A Crazy Woman with a Baseball Bat (In NYC The Police Are Always Blamed)

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: October 21, 2016


The internet is abuzz with news of Tuesday’s police shooting in New York City.  If you are unfamiliar with the incident, you can read about it here.  In short, a police sergeant responded to a call from a neighbor complaining of a disturbance caused by a mentally ill woman.  Police had allegedly dealt with the mentally ill suspect several times in the past.  When the sergeant arrived on scene, the 66 year old female suspect attempted to stab him with a pair of scissors.  He successfully de-escalated the incident over a period of 10-15 minutes and convinced her to put the scissors down.  She dropped the scissors only to pick up a baseball bat and charge at the officer.  The officer shot her twice in the torso, killing her.

Let’s get the legal stuff out of the way before we discuss the fine points of this incident…

No matter what you may hear on TV or from self-appointed experts, there are very clear Supreme Court guidelines as to when a police officer can use deadly force against a suspect.  In order to shoot someone in self defense, the police officer must reasonably fear that the suspect is going to seriously hurt or kill the officer.  The court recognizes that lethal force events evolve rapidly and an extended analysis of all factors may not be feasible.  The court doesn’t require that the officer make  a perfect use of force decision.  The courts don’t require “the best” or “the least harmful” use of force decision.  The court only requires that the officer’s decision be “reasonable” given the information he has.

So the question is: “Would getting hit in the head with a baseball bat cause serious injury or death?” Assuming that the woman wielding the bat was physically capable of swinging it and not somehow disabled, most of us would have to answer “yes.” If we answer “yes” then the cop’s actions were “reasonable” and lawful given the guidelines from the court and the current statutes governing self defense.

Read More…

thumbVideo: #TrumpTheEstablishment

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: October 21, 2016

Pat Caddell: ‘Polling Is All Over the Place… Shock Potential Is Enormous’ (Audio)

Categories: Activism, Education, News, Politics
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: October 21, 2016

James O’Keefe Files FEC Suit Against Hillary Clinton

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: October 21, 2016


James O’Keefe and Project Veritas are filing a formal complaint with the Federal Election Commission against Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
The decision comes amid increasing media coverage of the two videos released by O’Keefe, which expose apparently illicit actions by a group of political actors associated with the Clinton campaign, the DNC and the White House.

The establishment media was forced to cover O’Keefe’s videos after one subject, Robert Creamer, announced he would quit working for the DNC. This break came a day after the first video release prompted another subject, Scott Foval, to leave his job with another Democratic political group, Americans United for Change.

Read More…

Woman Backtracks on Assault Claim After O’Keefe Video Exposes Hillary’s Paid Army of False Accusers

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: October 21, 2016


A woman who accused a Donald Trump supporter of punching her outside a Trump rally in North Carolina is backtracking after James O’Keefe and Project Veritas released video showing Democrat operatives claiming she was a trained activist.

69-year-old Shirley Teter of Asheville now says it is possible that 73-year-old Richard L. Campbell merely touched her accidentally, as his attorney had claimed all along.

Originally, Harris told local ABC News affiliate WLOS, “He stopped in his tracks, and he turned around and just cold-cocked me.” She also added a pointed, rhetorical question — namely, whether “people find a Trump supporter punching her in the face deplorable.”

Read More…

Hacked Cameras, DVRs Powered Today’s Massive Internet Outage

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: October 21, 2016


A massive and sustained Internet attack that has caused outages and network congestion today for a large number of Web sites was launched with the help of hacked “Internet of Things” (IoT) devices, such as CCTV video cameras and digital video recorders, new data suggests.

Earlier today cyber criminals began training their attack cannons on Dyn, an Internet infrastructure company that provides critical technology services to some of the Internet’s top destinations. The attack began creating problems for Internet users reaching an array of sites, including Twitter, Amazon, Tumblr, Reddit, Spotify and Netflix.

Read More…

Connecticut Judge Grants Immunity to Bushmaster in Case Seeking to Gut the PLCAA

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: October 21, 2016


On January 26, 2015, survivors of victims killed by a deranged man at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut sued the maker and distributor of the firearm he used in his crimes.

This afternoon, a judge issued a ruling in the case, Soto v. Bushmaster, that held the defendants were entitled to immunity from the suit.

