishes but to become violent demands police action and people, organizations and institutions to be held accountable.

We shall see what happens in Cleveland. Stay tuned.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Conservative Lessons of ‘Captain America – Civil War’

An Economist Explains Why America Is Moving Toward Totalitarianism

RELATED VIDEO: Walter Williams on the Rise of Socialism | The Daily Signal

VIDEO: How to Stop Violent Crime

In a strongly worded five-minute video, National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre is calling on Barack Obama and other politicians to help stop violent crime by focusing on prosecuting violent criminals—not further restricting law-abiding gun owners.

“We’ve lived through the Clinton administration’s utter lack of federal gun prosecutions, and the Obama administration is following suit, while the country suffers,” LaPierre said. “And we know that a second Clinton administration will just mean more of the same.”

LaPierre added that gun-banners—whether politicians or media—won’t silence the men and women of the NRA.

“No organization has been louder, clearer or more consistent on the urgent need to enforce the federal gun laws than the NRA,” he said. “And in the face of mounting political and media pressure to demean, shame and silence us … we will fight.”

RELATED ARTICLES: 

How Georgia Became a Haven for Violent Illegal Immigrants

Congress Shouldn’t Ground Air Marshals Amid Current Threats, Their Boss Says

Florida: Open Carry Bill Passes 1st House Committee

Tuesday, October 6, 2015,  the House Criminal Justice Committee held a hearing on  HB-163 by Rep. Matt Gaetz.

The bill PASSED by a Vote of 8-4.

HB-163 is a bill to allow persons with a Concealed Weapons & Firearms License to carry firearms concealed or openly.

Sheriff Wayne Ivey (Brevard) and representatives of Sheriff Charlie Creel (Wakulla) expressed support for the bill at a press conference with bill sponsors Sen. Don Gaetz and Rep. Matt Gaetz, before the committee meeting.  Among other sheriffs who have expressed support for open carry are Sheriff Gordon Smith (Bradford) and Sheriff Chris Nocco (Pasco).

Voting FOR the bill were Republican Reps. Carlos Truijillo, Dennis Baxley, Jay Fant, Gayle Harrell, Ray Pilon, Scott Plakon, Ross Spano and Charles Van Zant.

Voting AGAINST the bill were Democrat Reps. Randolph Bracy, Dave Kerner and Sharon Pritchett — Rep. Clovis Watson did not vote.

The only Republican to vote against the bill was Chris Latvala (R-Clearwater).

BACKGROUND:

This bill will prevent CW license holders from being charged with the crime of violating the “Open Carry” law because a concealed firearm, being legally carried, accidentally or inadvertently became visible to another person.

According to our attorneys, allowing license holders to carry openly is the only way to truly keep them from being arrested and/or prosecuted for violating the open carry ban if firearms are accidentally and unintentionally exposed.

IT IS UNFORTUNATELY TRUE that anytime you are carrying a concealed firearm you are in danger of being charged with a crime and treated like a criminal if your firearm accidentally becomes exposed to the sight of another person and law enforcement is called.

In 2011, we attempted to fix that problem.  We supported language that clearly says it is NOT a violation of the open carry ban “for a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm as provided in s. 790.06(1), and who is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner, to briefly and openly display the firearm to the ordinary sight of another person, unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense.”

Not only did that language NOT stop the abuse.  It has gotten worse.

In one case, a young man was arrested when his firearm was accidentally and unintentionally exposed.  Someone saw it and called 911.  It took law enforcement 5 minutes to arrive.  They arrested him because they said 5 minutes wasn’t brief.  It didn’t matter that it was accidental and unintentional.  He was prosecuted and convicted.

In another case a man was arrested, and convicted because the accidental and unintentional exposure of his firearm was for only 2 minutes.

Further, it has been reported that State Attorney Angela Corey’s office in Jacksonville says that exposure isn’t brief, if it is more than an instantaneous glance before being covered up again.

And to make matters worse, there is a case pending on a motion for review before the Florida Supreme Court — because a lower court didn’t think a young man was dressed appropriately to hide a gun when it accidentally became visible.

