TULSA, Okla. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Fit First Responders Foundation Founder, Coach Jonathan “JC” Conneely, is inviting Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton to come to Tulsa, Oklahoma and “walk in the shoes of a police officer.”
“White Americans need to do a better job listening when African Americans talk … about the seen and unseen barriers you face every day,” she said. “We need to try as best we can to walk in one another’s shoes, to imagine what it would feel like if people followed us around stores or locked their car doors when we walked past.”
Coach JC challenges Clinton to do just that – come experience one on one force training and then visit the Fit First Responders training facility so she may experience first hand what police officers across the country experience every day. Coach JC invites Clinton to experience what Reverend Moffett experienced in Phoenix.
“I want to personally invite you, Hillary Clinton, to come walk in the shoes of our police officers to experience what they endure mentally and physically to be prepared on the job. If you are not willing to practice what you are preaching, I am respectfully asking you to not use our police officers for your political gain without actually walking in their shoes, as you have suggested in previous speeches,” says Fit First Responders Founder Coach JC.
Fit First Responders Founder, Jonathan Conneely (PRNewsFoto/Fit First Responders)
ABOUT FIT FIRST RESPONDERS
Fit First Responders, a nonprofit foundation that empowers police officers, firefighters, EMSA medics, and National Guard to win in their fitness, nutrition, and in life by offering physical and mental conditioning, nutrition workshops, and life coaching. The foundation currently serves over 500 first responders in the Tulsa, Oklahoma area and will be in cities across America in late 2016.
Fit First Responders Foundation was created to improve the mental and physical health of Tulsa police officers helping them be their best. As a result, officers lost weight, got off medications, restored their marriages, prevented suicides, lowered workers comp and insurance costs for the city. Learn more here.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/tulsa-police-officers-e1469014203935.jpg360640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2016-07-20 07:30:582016-07-20 07:30:58Challenge to Hillary Clinton: 'Walk in the shoes of a police officer!'
I have written that Democratic Party policy is now being driven by three unlikely minority groups: the Collectivists (Socialists and Communists), the Homosexualists (both gay and straight) and the Islamists (those who follow the teaching of Mohammed).
It appears that these three forces came together in Dallas, Texas to slaughter police officers andother innocents. The leader of this Black Lives Matter protest was a gay man named Jeff Hood, who dresses link a Sunni Muslim.
Each of these groups are being given special status by President Obama and his administration. They now feel empowered to do whatever they need to take control. For you see this is all about control.
Jeff Hood, the organizer of the July 7th Dallas Black Lives Matter rally is a homosexual Islamist who calls himself a Christian pastor. To provide proper context– in 2015, after Americans protested the CAIR organized “Respect the Prophet” event in Dallas, Jeff Hood said: “I think that Texas Muslims are the real Christians.”
After the Paris attacks, he wrote a blog entry about “The Call of the Muslim Jesus” sympathizing with the Islamists and ISIS who are marginalized by society. He wrote:
“In our Islamophobic society, I have no question that Jesus is so intimately incarnated with and connected to our Muslim friends that he has become one. If we want to walk with Jesus in this moment of extreme oppression and marginalization, we will too.”
Along with this post, Hood advocates that Jesus converted to Islam– and posted a picture of Jesus as a Muslim…
5 Dallas officers slain, deadliest day for police since 9/11.
Breitbart Newsalso reported that the alleged pastor wanted to create a space for violence:
Breitbart points out that in a June 18 website post, Hood referred to Jesus being present to “Keep blowing sh#@ up baby!” He led a worship service about which he described:
Just this past week, I felt the hands again. One by one, the children of God at the Church at the Table in Fort Worth stopped to affirm and celebrate my ministry. In the midst of the reverence of it all, Jesus showed up. One of my dear friends shouted out, “Keep blowing shit up baby!” I will. Amen.
On his website, BelieveOutLoud, Hood describes himself as “the author of three books, The Queer: An Interaction with The Gospel of John, The Queering of an American Evangelical and The Sociopathic Jesus. A Southerner, Queer, and Christian, Jeff is a committed activist, visionary writer and radical prophetic voice to a closed society.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/jeff-hood.jpg517638Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2016-07-09 05:48:202016-07-10 05:55:12Organizer of Dallas BLM rally a 'gay Islamist' who wanted to 'create space for rage'
Even those who, like me, aren’t supporters of Trump, should see what is at stake here. Everywhere Leftist protesters occupy the streets, those whose opinions are deemed insufficiently progressive are abused, mocked, ridiculed, brutalized and physically menaced. This lawlessness is rapidly becoming the norm. The American public square is being transformed beyond recognition and is ceasing to be an arena for free discourse.
Although this violence and brutalization of political opponents is a new phenomenon in American politics, it has a historical antecedent: the Nazi Brownshirts. In The Coming of the Third Reich, historian Richard J. Evans explains how, in the early days of National Socialist Germany, Stormtroopers (Brownshirts) “organized campaigns against unwanted professors in the local newspapers [and] staged mass disruptions of their lectures.”
To express dissent from Nazi positions became a matter of taking one’s life into one’s hands. The idea of people of opposing viewpoints airing their disagreements in a civil and mutually respectful manner was gone. One was a Nazi, or one was silent (and fearful). That is just the kind of public arena that the Left has been trying to bring to the United States for years, and is bringing to us now.
“‘F- the police!’ Total mayhem as protesters swarm NYC; police struggle to fight back vicious crowd,” by Carmine Sabia, BizPac Review, March 19, 2016:
It didn’t take long for protesters to take to the streets of New York City and march against Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump.
They were taking their cue from the other side of the country, where in Arizona protesters blocked roads, causing delays for people on their way to a Trump rally attended by former Gov. Jan Brewer and Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
The New York City protesters marched from Columbus Square to Trump Tower with signs such as “#CrushTrump” and chanted slogans like the super creative “Hey, hey – ho, ho – Donald Trump has got to go,” CNN Reported.
