• Bloomturd’s Everytown Creates “Authors Council” to Push Anti-Gun Propaganda

    As if the country’s media weren’t already sufficiently co-opted by anti-gun advocates, this week, Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety announced an effort to pervert an additional facet of American entertainment. The billionaire bank-rolled interest group has developed the Everytown Authors Council. According to Bloomberg’s astroturf campaign, “The Council is designed to harness the power of the literary community to amplify the gun safety movement.”

    Such efforts to influence an already biased entertainment sector are nothing new for Everytown. An April 2016 Variety article detailed how the gun control group worked hand-in-hand with writers for Netflix’s “House of Cards” to push their anti-gun agenda.

    That same month, NRA-ILA’s Grassroots Alert informed readers of the extent of Everytown’s involvement in trying to distort television programming. It explained that an Everytown employee has the position of “Director of Cultural Engagement,” who, “oversees Everytown’s storytelling efforts, partnerships with the creative community and develops cultural assets that mobilize Americans to support common sense reforms…”

    Much like with their efforts to pervert television, Everytown’s Authors Council will reportedly “use its collective reach and cultural influence to support common-sense solutions…” In providing comment for an Everytown press release, author Jodi Picoult seemed to express a willingness to create agitprop for the anti-gun group, stating, “It is because of this that authors are singularly suited to speak out on the need for common-sense gun laws, and to tell the stories of those who have been devastated by gun violence in this country.”

    One would hope that shameless shilling on behalf of a statist billionaire would be derided in any artistic community. Unfortunately, many in America’s “creative” class appear all too willing use their “art” in service of Bloomberg’s vanity project. As such, the gun-owning public should do their best to apprise the general public of the gun control movement’s propaganda techniques, and consider their own consumption of media accordingly.


  • From My Cold Wet Hands: Humorless Scold Targets Squirt Guns

    We have yet to reach Memorial Day, but the fun police have already set their sights on at least one cherished summer childhood activity. In an article for Pupsugar.com, titled, “Why Kids Should Never Play With Water Guns. Period.,” author Lauren Levy lectures the nation’s parents on the hidden menace of squirt guns.

    According to Levy, no child should be permitted to use a water gun under any circumstances. That a particular squirt gun might bear no resemblance whatsoever to a real firearm is of no concern to Levy, who contends, “Even if they’re colorful and super cool, kids shouldn’t be playing with water guns because it normalizes the real thing.”

    Fully embracing the role of humorless scold, Levy earnestly warns readers, “There are some children who will never smile again — all because someone picked up a gun. At the same time, we have little ones playing and laughing over the very thing that is killing other kids. It just isn’t right.”

    One could reasonably mistake Levy’s article for satire, were it not for the fact that recent decades have witnessed a wide-ranging effort to stamp out the fictional toy gun hazard. There have been toy-gun turn-ins modeled off of gun “buy-backs,” local bans on the sale of toy guns that have crippled small business owners with outlandish fines, and too many zero-tolerance school suspensions to count.

    Levy makes several assertions about how toy guns are detrimental to children, but offers no evidence to support her claims. Levy’s expertise on the matter appears limited to a combination of her feelings and a childhood where her mother insisted on a toy gun-free home.

    Levy’s lack of evidence is revealing. In an interview with WebMd.com clinical psychologist and best-selling author Michael G. Thompson, Ph.D. made clear, “Everyone has an informal causation theory that playing with guns leads to the use of guns in adulthood,” but that, “There’s no scientific evidence suggesting that playing war games in childhood leads to real-life aggression.” In recent years, the work of Thompson and other researchers has led to a bevy of articles in typically anti-gunpublications that have sought to calm parents’ fears about aggressive play and toy firearms.

    Further, the type of ban Levy encourages has second order consequences. The Centers for Disease Control has made clear that physical activity and play are vital to a child’s healthy development, and research indicates that outdoor play is particularly beneficial. In surveying the available research on outdoor play, an article published in the journal Health & Place noted “encouragement of outdoor play and fostering an environment of movement among children improves the physical, emotional, social, and cognitive health of children…” Sadly, other research has found that today’s children are not getting enough outdoor playtime. Fun, wholesome physical activities like a summertime squirt gun battle should be embraced as an exciting way to get kids up off the couch and away from their screens.