Concealed Weapons License holders whose firearms are seen by others seem to be targets in some jurisdictions.

This bill will only allow persons who have a license to carry a concealed weapon or firearm to carry concealed or openly.  All of the provisions of the concealed carry law apply to those who chose to carry openly. Including:

  • You must have your license on you at all times when carrying and you must show it to a law enforcement officer who asks if you have a license.
  • You cannot carry a long gun — rifle or shotgun — concealed or openly under this law.
  • You cannot carry concealed or openly onto private property of any business or person who chooses to prohibit it.
  • You cannot carry openly in any place where concealed carry is prohibited.

THANK YOU for your email and phone calls to Committee members.  Taking a few moments to communicate with Legislators is very important.

Email addresses of the Committee members are below.

carlos.trujillo@myfloridahouse.gov,
charles.vanzant@myfloridahouse.gov
,
dennis.baxley@myfloridahouse.gov
,
Jay.Fant@myfloridahouse.gov
,
gayle.harrell@myfloridahouse.gov
,
Chris.Latvala@myfloridahouse.gov
,
ray.pilon@myfloridahouse.gov
,
Scott.Plakon@myfloridahouse.gov
,
Ross.Spano@myfloridahouse.gov
,
Randolph.Bracy@myfloridahouse.gov

Dave.Kerner@myfloridahouse.gov
,
Sharon.Pritchett@myfloridahouse.gov
,
Clovis.Watson@myfloridahouse.gov

UPDATE: Rep Gaetz is holding an Open Live Forum Conference on the “Open Carry Bill” that he proposed which passed in the subcommittee. The live event will be
Thursday, Oct 8th at 6:15 pm via telephone. Below is the link to “subscribe” to be able to participate.

https://vekeo.com/event/representativemattgaetz-19481/

Florida: A Day in Court for Marise London, an Elderly Jewish Woman

Marise London

Marise London

It was much better than a breath of fresh air or a refreshing swim in the sea; for I could see real jurisprudence.  Dissecting the word into its meaningful units, “juris” means judging, and “prudence” means with wisdom; but how often are the two actually combined into one?

Today, sitting in a Sarasota County, FL court as a spectator and an elder advocate for a lonely Jewish woman locked in guardianship in Florida year after year without due process that it rightfully due to her, I heard her new Probate judge press and press the battling lawyers in her case, drumming up thousands of dollars per hour in legal fees, to put her fate into perspective.  While the lawyers, at least seven of them in the courtroom on August 6, 2015, were preoccupied with rules and laws, the presiding judge kept a keen eye on the greater purpose of the hearing, that being what best serves the needs of Marise London, artist, mother, and beloved elder to so many advocates who stand with her in her ardent quest for dignity and freedom from the human bondage of guardianship.

What else could you call a system in which precious human beings are deprived of their most basic rights in life and to life?  A Ward of the State of Florida, where guardianship has become a major asset to the State and a tragic liability to the lives of its elders, is mentally, physically, and emotionally trapped in a network of professionals loyal to their livelihoods often more so than to the lives they are sworn to protect.

Guardianship is, in many respects, human trafficking, in which an elder is most commonly isolated from family and deprived of her rights to move and communicate freely according to her own choices.  She cannot marry or write a check.  She cannot contract or decide where she wants to live.  She cannot select her doctor or refuse a specific medical treatment, psychotropic, or narcotic.  She lives in isolation, subject to the will of her guardian, not of herself.

In a courtroom packed with Marise’s supporters, some of whom traveled hundreds of miles to advocate for her with their feet, a patient judge listened to lengthy proclamations of law for over an hour and then rightfully turned the entire focus of the hearing to Mrs. London, asking three crucial questions, the only ones that really matter: “Does Marise really need a guardian at all?” “Is there a less restrictive circumstance instead of guardianship that will meet Marise’s needs?” “Is there a better guardian available for Marise’s needs than the one she has had for years?”

The questions repeated by the judge a number of times were songs in my head because they were judging the fate of Marise prudently that she may face her future as the free woman she so truly deserves to be.