At one point the “peaceful” protesters, as the mainstream media continues to call them, got into an altercation with police who were trying to regain order. The following clip shows the crowd struggling against police. As tensions escalated obscenities were thrown at the officers. ‘F**k the police!’ can be heard along with other countless other insults….
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/AntiTrumphijabis-e1458551966126.jpg332640Robert Spencerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRobert Spencer2016-03-21 05:20:432016-03-22 06:52:40Video of anti-Trump rally: Followers of Marx and Mohammed battle NYPD, scream 'f–k the police!'
The Islamic State’s Caliphate Cyber Army posted a “kill list” of names, addresses and other personal details of 36 policemen in Minnesota.
The FBI confirmed the list included full names, phone numbers, home and email addresses. The agency is investigating how the information came to be posted online.
The website Vocativ, which conducts investigations on the “Deep Web,” says individual cards with the information on them were shared through the mobile phone app Telegram, an encrypted messaging service (similar to Whats App).
“It is troubling to have that type of information online for the public to see,” FBI spokesperson Kyle Loven said.
Officer safety is the agency’s first concern, Loven added.
“We’re not going to look into whether or not this is a legitimate threat or an illegitimate threat,” he continued. “We’re going to take it and move forward with respect to what it is that we have to do in addressing this matter.”
Minnesota police officers confirmed their site had been hacked and the officers listed were those employers who had requested a quote for auto insurance,CBS local news in Minnesota reported.
The FBI advised officers on the list to maintain a heightened state of awareness “in case there would be someone who, unfortunately, would be inspired by this type of information being available,” Loven said.
The fact that Islamic extremists in Minnesota have successfully recruited and trained terrorists in the past is being taken into consideration by the FBI.
Most of the officers on the list live in or around the Twin Cities (Minneapolis and St. Paul). The area’s Cedar Riverside neighborhood is home to the largest Somali community in the U.S. Since 2007, 24 men from Cedar Riverside have left the community to join extremist groups.
According to a congressional report released last November, one in four Americans who have attempted to joined the Islamic State are from Minnesota.
Also last week, the CCA posted a threat to financial institutions, saying they would target “banks, money transfer services, stocks and so on.” The threat, made on the group’s Telegram channel, continued, “Beware of us, economical war has just started.”
In November, a group called the Islamic State Cyber Army posted names and addresses of a number of people who have worked for American security agencies (although some of the details were already public).
In October, a UK citizen connected with the Islamic State published the home address of Robert O’Neill, the Navy Seal who killed Osama Bin Laden.
The officers’ ranks, employee numbers and working locations were disclosed, as well as some home addresses.
A file containing the information on the officers, who all work for the transit police, was uploaded to an Arabic-language, file-sharing site, which showed that in less than 24 hours, the file had been downloaded 300 times.
Announcing the upload on the secure messaging service Telegram, the CCA described the file as “Personal information of the US police stations including Leaders and officers.”
In response, the New Jersey Transit System issued a statement which read, “The NJ Transit Information System was not compromised, however some information was breached from an outside vendor. The New Jersey Transit police are working the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI on this matter.”
The Caliphate Cyber Army is comprised of hackers sympathetic to the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) and has mainly been successful in taking down small, unsecure websites and substituting its own propaganda.
However, last November, the “army” hacked into 54,000 Twitter accounts, posting the accounts’ passwords online. The group also posted the cell phone numbers of the CIA, the FBI and the National Security Agency.
The army was able to briefly control a Pentagon Twitter account in January.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Islamic-State-Caliphate-Cyber-Army-IP.gif356640Clarion Projecthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngClarion Project2016-03-08 10:08:422016-03-10 07:49:22Islamic State Hackers Publish Names, Addresses of New Jersey Police
After the January shooting of a Philadelphia police officer at point blank range, New York City police took seriously a tip about an ex-con on parole, who allegedly pledged allegiance to the Islamic State and threatened to kill a cop.
While the entire NYPD force was put on alert, the suspect, Marcus Shelton, 36, surrendered to a parole officer January 20. Shelton was wanted on two counts of parole violations and it remains undecided as to whether or not he will be charged with making a threat.
The drama began the previous day when the NYPD received an anonymous phone call saying that Shelton intended to shoot a police officer. A similar call (placed from New York) was also received by the Philadelphia Police Department. One of the callers said Shelton had pledged allegiance to the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL).
Shelton has a history of 20 prior arrests and served time for drug possession and assault. He was in violation of his parole for possession of marijuana as well as for bending a NYC MetroCard to ride free.
In Philadelphia, police officer Jesse Hartnett was shot three times in the arm on Jan. 7 by Edward Archer, gunman who said he had pledged allegiance to ISIS.
When the call came into the NYPD, all police were issued an Officer Safety Alert. “Be mindful that any call, regardless of how insignificant it appears to be, may be a set up,” said the head of NYPD’s largest union, Patrick Lynch at the time.
“We are taking it serious based on what happened in Philadelphia a couple of weeks ago,” said Thomas Galati, chief of the NYPD Intelligence Bureau.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Islamic-State-Dabiq-6-AdvicHP_5.gif320640Clarion Projecthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngClarion Project2016-01-22 04:26:022016-01-22 04:27:44New York City Muslim Threatens to Kill Cop, Vows Support for the Islamic State
In FrontPage today I explain why Philly Mayor Jim Kenney would be the funniest man in the City of Brotherly Love, if the stakes weren’t so high.
Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney (center)
Philadelphia comedian Jim Kenney has a flair for absurdist humor, and his talents were on abundant display Thursday, when a local jihadi, a convert to Islam named Edward Archer, shot and seriously wounded police officer Jesse Hartnett, and then explained: “I follow Allah. I pledge my allegiance to the Islamic state. That is why I did what I did.” Kenney’s response was as dazzling a sendup of the willful ignorance of today’s public officials as you’ll ever see.
Pretending to be the Mayor of Philadelphia, Kenney, one of the most daring and imaginative comedians on the scene today, said this after showing a surveillance video of Archer garbed in Islamic dress and shooting at Hartnett: “In no way shape or form does anyone in this room believe that Islam or the teaching of Islam has anything to do with what you’ve seen on the screen….It is abhorrent. It is terrible and it does not represent the religion or any of its teachings. This is a criminal with a stolen gun who tried to kill one of our officers. It has nothing to do with being a Muslim or following the Islamic faith.”
Brilliant! Kenney had the audience laughing, clapping and howling for more with his poker-faced impersonation of an intentionally clueless contemporary public official. His performance recalled some of the career highlights of Barack Obama, John Kerry, and their British colleague in comedy, David Cameron, such as Obama’s classifying the Fort Hood jihad massacre as “workplace violence” and Kerry’s suggesting that all jihadis needed to discard their romantic dreams of being a modern-day warrior for Allah would be a chance to say “Would you like fries with that?”
Kenney, however, went them one better by issuing his risible claims even in the face of Archer’s own claims about why he shot Hartnett, as well as Police Commissioner Richard Ross’ statement about Archer: “According to him, police bend laws that are contrary to the teachings of the Qur’an.”
Contrary to the teachings of the Qur’an? How could that possibly have anything to do with Islam? Clearly Kenney has a bright future on the comedy circuit.
There’s just one catch: Jim Kenney really is the Mayor of Philadelphia. His statements represent the official position of his administration: that despite Edward Archer’s explicit avowals to have acted in the name of Allah and Islam, he wasn’t really doing so. He just thought he was.
Poor Archer! What does he have to do to get taken seriously as a jihadi? If shooting a police officer multiple times and pledging allegiance to the Islamic State, which has called on Muslims in the U.S. to attack police officers, won’t do it, what will? Would it help if he had passed out Qur’ans on the morning of his shooting, told a neighbor that he was going to do something great for God, and screamed “Allahu akbar” as he was firing? No, Army psychiatrist Major Nidal Malik Hasan did that as he murdered thirteen Americans in Fort Hood on November 5, 2009, and that one, as we have seen, was “workplace violence.” How about if he said, as Boston Marathon jihad murderer Dzokhar Tsarnaev did, that he and his brother cooked up the entire jihad mass murder plot to “defend Islam”? No, everyone knows that one happened because Americans weren’t friendly enough to the immigrant brothers. How about if he had been reading literature by jihad mastermind Anwar al-Awlaki and spoke about Islamic martyrdom, like Chattanooga jihad murderer Mohammed Abdulazeez? No, that one has proved a real head-scratcher, with authorities puzzled as to the motives for months.
So what could Archer possibly have done? Trying to think of anything he could have said or done to convince Jim Kenney that he was acting in the name of Islam and in accord with its teachings of warfare against unbelievers simply beggars the imagination. For the Jim Kenneys of the world are simply certain that people just do not do such things, despite any amount of evidence to the contrary. For Kenney and his ilk, Muslims are victims, no matter what. They are never at fault, no matter what they do, and in the unlikely event that they commit an act of violence, it was because they were mentally ill, or pushed over the edge by “Islamophobia” and the unkindness of white Americans.
Jim Kenney and others like him don’t need the facts of any particular case to arrive at this conclusion. They know it already, and could have a form handy: “The terror attack on [date] at [place] had nothing whatsoever to do with Islam, the noble religion of peace. We call upon all people to reject racism, bigotry and Islamophobia, and we stand with the Muslim community in condemning backlash attacks against innocent Muslims during this difficult period.”
FDR could have used one of these forms in 1942 or 1943: “The military attack on [date] at [place] had nothing whatsoever to do with Germany, the noble nation of Central Europe. We call upon all people to reject racism, bigotry and Germanophobia, and we stand with the German community in condemning backlash attacks against innocent Germans during this difficult period.”
If the President had had such forms during World War II, would the United States have won the war? Probably not. And the denial today makes it harder for us to win this one: instead of calling the Muslim community in the U.S. to account and making sure that jihadis are not operating within it, officials pander to it and deny the stated motive of our enemies, and thus condemn us to ignorance about the motives and goals of those enemies at a time when they are more active than ever.
Jim Kenney is not concerned about any of that. He doesn’t even think we’re in a war, so why should he care if we’re waging it all wrong? And if the voters of Philadelphia ever catch on to how they’re being lied to and throw him out of office, he’s got a great career ahead in standup comedy.
RELATED VIDEO: Fox News interview on Philadelphia jihad shooting and Cologne Muslim sex assaults:
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Jim-Kenney-e1452599345321.jpg417640Robert Spencerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRobert Spencer2016-01-12 06:51:312016-01-12 07:04:17Philly Shooter: I Did It For Allah -- Philly Mayor: No, You Didn’t!
The reaction from authorities is completely according to the same old tired script. One wonders how they can keep a straight face. There needs to be an investigation into how Islamic jihadis are incited to violence by Islamic texts and teachings. These officials are obfuscating the need for such an investigation.
“Police: Gunman shot cop ‘in name of Islam,’” Philly.com, January 8, 2016:
While not classifying the shooting as a terrorist attack, police said Friday the man arrested after shooting and wounding a police officer in an ambush in West Philadelphia Thursday night confessed he acted “in the name of Islam.”
Police Commissioner Richard Ross at the same time revealed the weapon used to wound Officer Jesse Hartnett was a police 9mm semiautomatic pistol stolen in 2013 from an officer’s home.
