Ted Cruz was reminded today in Florida he cannot mathematically win the Republican nomination on the first vote. He will be eliminated from the race by April 26.
Makers of riot control products are seeing increased demand from law enforcement bodies across America who fear Ferguson-style civil unrest hitting other areas of the country, according to a new report.
The report, published by Sandler Research, says that demand for surveillance drones is driving growth, with new systems that deploy water canons to “handle large crowds and demonstration(s)” also proving popular.
Riot control systems are expected to “generate revenues of over USD 3.5 billion by the end of 2020,” with North America being one of the primary growth areas for upgraded weapons due to “militarization of the police department and other law enforcement agencies” in the aftermath of the 2014 riots in Ferguson, Missouri.
Purchases of long-range acoustic devices, whips, batons and armored vehicles that will be used to “disperse, control, and arrest people involved in riots and protests” are also on the increase.
She also lambastes Lena Dunham for being an ugly, childish chubbo. Trump 2016!
A candidate like Donald Trump should be impossible. A loud, unscripted, hard-edged reality show-style candidate with exceedingly flexible positions on many hot-button issues would be laughed out of contention for the Republican nomination in other years. A man whose serial gaffes and willingness to stick his thumb in the eye of the gatekeepers of good taste would be cooked before he stepped onto the debate stage. An utterly inexperienced politician, who describes our rights and privileges as particular to us as Americans rather than universal moral mandates, would be rejected by both parties at any other time in the modern era.
But in Trump’s case, these supposedly disqualifying positions and attributes have proven to be the basis for unexpected success. Why? In part, it is because he corrects massive ideological failures by the Right, which have enabled unmitigated cultural overreach by the Left, eliminating the social and cultural basis that permits a Western liberal order to exist.
For decades, the institutional Right has ceded American culture to the Left, in spite of many voices who pointed out ample areas where the Right could carve out a countercultural movement against leftist domination, or even co-opt some of modern culture for itself.
The cause of this is partially a denial of how swiftly the culture has moved Left, leaving the institutional Right under the false impression it is still fighting the culture war of the 90’s and early 2000s. The Right’s obsession with 90’s-era battles over sex, drugs, and rock and roll is more than just an anachronism: it represents a self-inflicted wound that ignored how the Left used the culture to repeatedly make the case for their vision of an ideal society. We now know the Left won that war, and in this context, Trump represents the first candidate for whom success could only come after a culture war apocalypse.
Veteran political operative Roger Stone questions whether Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) has the “temperament” to be president. On Breitbart News Daily on SiriusXM, Stone cited Cruz’s testy interview with radio host Sean Hannity.
“The pressure really is on Cruz now. It’s a very, very narrow path going forward,” Stone said. “I really wonder if Ted Cruz demonstrated he had the temperament to be president last night with Sean Hannity. I don’t want my president blowing up like that. I don’t want the guy with his finger on the button snapping like that.”
Stone also called GOP frontrunner Donald Trump’s big win in New York a “massacre” and said Cruz should give up on Northeastern states while building support in California.
“Whatever happens, it’s important we have a unity ticket at the convention and leave Cleveland united and energized,” the alternate delegate and Rubio backer said. “Whatever combination emerges, with Cruz or without, a unified Republican front is the goal.”
In recent interviews, Trump has suggested that he may pick Rubio, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Ohio’s Kasich as his vice president. He walked that back somewhat shortly thereafter, and it certainly would end up being difficult for Trump to bring aboard Rubio after a brutal primary where the two attacked each other on the debate stage with allusions to the other’s manhood. But that doesn’t mean that an alliance couldn’t be formed, and although that alliance might not mean having Rubio as vice president—which is the opening ask of many of these Rubio supporters—it could mean having Rubio involved in the campaign in some significant way. It could also mean Rubio may get a senior spot in a Trump administration, like Secretary of State or some other cabinet slot.
An article published in the Chronicle of Higher Education features a professor stating that she doesn’t want to write letters of recommendation for students who are gun enthusiasts.