Supreme Court: No More Lifetime Appointments by Doug Bandow

Democrats and Republicans alike have turned Supreme Court appointments into a partisan slugfest. No wonder: while the judiciary has long been described as the least dangerous branch of government, the court has become instead a continuing constitutional convention. Just five votes can turn the Constitution inside out.

The latest Supreme Court term was seen as a shift to the left. The high court rewrote Obamacare to save the president’s landmark legislation to socialize American health care and completed a social revolution by nationalizing gay marriage. These decisions set off a flurry of promises from Republican Party presidential candidates to confront the judiciary.

Extreme Measures

Jeb Bush said he would only appoint judges “with a proven record of judicial restraint,” even though previous presidents claiming to do the same chose Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, and John Roberts, among many other conservative disappointments.

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) called for judicial retention elections. Such a change at the federal level would require a constitutional amendment, though it would mimic the practices of some 20 states. Even more controversially, Cruz suggested that only those whose case was brought before the justices had to respect Supreme Court rulings.

Extreme measures seem necessary because a simultaneously progressive and activist judiciary has joined the legislature and executive in forthrightly making public policy.

Should Justices Serve for Life?

The influence of judges has been magnified by their relative immunity from political pressure. Although the courts sometimes follow the election returns, in many cases — such as abortion and gay marriage — judicial decisions have short-circuited normal political discourse.

That fact alone makes judicial appointments important. Their significance is magnified by judges’ life tenure.

Lose the battle over filling a Supreme Court slot and you may suffer the consequences for decades. Gerald Ford’s unelected presidency merits little more than a historical footnote, but his Supreme Court legacy long persisted through Justice John Paul Stevens, a judicial ideologue hostile to liberty in most forms. Republicans going back to Dwight Eisenhower publicly lamented the evolution of their appointees, and every one of them made at least one choice that ultimately advanced a big-government agenda. Anthony Kennedy and John Roberts fill that role today.

Lifetime tenure has other consequences. The appointment process is endlessly arbitrary, as judges hang on, irrespective of advancing age. Although instances of obvious infirmity are few — the last clear Supreme Court case was William O. Douglas, who served more than 36 years before retiring in 1975 — outcomes should not be affected by actuarial tables. A gerontocratic court differs dramatically from the society on behalf of which its members purport to speak. The lack of turnover also may deaden court debate, reinforcing established patterns of thinking.

Life tenure is enshrined in the Constitution and rooted in history. The justification for lifetime appointment is to insulate the courts from transient political pressures. Some such protection is necessary if judges are to feel free to make unpopular decisions upholding the nation’s fundamental law.

Yet, judicial independence does not require lack of accountability. Judges are supposed to play a limited though vital role: interpreting, not transforming, the law. The dichotomy of activism versus restraint is the wrong prism for viewing judges. They should be active in enforcing the law, striking down legislation, and vindicating rights when required by the Constitution. They should be restrained in substituting their policy preferences for those of elected representatives.

When jurists violate this role, as do so many judges, they should be held accountable. Unfortunately, many of the proposed responses are more dangerous than the judges themselves. For instance, limiting court jurisdiction or impeaching errant jurists, oft proposed in the past, provides obvious opportunities for abuse. Worse is Cruz’s idea that most people should ignore the Supreme Court. Where government branches collide, someone must have a final say, or else the result will be enduring political conflict and limited legal legitimacy.

Ignore the Court?

More important, Cruz would presumably not want politicians to ignore court rulings with which he agreed. After all, as originally conceived, the judiciary was tasked with the critical role of holding the executive and legislative branches accountable, limiting their propensity to exceed their bounds and abuse the people. For instance, Alexander Hamilton imagined independent courts playing a “peculiarly essential” role to safeguard liberties and being an “excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of the representative body.” Indeed, he contended, the judiciary would “guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals” from “the people themselves.”

Thomas Jefferson argued that judges would provide a “legal check” on political majorities. James Madison, often viewed as the father of the Constitution, predicted that

independent tribunals of justice will consider themselves in a peculiar manner the guardians of [Bill of Rights guarantees]; they will be an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive; they will be naturally led to resist every encroachment upon rights expressly stipulated for in the constitution by the declaration of rights.