Capt. James Clark, homicide unit commander, said suspect Edward Archer, told detectives: “I follow Allah. I pledge my allegiance to the Islamic state. That is why I did what I did.”
“He confessed to committing this act in the name of Islam,” Ross said at a news conference Friday afternoon.
He said the suspect told detectives he believed police enforced laws counter to Islam.
Archer’s mother has indicated that he is mentally ill and Ross said investigators do not know yet if the suspect was indeed radicalized or tied to terrorism.
“We will see where the investigation leads us,” said Ross, adding officers were executing search warrants.
Mayor Kenney stressed whatever the gunman’s motive, it had “nothing to do” with Islam.
Jacob Bender, executive director of the Philadelphia chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations, said more investigation is needed.
“We need more information,” Bender said. “Was he in contact with any bona fide terrorist or anything like that? We don’t know.”
He said Archer’s name was not immediately familiar to some of the imams with whom he spoke Friday morning.
What a surprise.
Echoing statements by Kenney and other officials, Bender said: “This should not be seen as representative of Muslims or the faith of Islam.”
All right. But when is there going to be some investigation into why all this un-Islamic Islamic violence keeps happening?
…Reached at her home in Lansdowne, his mother, Valerie Holliday, said Archer was the eldest of seven children and suffered head injuries from playing football and a moped accident.
“He’s been acting kind of strange lately. He’s been talking to himself . . . laughing and mumbling,” Holliday said. “He’s been hearing voices in his head. We asked him to get medical help.”
She said her son is devout Muslim who has practiced the faith “for a long time.”
“He’s going through a lot lately,” Holliday said, adding Archer believed he was targeted by police.
“I don’t know how he got the gun,” she said. “I’m still hoping they have the wrong child.”…
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Edwars-Archer-philly-muslim-shooter.jpg370640Robert Spencerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRobert Spencer2016-01-09 06:01:382016-01-10 04:35:50Muslim cop shooter: “I follow Allah. I pledge my allegiance to the Islamic State”
I was attacked and injured by a Muslim Iranian woman in Ottawa in front of the Parliament Hill in 2009 for waving the Real Iran Flag (image of the Lion and Sun right) in my hand. Identifying the attacker took than over 3.5 years for Ottawa police. Actually, I found her by chance in Tony Young’s website, where she and her family were invited at Tony’s open house Xmas party in December 2011.
The Muslim woman who attacked me admitted the assault and told the detective in charge of my case that she became very emotional and upset when she saw the old Iran flag waving in my hand and could not control her anger and storm toward me to vanish the flag.
But despite her confession, the Ottawa Police decided not to press any charges against her.
FYI , after she was identified, we were informed that the woman held American Green Card but lived mostly in Ottawa with one of her daughters whose immigration case was rejected by Canada due to failing her medical test where it was given so much publicity by Mainstream Media for. But non of those MSM were interested in interviewing me and giving publicity to the assault.
I do not have anything personally against my attacker but since we live in Canada, under the rule of law, we should all be treated equally without given favoritism. I did not leave Iran to come to Canada to be accosted and persecuted by the same law that victimized me in Iran. In Canada, under Mr. Trudeau’s power, if someone verbally says something that a Muslim might find it ;’offensive’, she/her will be charged on the Spot by the Police. Ottawa. Hope you realize my point and I am sure if Christ was to judge me as a Christian, He would want me to speak up for my rights.
Shortly after reading my incident report, the Ottawa police Crown Prosecutor told the police detective that there may be a bad blood between the women!!!
I told the detective, “what Bad Blood, I never saw that woman in my life before, how could be there any bad blood?” And after 3.5 years. I found who she was…
Please read the following email sent to me by the Ottawa Police detective:
From: Detective XX
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 23:01:29
To: Shabnam Asassadollahi
Subject: RE: Case # XX _The assault_ 2009 in front of the Parliament Hill
Hello Ms. Assadollahi, I have interviewed the people involved in this incident including the older woman. After considering all the aspects of the matter, including the nature of the incident, the emotions and circumstances surrounding it, the absence of a continuation or repetition of the offence, the administration of justice, and directives from the court and crown attorney, no criminal charges will be laid in this matter. It will be finalized by another measure which will indicate that the subject could have been charged but was not. I am currently away from the office at the moment but will likely check my e-mail before I officially return. Feel free to contact me by e-mail of by leaving a message at extension.
I am curious to know that if the above assault was vise-versa, how would the Ottawa Police conduct their judgment?
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/ottawa-police-shoulder-patch.jpg357635Shabnam Assadollahihttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngShabnam Assadollahi2015-12-14 07:32:532015-12-15 04:00:35The double standard of the Ottawa Police and Canadian Mainstream Media
One thing worse than supporting bad policy is knowingly supporting bad policy.
Worse still is knowingly supporting bad policy and shielding yourself from its destructive effects — while visiting that policy on children.
There has been much debate recently surrounding so-called “gun-free zones,” places such as schools, where law-abiding people won’t carry guns. But really there should be no debate. This is because it’s plain that even the zones’ defenders — liberals — don’t really believe they’re a good idea.
For evidence, consider a largely forgotten video made in 2013 by Project Veritas (PJ) after The Journal News in Westchester, N.Y., printed the names and addresses of registered handgun owners in its coverage area.
Posing as “Citizens Against Senseless Violence,” PJ operatives visited the homes of Eric Holder and various liberal journalists to ask them if they’d “support the cause” and post on their lawns a sign stating “THIS HOME IS PROUDLY GUN FREE.”
Not one accepted.
At the home of The Journal News’ Greg Shillinglaw they were told, “In this neighborhood that nobody puts out stuff like that” (except maybe at the schools?). The person at the Shillinglaw home concluded with, “I do believe in it, but I think I’ll pass on it.”