The defendants in the case originally asked the court to dismiss the complaint under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which was enacted in 2005 to prohibit frivolous suits against firearm makers for criminal acts committed with their products by unaffiliated third parties. 

In April, the court in the Soto case issued a highly technical ruling that found the defendants had filed the wrong type of motion to invoke the protections of the PLCAA. The court at that time expressed no opinion on the merits of either the complaint or the defenses. 

The defendants renewed their claim of immunity under the PLCAA, this time by filing “motions to strike” the plaintiffs’ claims.

In a lengthy decision on the merits, Connecticut Judge Barbara Bellis today granted those motions in their entirety.

Judge Bellis stated in her order: 

Congress, through the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act … has broadly prohibited lawsuits “against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms … for the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful use of firearm products … by others when the produced functioned as designed and intended.” … The present case seeks damages for harms … that were caused solely by the criminal misuse of a weapon by [the perpetrator of the Newtown slayings]. Accordingly, this action falls squarely within the broad immunity provided by the PLCAA.  

The plaintiffs in the case tried to avoid the obvious problems the PLCAA presented for their claims by citing one of the law’s exceptions for “negligent entrustment.” This requires a plaintiff to show that the seller of the product knew, or reasonably should have known, that selling the product to a particular recipient created an unreasonable risk of harm.

In the Newtown case, none of the defendants sold or supplied a firearm directly to the ultimate perpetrator. Instead, the firearm was sold to his mother, who passed the legally required background check. The perpetrator, however, subsequently killed her and stole the firearm he then used in his crimes. 

Nevertheless, the plaintiffs claimed the defendants were negligent for entrusting any member of the general public with the Bushmaster XM-15E2S (an AR-15 variant) used in the crime. Despite the fact the firearm was perfectly legal to sell and own under federal and Connecticut law at the time and that AR-15s are America’s most popular and fastest-selling rifles, the plaintiffs insisted that “civilians are unfit to operate AR-15s.”

Had this claim succeeded, it would have not only been the first time a court essentially banned an otherwise legal class of firearms, it would have essentially gutted the protections of the PLCAA by making courts, rather than legislatures, the ultimate arbiters of what firearms are legal to sell.

Fortunately, Judge Bellis understood this was exactly the sort of claim for which the PLCAA was enacted. It would be impossible for businesses to manufacture and sell firearms to the public if courts could decide, after that fact, that even legal gun were too dangerous for any member of the public to own. 

Judge Bellis also rejected other claims under a PLCAA exception that allows for a lawsuit when a manufacturer or seller knowingly violated a state or federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and that violation led to the harms claimed in the suit. For these claims, the plaintiffs cited the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, but the court held they had not alleged the sorts of commercial relationships with the defendants necessary to establish a right of action under that law.

The court’s decision is a reminder of the critical importance of the PLCAA to preserving the Second Amendment in America. It should come as no surprise, then, that Hillary Clinton has promised to pursue repeal of the PLCAAif elected to the presidency.  

It should also come as no surprise that the plaintiffs have already expressed their intention to appeal today’s ruling. We will report on further developments as they occur.

More Clinton Leaked Emails Detail Devotion to Executive Gun Control

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: October 21, 2016


More emails from Hillary Clinton campaign staffers were made public by WikiLeaks this week, granting insight into the campaign’s deceptive attacks on your rights and the extent to which Clinton is in league with the country’s most powerful anti-gun forces. Further, the emails provide more information about Clinton’s insistence on pursuing gun control by executive order.

Medium.com purports to be “a community of readers and writers offering unique perspectives on ideas large and small.” However, there’s nothing unique about the perspective of a January 12 item purportedly authored by a gun control advocate who was the victim of domestic violence. In fact, according to leaked emails, the piece was authored by Clinton campaign consultants and planted on Medium.com by campaign staff.

On January 8, Clinton campaign chair John Podesta forwarded an email titled, “Draft medium post on guns.” The author of the original email is not clear from the WikiLeaks archive. The email states, in part:        

Hey everyone –

Ron Klain wrote a riff for HRC and sent it to Teddy on guns. We thought it could make a strong Medium post from someone who could really speak to this issue (not HRC and not someone on our campaign).