The column, published anonymously by a woman using the pseudonym Myrtle Lynn Payne, describes her long-lasting phobia of guns and how it poisoned her relationship with a student she calls Sarah. Payne says Sarah was a hard-working student with some potential, but alas, she was also a gun enthusiast
“I [took] on the first day during a sharing activity we typically do at the beginning of my science lecture courses,” Payne writes. “Sarah shared that the most notable experience of her winter break was a visit to a gun range where she had fired an AK-47. I gave the usual ‘very good, moving on’ response but was thinking, ‘Whoa, that’s disturbing.’”
New York City Guns Radio Episode
IN THIS EPISODE:
Orthodox Jewish Businessman Shaya Lichtenstein and NYPD Handgun Licensing head Michael Endall are both embroiled in a corrupt pay-to-play scandal where NYC CCW permits were being sold to the highest bidder. Cops at 1PP have been reassigned pending an investigation. I have had it with this city and “my betters” in government who like telling me what I can and can’t do. I am tired of them – because they are corrupt scum. There is no other way to put it.
WARNING! This Content Contains AWESOME VULGARITY
Trump, the billionaire real-estate mogul, got a major boost in his quest to secure the Republican nomination with a majority of delegates but could not eliminate the possibility of a contested convention. He won at least 89 of New York’s 95 Republican delegates, according to the Associated Press.
Trump was projected as the winner in his home state by the television networks immediately after the polls closed, beating Ohio Governor John Kasich and Texas Senator Ted Cruz. The victory marks a rebound for Trump after a difficult few weeks of gaffes, campaign upheaval and a loss in Wisconsin on April 5.
Speaking at his Trump Tower in New York after he was projected the winner, Trump thanked his supporters and said Cruz is “just about mathematically eliminated” from the race for the Republican nomination. The AP also said Cruz cannot possibly collect the required 1,237 delegates before the convention.
“We don’t have much of a race anymore, based on what I’ve seen,’’ Trump said. “We’re really, really rocking.”
Only 22 People Show Up For Senator Cruz Philadelphia Rally – Unstable Ted Starts Screaming on Radio Show!
Presidential candidate Senator Ted Cruz had a full apoplectic meltdown today. During a radio appearance an unhinged Senator Cruz began lashing out and screaming at Sean Hannity. (full audio below) The internet lit up as people discussed the on-air meltdown wondering what could have possibly triggered such grossly unstable behavior.
Apparently the answer is found in this picture from Senator Cruz’s rally in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Only a few dozen people showed up to hear candidate Cruz – in a city home to over 1.6 million people.
Two weeks ago, we reported on the end of the final handgun ban in the United States, as a federal court held the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands’ ban on all handguns unconstitutional. As is too often the case where courts are required to intervene on behalf of Americans’ right to keep and bear arms, the legislative response to the ruling was to enact even more gun control.
On Monday, Governor Ralph Torres signed the “Special Act for Firearm Enforcement” (SAFE) into law. In addition to using the same misleading acronym as other recent gun control laws, the Act reads like a pieced together compendium of the “reasonable restrictions” other antigun jurisdictions have passed to thumb their noses at the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago.
The Commonwealth’s new “SAFE” law generally bans “assault weapons” and “large capacity magazines”, prohibits the public carrying of any firearms, and creates so many “gun-free zones” as to make firearm possession on the islands practically impossible.
The Act also creates a one thousand dollar excise tax on the importation of any pistol. This tax alone is in direct contravention of the court’s ruling that the people of the Commonwealth have a right to possess handguns for defense of themselves and their families. The legislature and governor of the Commonwealth obviously hope to keep the handgun ban effectively in place through a tax that will quadruple the cost of acquiring many handguns in the Commonwealth, thus pricing them out of reach.
“SAFE,” in short, is a sorry excuse for a law, and one that will hopefully be treated by a future reviewing court as the brazen act of defiance it is obviously intended to be.