Translation: he believes in it for others.
Next was the Journal’s Mike Meaney. A woman answered the door and tersely said “I’m sorry, I can’t help, but good luck. …I have other reasons [for refusal] I can’t get into right now.” But, hey, they just needed to speak to ol’ Mike personally — I’m sure he’d snatch one of those signs up quicker than Hillary Clinton changes personalities.
The next one, the Star Ledger’s Bob Braun, offered tremendous support. Without missing a beat he said, “I agree with you and I am on your side on this, but I’m just wondering if that’s not an invitation to somebody with a gun!” as he emitted a chuckle. His wife chimed in, “I agree with you, but I’m not sure about the sign.” Braun then said moments later, “The problem in this town is, you know, somebody driving around here might think it’s a — seriously — might think it’s an invitation to come barging in.” But Braun did offer this consolation: “Well, if the sign said “Citizens Against Senseless Violence” without “THIS HOME IS PROUDLY GUN FREE,” I would put the sign up.”
Because a Gun-free-zone is a bad idea.
Except at schools.
Because the people who might drive around and barge into Braun’s house in Elizabeth, N.J., could never drive around and barge into schools in Elizabeth, N.J.
Or maybe it’s that children in Elizabeth, N.J., are bulletproof?
Now, it apparently took Braun — smart liberal that he is — all of two and a half seconds to figure out that putting a gun-free-zone sign on his lawn is a bad idea. Logically translated, it amounts to advertising, “We’re defenseless.” Yet he presumably supports them “in principle”; after all, he didn’t say, “Look, I support gun control, but not these zones.” So what’s the story here? Was this the first time he pondered the matter for two and a half seconds? When advocating policy, did he only consider it for 4/10ths of a second?
Clearly, these liberals either never thought their policies through or just couldn’t care less as long as their laws only hurt others. So take your pick: gross negligence or callous disregard.
Delving a bit deeper, we’re witnessing a typical leftist phenomenon: style over substance, image over reality. These liberals want to be seen as “good” people in their milieu; they want to appear enlightened in their echo chamber of effeteness. And achieving this has nothing to do with action. All their fellow travelers, that caponhood of hypocrisy, are as two-faced as they are. It’s all about what you say — all about posturing.
It’s reminiscent of some NYC liberals — in a gentrifying Brooklyn neighborhood fittingly called “Dumbo” — up in arms because “diversity” has come home: they’ve learned that their kids may be forced to attend school with poor minorities. One Dumbo parent actually said, “It’s more complicated when it’s about your own children.” Yes.
And it’s more complicated when it’s about your own lawn.
Except that it really isn’t. It just seems so when it’s the first time in your life the realities of your ideology are brought home to you. Much like the youngster I once heard wonder why problems of poverty couldn’t be solved by just making more money, things can seem very simple to a child; they can also seem simple to a childish person, someone content to operate on emotion like a child or too self-centered — like a very young child — to consider how his actions, attitudes and advocacy affect others. This is the way of the overgrown juvenile masquerading as an adult that we euphemistically call a liberal.
But here’s the reality. Saying the politically correct thing — such as supporting gun-free-zone policies for schools — when you wouldn’t apply the same to your own home because you realize it’s a dangerous idea, doesn’t at all make you a good person. It makes you scum.
You’re willing to imperil American children nationwide just so you can strut around, puff up your chicken-chest and say “Look at me! I have the correct ideology!”
Don’t misunderstand me. Eliminating gun-free zones is no panacea. No doubt, maniacal mass murderers who target schools are to a degree motivated by the copycat factor and the maximized media attention attacking schools brings. Yet schools’ being gun-free zones does make them more attractive targets. And, no, it’s not necessarily because the perpetrators don’t have to fear harm, especially since these individuals often accept that their crime will be a suicide mission. But think about it: if your goal is to massacre a large number of people and go out in a blaze of notoriety, you want to ensure you won’t be stopped before your deed is done. Gun-free zones virtually guarantee this.
As for the “gun-free-zone for thee but not for me” liberals, I’m firmly convinced that some (not all, of course), on some level, aren’t all that troubled by school shootings. After all, it provides a great opportunity to beat the gun-control drum for people to whom “the cause” is everything. I mean, if you want to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs. And what does it matter as long as the egg isn’t the egghead in the mirror, right?
Of course, there’s generally no such thing as being truly insulated from the consequences of your bad decisions. You know those gun-free-zone signs you think are such a bad idea that you wouldn’t put them in front of the home in which your child lives?
They could be in front of the school in which your child studies.
I’m talking about those signs that mean “We’re defenseless. Commit your massacre here. You’ll get 9 or 10 before the guys with guns arrive and stop you.”
Not that this will change many liberal’s hearts (forget the minds). The chances of a given liberal’s only child being killed in a school massacre are extremely slim. But the chances of getting that proud, self-satisfied, warm and fuzzy feeling from mouthing the right position and being accepted by the right people are 100 percent.
But if it does happen, perhaps you can console yourself with the knowledge that you took one for the cause, can rage in the media and maybe even appear in front of Congress. I just wonder, will you think it was all worth it?
As for legislation creating gun-free zones, I’m game. Really. But with one condition written in: any politician voting for the bill must put a “Gun Free Zone” zone sign in front of his home. After all, Mr. Compassionate Liberal, if it’s good enough for America’s children, it’s good enough for you.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/gun-free-zone-sign.jpg429640Selwyn Dukehttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngSelwyn Duke2015-10-20 11:29:292015-10-20 16:22:33The Evil of Gun-free Zones
In FrontPage today, I chronicle just another day in the suicidal West.