Here’s the draft, which I edited and can personalize depending on who we want to use as an author. A survivor of gun violence? An advocate or family member?

If we can find someone, and if folks want, we could get this posted today to Medium in someone’s name (not us). Here it is, let me know your thoughts!

The email goes on to provide a draft of the commentary.

Ronald Klain is a prominent Democratic operative who served as the chief of staff to both Vice President Al Gore and Vice President Joe Biden. Most recently, Klain has consulted on the Clinton campaign.

From the email, it appears Klain developed an anti-gun commentary intended to be used by Clinton herself. However, the campaign seemed to have thought the item would carry more weight if it appeared under the name of someone outside the campaign who had a history with the issue.

The plan outlined in this email was carried out, as on January 12 a piece titled “I’m With Hillary” was posted to Medium.com with Clai Lasher listed as its author. Lasher was shot by her stepfather in 1970 and is a survivor engagement lead at Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety. Just as the email suggested, portions of the piece were personalized for Lasher. The majority of Klain’s commentary was not altered.

This incident should prompt the public to question just how much of the pro-Clinton content appearing in the media has been directly orchestrated by the Clinton campaign itself.

Recently released emails also give more insight into the unsavory nature of the Clinton campaign’s attacks on Democratic rival Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). The emails show that Clinton’s anti-Sanders messaging was tailored to the racial background of the target audience. In a February 7 email exchange between Democratic consultant Mandy Grunwald and Clinton campaign staff, potential attacks on Sanders were discussed. Specifically, the emails contemplated using the gun issue to attack Sanders’ support among African Americans. In one email, Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook wrote, “We may need to use guns tactically in the AA community–just like we’ll have tactical skirmishes on crime bill, etc.”

During the Democratic primaries, Sanders called on Clinton to produce the transcripts of her paid speeches to Goldman Sachs. Clinton refused, but WikiLeaks obtained the transcripts and has made them available to the public. While much of the speeches address financial and foreign policy, during a June 4, 2013 question and answer session with Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, Clinton used the forum to take a swipe at NRA.

Despite NRA being a nonpartisan organization that routinely supports candidates across the political spectrum, Clinton blamed NRA, in part, for what she perceived is an increase in partisanship that stymied her preferred agenda. In doing so, Clinton gave a ham-handed retelling of an instance where NRA pursued the best interests of our members by supporting the opponent of a Tennessee lawmaker that had obstructed the passage of important Right-to-Carry legislation. Clinton characterized NRA’s vigorous defense of the rights of the state’s gun owners as unreasonable.

With respect to selecting a running mate, the emails have a tale to tell here as well.  In Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Clinton chose a running-mate with a 20 year record of unwavering support for severe gun control. However, a March 17 email written by Podesta shows that several of the other candidates for the position were equally hostile to the Second Amendment.

Among those listed was former Attorney General Eric Holder, who called the Obama administration’s inability to convince Congress to enact new gun control measure, “my single failure.” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who led an anti-gun filibuster on the Senate floor in June, was also considered.

Most disturbing, Podesta’s list included the gun control movement’s primary financier, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Worse, other emails suggest that Bloomberg could still hold a position in a potential Clinton administration. In a June 3, 2015 email, Center for American Progress President Neera Tanden asked Bloomberg adviser Howard Wolfson, “Is there something Mike Bloomberg would want to do in his life in an Admin?” Wolfson responded, “Secty of state.” Tanden then forwarded the email to Podesta, with the line, “Something to know for down the road.” The influence a potential Secretary of State Bloomberg could exert over U.S. policy pertaining to international efforts to restrict the private ownership of firearms is an obvious concern to law-abiding gun owners.

The new emails also further reveal Clinton’s resolve to illegitimately use executive authority to attack gun rights. Over the course of the 2016 presidential campaign, Clinton has shared her intent to flout federal law and the U.S. Constitution by unilaterally restricting the private transfer of firearms. More specifically, on October 5, 2015, Clinton formally proposed to restrict the private transfer of firearms at gun shows by executive action. As this journal noted last week, under current federal law the president cannot use their executive authority to curtail private transfers at gun shows, or anywhere else; as evidenced by the actions of the Obama administration.