Of course, all too often the judiciary fails to fulfill this role today. No less than the presidents and congressmen, judges have become avid advocates of statism. Jurists as well as politicians should be held accountable. Unreviewable power is always dangerous.

Throw the Bums Out?

Some 20 states have implemented Cruz’s second idea, of retention elections. Few judges are defenestrated, but on occasion, the results are dramatic. Three decades ago, California voters ousted three state supreme court jurists who had effectively repealed the death penalty. In 2010, Iowa voters defeated three state supreme court judges who ruled in favor of gay marriage.

National judicial elections, however, would be far more problematic. Should the decision be made via national vote or by a majority of state votes? Moreover, it is hard to believe that Americans who today choose their president based on 30-second television spots would pay serious attention to esoteric legal issues and make the fine distinctions characteristic of legal and constitutional analysis. Worse, judicial votes might reinforce the reigning political consensus, allowing majorities to remove justices most prepared to enforce the constitution against those in power. Unfortunately, further politicizing the judiciary would be an uncertain means of counteracting the problem of a politicized judiciary.

There is a better alternative.

The Solution: Fixed Terms

The Constitution should be amended to authorize fixed terms for federal judges. Perhaps one term of 10 or 12 years for Supreme Court justices, though Federalist Society founder Steve Calabresi suggested 18-year terms. Another option would be a renewable term of 6 or 8 years. Staggering terms would ensure every president at least a couple of appointments. Mixing short and long terms would expand diversity.

Such an approach would offer several advantages. While every appointment would remain important, judicial nominations would no longer be as likely to become political Armageddon. The new justice’s service would be bounded with his exit from office already set, and another appointment would be due a couple of years later.

Term limits also would ensure a steady transformation of the court’s membership. New additions at regular intervals would encourage intellectual as well as physical rejuvenation of the court. No longer would justices attempt to desperately hang on in order to outlast a president of another party. Law rather than health would determine the pace of judicial appointments.

Most important, fixed terms would establish judicial accountability. Justices still would be independent, largely immune to political retaliation for their decisions. Thus, if so inclined, they still could “resist every encroachment upon rights expressly stipulated for in the constitution by the declaration of rights.”

Nevertheless, abusive judges would no longer serve for life. Elective officials could reassert control over the court without destroying the judicial institution. There would be no court-packing, a la Franklin Delano Roosevelt, as transformation would take time, over two or three presidencies.

The Supreme Court has become as consequential as the presidency in making public policy. Indeed, contrary to their originally envisioned role, judges have become as likely as politicians to push to expand state power and limit individual liberty. It is necessary to find a way to impose accountability while preserving independence. Appointing judges to fixed terms would simultaneously achieve both objectives.


Doug 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.

Florida: Appeals Court Upholds ‘Docs vs. Glocks’ Gun Law

In 2011, at the urging of the NRA and Unified Sportsmen of Florida, the Florida Legislature passed  HB-155 by Rep. Jason Brodeur & Sen. Greg Evers  to stop doctors from interrogating patients about gun ownership and entering gun ownership information into medical databases — thereby creating a de facto database of gun owners.

Simply put, physicians interrogating and lecturing parents and children about guns is not about gun safety. It is a political agenda to ban guns.

Parents do not take their children to physicians for a political lecture against the ownership of firearms, they go there for medical care.

The final version of HB-155 passed both the House and Senate with more than two-thirds majorities.

However, numerous national level organizations (known to be anti-gun) filed a lawsuit to stop enforcement of the new law, creating a four year legal battle.  Yesterday, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law.

Below is a news report that is reprinted with permission:

APPEALS COURT UPHOLDS DOCTOR-PATIENT GUN LAW

By JIM SAUNDERS
THE NEWS SERVICE OF FLORIDA

THE CAPITAL, TALLAHASSEE, July 28, 2015………. For the second time in little more than a year, a federal appeals court Tuesday upheld a controversial Florida law that restricts doctors from asking questions and recording information about patients’ gun ownership.