Last week a fifteen-year-old Muslim, Farhad Jabar Khalil Mohammad, went to a police station in New South Wales and shot dead a civilian police employee, Curtis Cheng. After the murder, the young murderer was, according to an eyewitness, “dancing joyously.” Outside the station, he waved his gun at police and screamed “Allahu akbar” at them before he was killed in the ensuing gunfight.
In the wake of this jihad murder, Australian officials have behaved in an utterly predictable manner – one that we have seen many, many times before in Western countries, and that we will doubtless see many more times as well: they rushed to profess ignorance of the killer’s motives and above all, to defend Islam.
None of these officials are Muslims. They have all just been thoroughly indoctrinated with the idea that to look too closely at the motivating ideology behind murders like that of Curtis Cheng would be “hateful” and “bigoted.”
And so Pat Gooley from the New South Wales Police Association said: “We are used to being under threat. What’s really concerning police is there’s no rhyme or reason to these current terror threats.”
No rhyme or reason? Have you ever heard of jihad, Mr. Gooley? Evidently not.
Other police officials, meanwhile, made themselves busy ensuring that Farhad Jabar Khalil Mohammad’s jihad murder doesn’t lead anyone to think there is anything amiss with the Muslim community. The murder “was doubly shocking because it was perpetrated by a 15-year-old boy and it underlines the importance of families, communities, leaders being very aware of whether young people are becoming radicalised,” said Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, complacently assuming that Muslim “families, communities, leaders” in Australia are against this “radicalization” — but where is the evidence of that?
Turnbull also said: “We must not vilify or blame the entire Muslim community with the actions of what is, in truth, a very, very small percentage of violent extremist individuals. The Muslim community are our absolutely necessary partners in combating this type of violent extremism.”
When has the Muslim community in Australia or elsewhere in the West genuinely acted like partners in combating this type of violent extremism? And we must indeed not vilify or blame the entire Muslim community, but can we not call upon them to institute honest, transparent and inspectable programs in mosques and Islamic schools that teach against this understanding of Islam that they ostensibly reject and oppose?
Meanwhile, opposition leader Bill Shorten said: “Our thoughts are also with the family of the alleged young perpetrator. Like all Australians, they will be struggling to comprehend how someone so young could be part of such a terrible crime.” How does he know his family wasn’t involved? Has he carried out an investigation? He assumes that the family taught young Farhad Jabar Khalil Mohammad the true, peaceful Islam, but that he was then “radicalized on the Internet” — but why was his family’s true, peaceful Islam not able to withstand the challenge from the twisted, hijacked Internet Islam?
New South Wales Premier Mike Baird said that he and others were trying to understand “how someone so young could commit such a hideous crime.” He might wish to look into Islam’s teachings about jihad, but he won’t. He also said: “We cannot let actions such as this divide us. We cannot let hate overtake us. We have to come together and I’m sure that’s what we’ll see from this city and state.”
Indeed, we must not let hate overtake us, as it overtook Curtis Cheng. But can we do that by refusing to examine the ideology that led to his murder? By “hate,” Baird means “honest investigation into the texts and teachings of Islam that incite attacks such as this one, and the prevalence of such teachings in the Muslim community.”
And that’s the problem: every time there is another jihad attack or foiled jihad plot in the free world, our leaders just circle the wagons, trot out their Religion-of-Peace cliches again, warn us against “Islamophobia,” and refuse to look into the genuine root causes of the problem.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Farhad-Jabar-Khalil-Mohammad-e1444213035425.jpg360640Robert Spencerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRobert Spencer2015-10-07 06:18:162015-10-07 06:22:44Another Muslim Murders Police Official: Authorities Rush to Defend Islam
Over at PJ Media, I discuss where, and why, police are actually participating in the heinous targeting of certain population[s]:
It’s open season on police officers these days, because many black Americans believe that it’s open season on them. And while some police officers are no doubt hateful, corrupt, and compromised to powerful interests, in the main one must go out of the country to find the real rogue cops: police officers who aid and abet, and sometimes even participate in, the terrorizing of their own people.
Last week, the Supreme Court of Pakistan took the unusual step of criticizing the police’s failure to intervene in the case of a couple, Shahzad and Shama Masih, who were murdered by a lynch mob in Kot Radha Kishan, Punjab, in November 2014. Five police officers stood by and did nothing while a frenzied mob murdered the Masihs.
Why didn’t they step in and stop the lynching? Because the Masihs were Christians, accused of blasphemy.
Blasphemy is a capital crime in Pakistan, but all too often the death sentence is carried out not by duly constituted authorities, but by slavering mobs such as killed Shahzad and Shama Masih.
Police, sharing the mob’s world view, stand by and let it happen.
Sometimes these rogue cops do worse than just stand by while infidels are brutalized.
Earlier this summer in Indonesia, police in the West Papuan city of Karubaga opened fire on worshippers at the local congregation of the Evangelical Church of Indonesia (GIDI), killing a fifteen-year-old boy, Endi Wanimbo, and wounding eleven other Christians. Indonesian authorities have hastened to protect the perpetrators: they have neither arrested the police officers responsible, nor released their names.
National police chief General Badrodin Haiti explained:
The victims were shot because they were pelting stones at Muslims who were just performing Eid prayers.
However, Natalius Pigai of the National Commission for Human Rights contradicted Haiti:
It seems to have been a misunderstanding that Evangelical Church of Indonesia (GIDI) is being hostile to Islam. In fact, they were not planning to burn the mosque. People were upset because of the police shootings.
Haiti appears to be another rogue cop, willing to bend the truth to protect Muslims who harm Christians.
Most troubling, the problem of cops protecting Muslim perpetrators has been occurring in Western countries, too.