Shortly after Clinton formally announced her proposal, the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent authored a story titled, “Obama administration has doubts that key Hillary gun proposal can work,” that severely undercut Clinton’s plan. In it, Sargent cites “current and former senior administration officials,” who noted that the Obama administration had already explored Clinton’s private transfer proposal multiple times and determined that it was unworkable in practice and subject to legal challenge.

It seems that the Obama administration’s acknowledgement of federal law, and Sargent’s reporting, didn’t sit well with the Clinton campaign. On October 7, 2015, Tanden emailed Sargent’s article to Ann O’Leary, a senior policy advisor for the Clinton campaign, along with the sentence, “What is the White House doing?” O’Leary responded, “Being really annoying,” adding, “We should all check in with our folks there about it – health care (Robert Pear article); guns; and it is going to get worse…”

While the Clinton campaign might find the Obama administration’s public recognition of the limits of their own power to restrict firearms “annoying,” many Americans are sure to find Clinton’s plans to usurp the Congress’ legislative power downright obnoxious.

As more of the Clinton staff emails are made public, vigilant gun owners are provided with a greater understanding of the wide-ranging and sophisticated attack on their rights. It is vital that all gun owners are made to understand the scale of threat we face and the deception our opponents are willing to employ to achieve their goals.

Hillary Clinton: “Reasonable” to Require Guns to be Unusable at Home

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: October 21, 2016


Hillary Clinton is lying … again.

The candidate who claimed politicians “need both a public and a private position” on policy issues demonstrated that tendency Wednesday night in the final presidential debate in a desperate bid for damage control on a statement she made in a private meeting with wealthy donors.

That earlier statement was simple, uncomplicated, and utterly damning to anyone who believes in the Second Amendment. Hillary Clinton told the very people who she depends on to fund her political ambitions: “the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.”

As a Yale-educated attorney, Clinton knew exactly what she was saying when she made that remark. But it doesn’t take a lawyer to understand the contempt it demonstrates for the right to keep and bear arms.

At the time Clinton made that statement in September 2015, the Supreme Court had decided only two cases under Second Amendment during the 21st Century.

The first was District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008. That case concerned two aspects of D.C. law. One effectively banned the possession of handguns within private homes. The other effectively required all types of firearms to be kept in an unusable condition within a person’s own residence.

The Supreme Court held that both of the restrictions offended the Second Amendment. Along the way, it debunked the District’s argument that the Second Amendment protects only a “collective” right for states to maintain their own militias, rather than a right individuals can raise on their own behalf.

The very modest proposition to arise from Heller is that there is an individual right under the Second Amendment to keep handguns and other commonly-possessed firearms in their homes in a usable state for self-defense.

Two years later, the Supreme Court expanded upon the Heller decision in a case involving a handgun ban in Chicago. There, the court invalidated the Chicago ban and confirmed that the protection of the Second Amendment applies not only to federal restrictions, like the ones in D.C., but those passed by state and local governments as well.

Hillary Clinton was well aware of this when she declared the Supreme Court “wrong” on the Second Amendment. Her audience understood the significance of her remarks as well, cheering and applauding her promise to “take on the NRA.”

Later, Clinton doubled down on her rhetoric, describing Heller as a “terrible” decision. And as of June, she was still unable to bring herself to acknowledge the Second Amendment protects an individual right.

Clinton has more recently been forced to walk an increasingly awkward line as her campaign has reached beyond her donors and primary supporters to the broader America public. Distancing herself from her privately expressed opinion, Clinton has since publicly asserted that she is “not looking to repeal the Second Amendment” and is “not looking to take people’s guns away.”

Nevertheless, her own campaign website continues to call for a ban on “military-style assault weapons,” which is simply her unflattering term for AR-15s and the like, America’s most popular rifles. In other words, even as she’s insisting she doesn’t want to take away Americans’ guns, she’s promoting a ban on the very types of rifles Americans choose over all others.

That’s what ordinary people – the kind Clinton refers to as “deplorable” and “irredeemable” – call a lie.

Yet Clinton’s performance at Wednesday’s debate was perhaps her most mind-bending and dishonest attempt yet to distort her position on the Second Amendment.