The 2-1 decision by a panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was a victory for the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights advocates and a defeat for medical groups that argued, at least in part, that the law infringed on doctors’ First Amendment rights.

The appeals court last July also upheld the 2011 law but issued a revised ruling Tuesday. After last year’s decision, medical groups continued challenging the law, including asking for a rehearing before the entire Atlanta-based appeals court.

Dubbed the “docs vs. glocks” law, the measure includes a series of restrictions on doctors and other health providers. As an example, it seeks to prevent physicians from entering information about gun ownership into medical records if the physicians know the information is not “relevant” to patients’ medical care or safety or to the safety of other people.

As another example, the law says doctors should refrain from asking about gun ownership by patients or family members unless the doctors believe in “good faith” that the information is relevant to medical care or safety. Also, the law seeks to prevent doctors from discriminating against patients or “harassing” them because of owning firearms.

A federal district judge in 2012 sided with opponents of the law and issued an injunction against it. But the appeals court last July and again Tuesday overturned the injunction.

“The purpose of the act, as we read it, is not to protect patient privacy by shielding patients from any and all discussion about firearms with their physicians; the act merely requires physicians to refrain from broaching a concededly sensitive topic when they lack any good-faith belief that such information is relevant to the medical care or safety of their patients or others,” said the majority opinion, written by Judge Gerald Tjoflat and joined by Judge L. Scott Coogler.

But Judge Charles Wilson wrote a lengthy dissent arguing that the law violates the First Amendment rights of physicians.

“Simply put, the act is a gag order that prevents doctors from even asking the first question in a conversation about firearms,” Wilson wrote. “The act prohibits or significantly chills doctors from expressing their views and providing information to patients about one topic and one topic only, firearms.”

The Republican-dominated Legislature and Gov. Rick Scott approved the law after hearing accounts of doctors unnecessarily asking questions about gun ownership or even refusing to continue providing care if such questions were not answered.

In Tuesday’s majority opinion, Tjoflat repeatedly pointed to instances in which doctors can continue justify asking about firearms, such as in the case of a patient considered at risk of suicide.

“Thus, a physician may make inquiries as to the firearms-ownership status of any or all patients, so long as he or she does so with the good-faith belief — based on the specifics of the patient’s case — that the inquiry is relevant to the patient’s medical care or safety, or the safety of others,” the majority opinion said. “If, for example, the physician seeks firearm information to suit a personal agenda unrelated to medical care or safety, he or she would not be making a ‘good-faith’ inquiry, and so the act plainly directs him to refrain from inquiring.”

But Wilson’s dissent raised questions about whether the law stemmed from anecdotal incidents. He also argued that doctors should have the right to ask questions about guns in addressing the well-being of patients.

“There is nothing to suggest that the doctors’ inquiries or messages regarding firearms were not genuinely believed to be in the patients’ best medical interest when given,” Wilson wrote. “But there is evidence in the legislative history to suggest that the harassment provision (of the law) is designed to prevent these conversations from taking place in the future. That is certainly the result it will achieve. Doctors will largely cease inquiring into and counseling on the topic of firearms, lest they be accused of crossing the line between providing life-saving preventive medical information and promoting an anti-firearm political agenda.”

–END–
7/28/2015

© 2015 The News Service of Florida. All rights reserved. Posting or forwarding this material without permission is prohibited. You can view the Terms of Use on our website. Independent and Indispensable http://www.newsserviceflorida.com

Oklahoma Supreme Court: The Ten Commandments Suck!

635713507058167020-AP-Oklahoma-Capitol-Ten-CommandmentsLook, this ain’t hard. Once a person abandons the solid moral foundation of the Ten Commandments, that person will have complete and continual instability in his life.

Extrapolating from there to a social context indicates that this principal of moral instability follows a society which abandons the solid foundation of the 10 Commandments in exchange for the illusion of a foundation built on the shifting sand of cultural relativism.

On today’s show we illustrate this critical element of humanity by using the 10 Commandment controversy in Oklahoma and how it relates to each American.