In non-Muslim countries, “infidel” police officers are so afraid of offending ever-so-easily-offended Muslim sensibilities that they turn a blind eye to crimes committed by Muslims — particularly when there is justification for such crimes in Islamic scripture and law.
The most appalling example of this came in the British city of Rotherham. There, 1,400 British non-Muslim children were gang-raped and brutalized by Muslims whose actions found Islamic justification in the Qur’an’s allowance for men to take non-Muslim “captives of the right hand” for use as sex slaves (4:3, 4:24, 23:1-6, 33:50).
Police hesitated to act for fear of being considered “Islamophobic.”
They described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought as racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so.
Last November, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) announced that it was going to investigate ten officers of the South Yorkshire Police Department for their role in covering up the activities of Muslim rape gangs in Rotherham.
But in this case, the cops weren’t rogue; their superiors were. These ten police officers were just being set up to take the fall….
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/UK-police-arrest-e1442132512291.jpg370640Robert Spencerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRobert Spencer2015-09-13 04:23:442015-09-13 05:22:22The Real Rogue Cop Problem
Few people will write an article that even comes close to being critical of our U.S. law enforcement officers. Americans are due a non biased review of why law enforcement officers (LEO) are either treated with enormous respect or in many cases are despised by the people they are sworn to serve.
I can effectively write on this issue because my background includes serving almost two decades as a U.S. Federal Agent. I had the opportunity to work with dozens of law enforcement agencies around America. This included local, state and federal agencies. I am happy to give our LEO a pat on the back when they do as they have been sworn to do, or write a critical article for the one’s who have forgotten they are not above any U.S. law.
In America the media and politicians have groomed us to always put LEO on a throne above all other professions aside from our military personnel. LEO are not owed any higher allegiance to their careers than a plumber, factory worker, insurance salesman, athlete, or doctor. People who apply for LEO positions do so because this career is very stable and the pay covers their bills and provides for their families. The popular belief is that LEO enter law enforcement to ‘serve’ the people. This is so far from the truth that no further explanation is needed. For the vast majority it is for a paycheck and for many it feeds their ego’s.
The LEO who enter law enforcement to feed their adrenaline and ego are the one’s who believe they are one step ahead of other Americans. The one’s who do this job for a paycheck are the honest officers and they serve the people because that is what they are paid to do. These officers are the LEO that show respect to all Americans regardless of their wealth status, race, or religion.
The LEO who show disrespect for the people they serve are the one’s who believe some laws apply to them, but not all laws. A few examples: In a busy city it is more likely you will see a police officer in his/her patrol car breaking traffic laws than you will see from citizens. There are some officers who strongly believe it is their job to let citizens know they have the absolute power to make or ruin a person’s day, and in some cases have been known to alter the truth and evidence.
There are LEO who believe they are not subject to the laws of assault and battery. In most states, an assault/battery is committed when one person: 1) tries to or does physically strike another, or 2) acts in a threatening manner to put another in fear of immediate harm. Many states declare that a more serious or “aggravated” assault/battery occurs when one: 1) tries to or does cause severe injury to another, or 2) causes injury through use of a deadly weapon. Throughout America an assault by a police officer on a suspect or prisoner in a jail or prison happens much more regularly than ever reported by the media.
Technology has started to bring many assault cases by police officers into the limelight. Seldom in our past history does a person making a complaint about officer abuse were shown even the courtesy of listening to them. Today with cameras on every corner and many officers being required to wear body cameras the truth is being revealed. Do you think most police officers are in favor of having to wear a body camera? No. Even officers who are not inclined to assault a person often berate suspects to the point of the suspect admitting to crimes he/she did not commit. In spousal or child abuse experts have shown emotional abuse of the innocent person is often worse than physical abuse. The same applies in law enforcement.
There are two famous words every law enforcement officer is quickly taught in the academy and throughout their career. ‘Stop Resisting’ Often you will hear these two words being shouted even while a suspect may be docile. They are safety words for the officers. Without cameras it is hard to contradict an officers testimony if he/she testify they shouted this command ten times!
In conclusion citizens and police officers must be taught that mutual respect and courtesy must be shown at all times to one another. Of course there are citizens who are serious troublemakers and deserve to be put through the legal system, but there are indeed LEO who abuse their authority. An LEO is not above the law in America. If you have ever been pulled over or had the police respond to your home/business on a criminal complaint, you likely did not have a pleasant experience. These encounters of course should not be fun, but they should not be used by an ego cop to demean a person who has not been convicted of a crime.
Respect is an earned reward and not given out due to intimidation.
An LEO doesn’t and should not believe since he/she was hired by a police department that they automatically have earned respect from the people they serve. If a plumber is hired by a company does he/she automatically earn the respect of the customers he serves? Of course not. It is only when the plumber treats the customer with courtesy and completes the job as he is being paid to, will he begin to progress in his career and earn respect from the person he/she serves.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/police-badge.jpg320640Dave Gaubatzhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDave Gaubatz2015-09-11 16:07:232015-09-11 16:12:35Are Law Enforcement Officers Above the Law?
When is President Obama going to stand up and lead on the issue of violent rhetoric directed at our nation’s police officers? Although a direct connection between many of the recent assaults on police officers and the Black Lives Matter movement is still tenuous, it’s difficult to argue that chants of “Pigs in a blanket, fry em like bacon” are helping diffuse community tensions with the police. Yet, President Obama has still refused to publicly denounce the group.
This should infuriate every law enforcement officer in the country at the local, state and federal level who bravely stands on the demarcation line between law and order, and street chaos. It also begs the question, what does a left-leaning group have to do, or say, to earn President Obama’s condemnation? We know from experience that just being a Republican is enough to generate condemnation from President Obama in many cases but, calls for assaults on police officers have earned Black Lives Matter activists not condemnation, but an endorsement from the President’s party.