Gun control supporters will no doubt be all aflutter about a new book that tries to validate one of their longtime favorite theories, while appearing to help their preferred presidential candidate appeal to anti-capitalist voters within the Democratic Party.
The theory, which makes perfect sense to voters who believe that demand is driven by supply, is, as the Washington Post describes it, that “[g]uns in America were no big deal until big business made us love them.” The book, The Gunning of America: Business and the Making of American Gun Culture, points its accusatory finger at the Winchester Repeating Arms Company of the 19th century.
The Post says that the book’s author, Pamela Haag, began writing with the intention of not becoming “entrapped” in the gun control debate. But Haag wades into the debate nevertheless. She calls for repeal of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, calls for consumer products regulations to be enforced against firearms manufacturers (which gun control supporters have said should result in banning handguns), calls for “smart” gun technology (which is yet unreliable, but which, if perfected, could be used to track the geographic location of firearms and/or remotely disable them), and calls for the federal government to once again give the taxpayers’ money to gun control supporters to produce gun control advocacy masquerading as research.
Haag also reveals her anti-gun predisposition in the way she tells the story of Sarah Winchester, who inherited a large part of her family’s fortune and spent a significant portion of it building what is now known as the Winchester Mystery House. The house, located in California’s Santa Clara Valley, had 160 rooms, 2,000 doors, 10,000 windows, 47 stairways, 47 fireplaces, 13 bathrooms, and six kitchens when Mrs. Winchester died in 1922.
According to Haag, Mrs. Winchester built the immense house to atone for people who had been killed with Winchester rifles. In fact, as explained on the mystery house’s website, Mrs. Winchester fell into a deep depression after the death of her daughter and husband, and in her grief turned to a spiritualist. The medium convinced Mrs. Winchester that the spirits of Indians and soldiers killed with Winchester rifles were responsible for her family members’ deaths, and that she could avoid the same fate by building a house on which construction would never cease. Such was Mrs. Winchester’s faith in the occult that her mystery house contained a room to which she retreated for séances.
Hillary Clinton will like Haag’s book because she, too, has been pointing an accusatory finger at the firearm industry. In her quest to defeat Sen. Bernie Sanders for the Democrat Party’s presidential nomination, Clinton has sought to improve her standing with the anti-capitalism wing of her party by lying about the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) and, during a debate with Sanders in March, by yelling (at 0:30 in the video) “gun manufacturers sell guns to make as much money as they can make.”
Clinton’s shills cheered wildly at the exhortation. But in doing so, they showed that they don’t understand the first thing about economics. Perhaps neither does Haag. Simply put, gun manufacturers sell guns only to the extent that Americans are willing to buy them. Americans are buying record numbers of guns not because someone else wants them to, but because they recognize the benefits that firearms ownership confers.
As Gary Cooper, portraying the character of architect Howard Roark in the cinematic adaptation of Ayn Rand’s novel, The Fountainhead, said, “The mind is an attribute of the individual. There is no such thing as a collective brain. The man who thinks, must think and act on his own. The reasoning mind cannot work under any form of compulsion, it cannot be subordinated to the needs, opinions, or wishes of others.”
Just as people buy cars not because Henry Ford was a marketing genius, but because cars allow for faster and more comfortable long distance travel than sitting in a stagecoach or on the back of a horse, people buy guns for practical reasons, primarily, as a recent Gallup poll found, self-defense.
And for the record, Americans were buying guns long before Winchester introduced its famous repeating rifle in 1866. Eli Whitney, Sam Colt, and Eliphalet Remington, to name but a few, were well established in firearm manufacturing before Oliver Winchester. They apparently weren’t the focus of Raab’s book because they didn’t have an eccentric relative with a house-building story that could be mischaracterized to support a firearms-guilt narrative and Clinton’s campaign rhetoric.