When directly confronted with her statement that the Supreme Court is “wrong on the Second Amendment,” Clinton created an entirely new storyline to explain the inexcusable.

An entirely new storyline. A routine Clinton tactic.

Clinton began her answer by disingenuously claiming to “support the Second Amendment.” She was, of course, unable to offer any evidence from her four decades in public life and government employment to support this comment. And, indeed, she then went on to recite a non-exhaustive litany of the gun controls she would pursue as president.

She continued:

You mentioned the Heller decision. And what I was saying that you referenced … was that I disagreed with the way the court applied the Second Amendment in that case, because what the District of Columbia was trying to do was to protect toddlers from guns and so they wanted people with guns to safely store them. And the court didn’t accept that reasonable regulation, but they’ve accepted many others. So I see no conflict between saving people’s lives and defending the Second Amendment.

Clinton’s answer was not only dishonest, it was inaccurate in almost all its particulars.

First, the District’s ban didn’t just require safe storage to prevent access by toddlers. It made possessing a loaded, usable firearm in the home – including for self-defense – a crime. The crime did not require proof of access by children or even proof that children were present in the home. Clinton’s answer also seemed suspiciously coincidental with a recent, dubious media blitz on firearm accidents among children.

D.C.’s requirement that firearms be kept unloaded and disabled, which Clinton now claims to endorse, was also far from “reasonable.” It made even lawfully-owned guns useless for what the Supreme Court identified as their “core” purpose under the Second Amendment: self-defense.

It’s simply incredible that Clinton can claim to “support” the Second Amendment, while at the same time insisting that the government should be able to make loading a gun a crime.

Finally, the Supreme Court has not “accepted many” forms of gun control. The Supreme Court has not upheld any form of gun control since Heller and McDonald were decided. It has yet, in fact, to hear another case on firearms regulation. And in the entirety of the 20th Century, the Supreme Court decided only one case under the Second Amendment, holding the defendant had failed to prove his claim that a short-barreled shotgun should receive Second Amendment protection.

Yet even taken at face value, Clinton’s comments should be enough to put gun owners on notice of what sort of Second Amendment “support” they could expect from a Clinton presidency. A gun the government requires to be unloaded is as useless as a Second Amendment that does not protect individuals.

The bottom line – whether you consider her “private” or “public” position – is that Hillary Clinton’s own words clearly establish that she is no friend to gun owners and dismisses the Second Amendment as any obstacle to gun control.

thumbDear Mainstream Media (Video)

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: October 21, 2016

thumbYuri Bezmenov (former kgb) Psychological Warfare Subversion & Control of Western Society (Video)

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: October 21, 2016

Why Did Vote-Rigging Robert Creamer Visit The White House Over 200 Times During The Obama Admin?

Categories: Activism, Education, News, Politics
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: October 18, 2016


Earlier today we wrote about a new Project Veritas undercover video that uncovered several democratic operatives openly discussing, in explicit detail, how to commit massive voter fraud.  One of the operatives was a person by the name of Robert Creamer who is a co-founder of a democratic consulting firm called Democracy Partners.  Within the video, an undercover journalist details a plan to register Hispanic voters illegally by having them work as contractors, to which Creamer can be heard offering support saying that “there are a couple of organizations that that’s their big trick” (see: “Rigging Elections For 50 Years” – Massive Voter Fraud Exposed By Project Veritas Part 2“).

Unfortunately, the embarrassing video caused Creamer to subsequently resign from consulting the Hillary campaign as he issued a statement saying that he was “stepping back from my responsibilities working the [Hillary] campaign” over fears that his continued assistance would be a distraction for the campaign.

But voter fraud isn’t Creamer’s only criminal specialty.  A quick look at Wikipedia reveals that Creamer spent 5 months in federal prisonback in 2006 for a “$2.3 million bank fraud in relation to his operation of public interest groups in the 1990s.”