If the Democratic Party insists on endorsing, rather than condemning, a movement that has some of its members declaring open war on our police officers then they have made the politics of this fair game. If President Obama continues to cower on this issue and continues to avoid condemning the dangerous rhetoric of Black lives matter, then law enforcement should openly boycott the Democratic Party. There is power in numbers and if a major, national political party, led by the current President of the United States, cannot gather up the courage to condemn what’s evolving into an openly violent movement, then the Democratic Party should suffer politically for it.
Police investigate the scene where two police officers were shot outside the Ferguson Police Department Thursday, March 12, 2015, in Ferguson, Mo. (AP Photo/Jeff Roberson)
Leadership and judgment are two qualities we look for in a President and, with regard to the Black Lives Matter movement, and their calls for violence against police officers, President Obama has shown neither of these traits. But, Mr. Obama still has an opportunity to redeem himself. He could take the path chosen by Bill Clinton in 1992 when he was given the opportunity to take a stand against inflammatory, and divisive, racist rhetoric when he refused to appear at a Rainbow Coalition event because activist Sister Souljah was speaking there. Sister Souljah—who infamously stated to a Washington Post reporter “If Black people kill Black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people?”—gave Clinton an opportunity to show sound judgment in distancing himself from this type of nonsense, and he took it.
I’m no fan of Bill Clinton’s politics, and I cannot dive deep into his thoughts to uncover what his real motivation was for calling out Sister Souljah, but actions matter and talk is cheap. President Obama is all talk, and no action, on the extremely violent rhetoric being directed at the police.
President Obama was quick to be seen on camera in the Henry Louis Gates incident claiming, without a full grasp of all of the circumstances of the interaction, that the police officer acted “stupidly.” He was quick to be seen on camera after the Michael Brown incident in Ferguson, stating that it “stains the heart of black children,” while failing to responsibly describe to the America people the full context of the interaction between police officer Darren Wilson and Michael Brown. He was quick to issue a statement after the grand jury’s decision not indict the police officer involved in the death of Eric Garner stating, “It’s incumbent on all of us as Americans…that we recognize that this is an American problem,” despite not having the facts presented to the grand jury in the case.
It’s interesting that the President was so comfortable indicting the country and talking about police use of force incidents as an “American problem” but he still refuses to stand publicly in front of the cameras and give a forceful speech defending the good cops out there and condemning the dangerous and violent rhetoric employed by the Black lives matter movement as an “American problem.” How many more police officers are going to have to die before the President acts on this?
Finally, playing word association games is a terrific way to get past the clutter and find out what people are really thinking about. The recent word association results from a Quinnipiac University poll are devastating for the Hillary Clinton campaign as the word mentioned most often in association with Mrs. Clinton was “liar.”
I made the case in my August 4 Conservative Reviewpiece that the ongoing email scandal regarding Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server was clear evidence that she is missing the two qualities most important to the presidency—leadership and judgment—and the association of Hillary with the word liar is further evidence that the public doesn’t trust her anymore. If President Obama doesn’t change course with his attitude towards police officers in America the first word that’s going to be associated with President Obama on the lips of our nation’s police officers is going to be “opportunist.”
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/ferguson-obama-e1416743541976.jpg400640Dan Bonginohttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDan Bongino2015-09-09 07:01:322015-09-09 07:01:32Responding to 'Black Lives Matter' & What Obama Can Learn from Bill Clinton
A new “study” by David Swedler, trained at the (gun control crusader Michael) Bloomberg School of Public Health, and co-authored by longtime anti-gun researcher David Hemenway, of the Harvard School of Public Health, uses rigged methodology to conclude that law enforcement officers are more likely to be murdered in states that have higher levels of gun ownership. As a result, Swedler and Hemenway say, “States could consider methods for reducing firearm ownership as a way to reduce occupational deaths of LEOs.”
In what may be the understatement of the century, Swedler and Hemenway concede that it’s “possible” that law enforcement officers are more likely to be murdered than other Americans because they have “more frequent encounters with motivated violent offenders.” To say the least. According to the FBI, from 2004 to 2013, 46 percent of officer murderers had prior arrests for crimes of violence, 63 percent had been convicted on prior criminal charges, 50 percent had received probation or parole for prior criminal charges, and 26 percent were under judicial supervision, including probation, parole, and conditional release, at the time of the officers’ murders.
On the other hand, Swedler and Hemenway say, law enforcement officers are able to defend themselves because they carry handguns, an argument that on its face endorses the carrying of handguns by private citizens, which is certainly not what the anti-gunners intended.
In painstaking academic detail, economist John Lott shows that Swedler and Hemenway skewed their study by comparing the number of law enforcement officers murdered with firearms in each state, to the percentage of suicides committed with firearms in each state, pretending that the latter accurately measures each state’s level of gun ownership. Additionally, the anti-gun researchers didn’t extend their comparisons over time to determine whether law enforcement officer murders increased or decreased in each state or did so in comparison to other states.
The anti-gunners also try to measure gun ownership with survey data, which is problematic, because over-reporting takes place in states where people are more supportive of gun ownership, while under-reporting takes place in states where anti-gun viewpoints are more common.
For the obvious reason, Swedler and Hemenway didn’t point out that law enforcement officer murders have been decreasing while ownership of firearms has been increasing dramatically. From 1993 to 2013, the most recent year of data from the FBI and BATFE, the annual number of law enforcement officers feloniously killed with firearms dropped 61 percent, while the American people acquired 140 million new firearms. In 2013, the number of law enforcement officers feloniously killed with firearms was less than half the annual average of the last 20 years.
That, however, is not what you want to point out if you’re jockeying for a cut of the $10 million that President Obama has asked Congress (p. 8) to throw at so-called “gun violence research” or to continue to promote an anti-gun agenda.