On Tuesday, the Washington Post’s fact checkers gave Hillary Clinton “Three Pinocchios” for blaming Vermont’s gun laws, which are like those of most states, for crimes that take place in New York. Clinton’s on-going smear campaign is intended to tarnish the reputation of her competitor for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, Vermont’s junior U.S. senator, Bernie Sanders. Clinton is resorting to her dishonest attack because lying is her most highly refined political reflex, and, perhaps partially for that reason, Sanders has defeated her in seven of the last eight state caucuses and primaries.
As we noted in last week’s Alert, Clinton’s claim about Vermont is absurd, because ATF firearm tracing data show that less than one percent of guns recovered by police in New York were first sold at retail in Vermont, the average time between those sales and the recovery of those relatively few guns in New York is 15 years, the few guns in question may have entered New York lawfully for any number of reasons, and Sanders, as a national officeholder, does not vote on state laws.
After Clinton was widely rebuked for her accusation, she tried to wiggle out of it by claiming that she meant to say that Vermont accounted for the most guns ending up in New York, relative to Vermont’s population. But, as the Post explains, the relatively small population of Vermont is irrelevant; to the extent that anything could be gleaned from ATF’s firearm tracing data, the only thing that would count is the number of guns coming from a state. Therefore, the newspaper notes, “ATF (correctly) calculates gun trafficking data by raw figures, not per capita.”
Further proving that gun control supporters aren’t satisfied with anything less than the elimination of private gun ownership, Australia’s anti-gun activists have their sights set on further restricting access to firearms. This time, the gun controllers have taken issue with the importation and private ownership of a lever-action shotgun, and that some Australian gun owners have chosen to accumulate a number of firearms.
Last summer, we alerted readers to the political battle over the importation of the Adler Arms A-110, a 12-gauge lever-action shotgun with a magazine capacity of seven rounds. In July, Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott moved to halt importation of the shotgun. However, after some political horse-trading, pro-gun lawmakers secured a deal that would lift the ban after one year, with the restriction set to expire August 7.
In the meantime, Adler importer Robert Nioa has been importing a version of the A-110 with a four-round magazine capacity, which is not subject to the temporary ban. Additionally, some enterprising firearms dealers are offering magazine extensions for the currently available A-110 that increases the shotgun’s capacity. So far, Australians have acquired roughly 7,500 A-110s. Predictably, gun control advocates, in particular the Australian Greens party, are incensed that civilians have access to these firearms.
Americans might reasonably wonder how a lever-action shotgun has engendered such controversy Down Under. In 1996, following a high-profile shooting in Port Arthur, Tasmania, the Australian federal government significantly restricted gun ownership. Despite the fact that the Port Arthur shooter used semi-automatic rifles, in addition to banning semi-automatic rifles the government also prohibited ownership of semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns. Those in possession of these types of shotguns at the time of the ban were forced to turn their firearms into the government for predetermined compensation. Limited exceptions to the prohibition on semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns are available to those who can obtain a Category C license by proving they require the firearm for occupational purposes.
As the A-110 is neither a semi-automatic nor pump-action shotgun, it is available to those who possess the least restricted, Category A, firearms license. The process for acquiring a Category A firearms license is still onerous. For instance, the Victoria Category A license application contains probing questions about the applicant’s medical history. Further, prospective gun owners are required to have “genuine reason” for owning a firearm; Australia does not recognize self-defense as “genuine reason.” Even with a license, individuals must obtain an additional permit to acquire a firearm in order to obtain a gun, and this process includes a 28-day waiting period.
Anti-gun officials and activists contend that the lever-action A-110 is similar in function to pump-action shotguns and therefore should at the “very least” require a Category C license to own. Rather than offering evidence suggesting that these firearm are particularly prone to misuse, gun control advocates have relied on emotional pleas and mischaracterizations. Gun opponents and the media have mischaracterized the importation of the A-110 and the expiration of the ban as a “weaken[ing]” or “watering down” of Australia’s gun laws, despite the fact that Australia law does not ban lever-action shotguns. In one attempt to mislead the public, Australia’s Herald Sun referred to the lever-action shotguns as “semi-automatic-style weapons.”