Read More…

The Clearest (No Spin) Summary of FBI Report on Hillary Clinton Email

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: October 18, 2016


The Takeaways

The FBI could not review all of the Hillary Clinton emails under investigation because:

  • The Clintons’ Apple personal server used for Hillary Clinton work email could not be located for the FBI to examine.
  • An Apple MacBook laptop and thumb drive that contained Hillary Clinton email archives were lost, and the FBI couldn’t examine them.
  • 2 BlackBerry devices provided to FBI didn’t have their SIM or SD data cards.
  • 13 Hillary Clinton personal mobile devices were lost, discarded or destroyed. Therefore, the FBI couldn’t examine them.
  • Various server backups were deleted over time, so the FBI couldn’t examine them.
  • After State Dept. notified Hillary Clinton her records would be sought by House Benghazi Committee, copies of her email on the laptops of her attorneys Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson were wiped with BleachBit, and the FBI couldn’t review them.
  • After her emails were subpoenaed, Hillary Clinton’s email archive was also permanently deleted from her then-server “PRN” with BleachBit, and the FBI couldn’t review it.
  • Also after the subpoena, backups of the PRN server were manually deleted.


Read More…

Newsgate 2016

Categories: Activism, Education, News, Politics
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: October 18, 2016


Regardless of who is your chosen – or least favorite – presidential candidate, independent minds should be concerned about the latest revelations in the news media’s unseemly relationships with government and political actors. While there are many responsible journalists working today, inside documents and leaks have exposed serious lapses constituting the most far-reaching scandal our industry has known. It’s our very own Newsgate.

Compromised reporting has always existed as a result of covert collaborations between reporters and political officials—Democrats and Republicans alike. For example, in my new book out next year, The Smear, I’ll report on instances of improper collusion that surfaced during the Bush administration. The most recent available evidence is heavy on Democrat-ties due to the nature of the available documents and leaks.

It can be argued that some individual accounts can be rationalized and are not serious breaches of ethics. But taken as a whole, it’s easy to see how we as journalists have done a poor job protecting ourselves from being co-opted by organized interests, often ones that are paid and politically-motivated. Whether we realize it or not, they’ve figured out how to exploit the media and use us to publish their propaganda. It implies a broad and growing trend that has seriously undermined the credibility of the news industry.

Read More…


Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: October 18, 2016


Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe says that television stations across America canceled appearances he was set to make on their networks over fears of “retribution from a future Hillary Clinton administration.”

O’Keefe released his second bombshell video in the space of two days, shocking footage that shows Democratic party operatives scheming on how to “successfully commit voter fraud on a massive scale.”

Yesterday’s video, which proves that the violence at Donald Trump rallies – blamed on Trump’s “rhetoric” by the media – was in fact planned in advance by individuals connected to Hillary Clinton’s campaign, went viral online but received little mainstream coverage.

Read More…

Training Schedule

10/08/16 Utah CCW/FS Pistol Class
Westside Range 12-4 PM $150.00

10/22/16 Utah CCW/FS Pistol Class
Westside Range 12-4 PM $150.00

11/05/16 Utah CCW/FS Pistol Class
Westside Range 12-4 PM $150.00

11/19/16 Utah CCW/FS Pistol Class
Westside Range 12-4 PM $150.00

12/03/16 Utah CCW/FS Pistol Class
Westside Range 12-4 PM $150.00

12/17/16 Utah CCW/FS Pistol Class
Westside Range 12-4 PM $150.00

01/14/17 Utah CCW/FS Pistol Class
Westside Range 12-4 PM $150.00

NYCG Radio

Current Episode

"Fear of Flying"

#185 - Fear of Flying

Trump 2016!

The only candidate with the vision to save this country and the BALLS to actually do it. Anti-gun clowns, illegal aliens, PC bed-wetters, Marxist scumbags and other assorted libturds NEED NOT APPLY. Regular Americans can help Donald Trump Make America Great Again!

Real Gun Facts
Discount NRA Membership
Join The NRA and Get $10 off a Yearly Membership!
Donate to the NYC PBA Widows’ & Children’s Fund

The PBA Widows’ and Children’s Fund, Inc. (the “Fund”) provides aid and assistance to widows, widowers and eligible dependents of police officers who have lost their lives in the line of duty.

If you would like to donate to this 501(c)3 tax-exempt organization, please make a check payable to:

New York City PBA Widows and Children's Fund

And send it to:

Michael Morgillo

Patrolmen's Benevolent Association

125 Broad Street

11th Floor

New York, NY 10004-2400

Welcome , today is Sunday, October 23, 2016