Important stuff, tune in.

Shariah Law: A Major Threat to American Civilization

Since the founding of the United States of America, Liberty has been one of the great hallmarks of our beloved republic.  It is one of the unalienable rights recognized in and protected be the U.S. Constitution.  The blessed right to Liberty or (freedom with responsibility) entails the ability to believe, express, and practice one’s faith according to their own conscience.  There liberties, however, are not absolute and must operate within the bounds of the law.  So for the most part even today, when disagreements and controversies arise in the United States, they are battled in the free marketplace of ideas or resolved in a court of law governed by the laws enacted Congress and state legislatures.  Those laws indiscriminately govern people of all races, religions, and social classes now living throughout America.  They are required to comply with the United States Constitution.

One of the great stories of American history is how until recently, millions upon millions of legal immigrants came into this country and quickly assimilated themselves into the population.  Growing up in Cleveland I saw firsthand the results of the grateful teeming masses who poured unto our shores.  It is called Little Italy, where generations of a community of sovereign citizens whose ancestors came to America seeking a better life.  To this very day their descendants are grateful that their grandparents and great grandparents chose to come to America.

Unfortunately, America is now being plagued with growing dedicated Muslim neighborhood bunkers that are increasingly ruled by shariah law.  First of all, Shari’a law is a brutal war on women concept that is foreign to our society.  The war on women shariah law way of death is not legally approved by most American authorities (although officials in Dearbornistan, MI have been rumored to look the other way while shariah law has been practiced there.)  But it is still generally thought to be incompatible with the existing law of this land and, in numerous respects, contrary to natural justice.

Brutal, uncivilized, dedicated Muslim-shariah law was started approximately fourteen hundred years ago.  The bitter illiterate prophet Mohamed is credited with the origins of Islam.  He spread his dogma at the end of a sword.  One thing that sets the Muslim-shariah concept apart from most other religions is that it not only covers one’s spiritual walk with a deity, but it is a vicious and cruel legal system.  It entails a comprehensive code of law governing the total social, political, and economic lives of all Muslims that must be enforced by the state.

To this day, many Americans still stupidly believe there are moderate and so-called radical Islamic organizations.  All the while, I have and still believe that a Muslim is either dedicated or non- practicing. Simply because the so-called moderate Muslims fully agree with their “radical” friends that using the freedoms we hold dear in America in order to gain control of America is the way to go.  Muslim groups and communities in the U.S. the U.K., France and elsewhere have become bastions of bigoted bullies, who are by any means they deem necessary to gain more and more control of our republic.

I have no doubt that the Islamists are conspiring to overthrow our Constitutionally limited republic way of life.  It is the goal of all dedicated Muslims to take over every society, including the United States of America.  Every dedicated Muslim is waiting for the time to strike the unbelieving infidel, as they are instructed many times in their Qua-ran.  To often, people in the media and in the judiciary do not understand or don’t desire to recognize the alarming threat the dedicated Islamists pose to our nation that has grown too soft for it’s own good.

The worldwide threat of brutal, political Islam now fully ensconced in the United States has become a major danger to our often gullible citizenry.  The Islamic brutes have already begun forcing their insane ideology to force submission to Allah) not only in our America, but in numerous nations throughout the world.  There are reams of documented evidence of the racist proclivities of the Islamists who as of this reading hold thousands of black slaves under the most horrid conditions imaginable.  I find it ironic that the progressive American racist hunters don’t seem to be willing to target the racist Muslims for rebuke.  I label them racist because dedicated muslims are instructed in their Quran to view black people as slaves and raisin heads.

In future columns I will feature more history regarding those who tell the world about the peaceful religion of Islam, while raping, beheading, drowning people for not being Muslim or for being black.  In the meantime, my fellow Americans, drop political correctness like the bad habit it is and help rescue our republic from those who would kill us for sport.  That is their way of spreading the message of the twisted mind of their long dead pedophile-prophet.   If you are so inclined, please pray for the forgiveness of God almighty for the role any of us may have played in opening the door to the massive assault on this, still the greatest nation in the history of the world.