The anti-gun position was accurately summarized by Liberal Democrat Senator for New South Wales David Leyonhjelm last summer, when he noted, “These firearms are not dangerous, they aren’t used in crime, there’s nothing about them that warrants any special action… Nonetheless, there are some people who don’t like guns and they see this as the next area in which they can encroach.”
Aside from the ongoing shotgun debate, Australian gun controllers appear to have recently discovered that some gun owners enjoy the shooting sports and exercising their rights enough to maintain multiple firearms. A website organized by NSW Greens MP David Shoebridge using public data, http://www.toomanyguns.org/, shows visitors the largest number of guns owned by a single person in various NSW zip codes. The Greens contend that a “loophole” in current law has allowed for gun owners to amass these “private arsenals.” The supposed loophole? That gun owners can obtain multiple firearms citing the same “genuine reason.” According to Shoebridge, “Anyone with five guns should be required to provide an exceptional reason to acquire more.”
In an effort to alarm the public, Shoebridge told a media outlet, “These private arsenals represent a real threat to community safety.” Further speculating, and placing blame for potential crimes on law-abiding gun owners rather than criminals, Shoebridge added, “They are honeypot targets for criminals who want to get their hands on potentially hundreds of guns in a single raid.” However, as Sen. Leyonhjelm pointed out in a recent press release, “there is no correlation between the number of guns in various regions and their illegal use.”
Further, Australian gun owners are already forced to contemplate potential thieves, as they are subject to strict rules regarding the storage of firearms. A document produced by the NSW Police Force outlines that state’s stringent requirements for storing even Category A firearms. It notes:
* When any firearm is not actually being used or carried, it must be stored in a locked receptacle of a type approved by the Commissioner of Police and that is constructed of hard wood or steel and not easily penetrable.
* If the receptacle weighs less than 150 kilograms when empty, it must be fixed in order to prevent its easy removal.
* The locks of such a receptacle must be of solid metal and be of a type approved by the Commissioner.
* Any ammunition for the firearm must be stored in a locked container of a type approved by the Commissioner. Ammunition may be kept in the receptacle with the firearms, but must be kept in a separate locked container within the receptacle.
Failure to meet these requirements is a serious offence with a fine of $2200 or 12 months imprisonment, or both.
Moreover, the item makes clear, “It is a condition on a license that the licensee allows inspection by police of the safe keeping and storage facilities for the firearm at a mutually agreed time…”
Americans should take careful note of the ongoing gun control battle in Australia, as U.S. politicians have repeatedly used Australia’s gun controls as a template for their own goals. During a speech on September 22, 2013, Barack Obama pointed to how the United Kingdom and Australia “mobilized and they changed” following high-profile shootings, while pressing for new gun controls. In a June 2014 interview, while advocating for more gun restrictions, Obama noted, “A couple of decades ago, Australia had a mass shooting… And Australia just said, well, that’s it, we’re not seeing that again. And basically imposed very severe, tough gun laws.”
More recently, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has endorsed Australia-style confiscation. During an October 2015 town hall meeting in Keene, N.H., Clinton was asked by an attendee about carrying out an Australia-style confiscation scheme in the U.S. In part of her response, Clinton stated, “I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level if that could be arranged,” later adding, “certainly the Australian example is worth looking at.” To watch Clinton’s entire endorsement of Australian gun controls, see the video at this link: http://freebeacon.com/issues/clinton-australian-style-gun-control-worth-considering-for-u-s/
Obama and Clinton’s endorsements of Australia-style gun controls cuts through the typical anti-gun talking points to reveal their goal of eliminating the private ownership of entire classes of firearms. Of course, you can be sure that if U.S. gun controllers were ever able to enact a gun control regime similar to Australia’s current system, just like Australia’s gun control advocates, they would not cease their campaign against gun ownership until they achieve their goal of total civilian disarmament.