    Levy’s broadside on summer fun even puts her at odds with some of the most anti-gun politicians. NRA has had its differences with former President Barack Obama and former Vice President Joe Biden, as both are unabashed gun control supporters. However, on the matter of water guns we have found common ground.

    Super Soaker wars were an annual fixture at the former vice president’s summer parties at the Naval Observatory, where Biden was often pictured engaged in battle with young attendees. In 2012, the White House tweeted a picture of Obama wielding a squirt gun while taking fire from what appears to be one of his daughters.

    At one point in her piece Levy writes, “as much as we want to teach our kids about gun control and safety, we contradict ourselves the second we allow them to run around with toy versions to shoot their friends.” Here Levy betrays her motives. Her piece isn’t about children mistaking real guns for toy guns, or that squirt guns will cause children to fail to appreciate the dangerousness of real firearms. Levy’s attack on water guns is about instilling an anti-gun political orthodoxy in America’s youth, lest a favorable childhood experience with a toy cause anyone to develop anything less than an unthinking animosity towards firearms.

    Levy’s unsupported theories about the hazards of squirt guns should earn her derision from all but the most zealous adherents to the cult of gun control. Wise parents will look to the research on, and prevalence of, toy gun play and dismiss such overwrought attempts to curtail normal and healthy childhood behavior.


  • Court’s Commonsense Conclusion: “There Was a Gun” Isn’t Enough to Justify Issuing a Restraining Order

    The Supreme Court of North Dakota confirmed this week that simply possessing a handgun while on one’s own private property cannot support a finding of “disorderly conduct” under the state’s disorderly conduct restraining order law. The decision is Keller v. Keller, 2017 ND 119 (N.D. May 16, 2017).

    Karen Keller is married to Chad Keller. They live together with Chad’s children from a previous relationship on a rural property outside of Bantry (pop. 14, as of the 2010 census) in McHenry County, North Dakota.

    On August 14, 2016, Nichole, Chad’s ex-wife and the mother of the children, had emailed Chad about picking up the kids. Chad responded that the children did not want to go with her. Nonetheless, Nichole and a friend, Rachael, later drove out to the Keller property, stopping short of the driveway. Nichole did not initially get out of the car.

    Karen did not recognize the vehicle and came out of the house to see who it was. When Karen turned to go back inside, Rachael and Nichole saw that Karen had been holding a handgun behind her back. The visitors remained some 200 feet away from Karen, and Karen did not leave the residential property. It was undisputed that Karen did not raise or point the gun at anyone, or make any threatening, abusive or violent statements. (It seems Karen and Nichole did not speak to one another at all during the encounter.) After talking with her child, Nichole left with Rachel.

    Nichole called the police. A deputy concluded there was no cause to file charges as nothing in Karen’s conduct violated statutory limitations relating to firearms. Nichole then sought and obtained a one-year disorderly conduct restraining order against Karen, on the basis that she felt fearful for her life because of the gun.

    The court issuing the restraining order ruled that the mere presence of a firearm was enough: “[T]here was a gun. [Karen] brought it out on the property. And it’s obvious that Nichole was very scared. And she testified that she is still scared. And to me, that is the definition of gestures that are intended to adversely affect the safety, security, or privacy of another person…”

    North Dakota, however, has a statutory definition of “disorderly conduct” in the context of a restraining order. Pursuant to N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-31.2-01, a judge may grant an order only if there are “reasonable grounds to believe” that a person has engaged in “disorderly conduct,” defined as “intrusive or unwanted acts, words, or gestures that are intended to adversely affect the safety, security, or privacy of another person.” Significantly, this definition expressly excludes any “constitutionally protected activity.”

    Karen appealed the issuance of the order, claiming the court was wrong in finding that disorderly conduct existed. She argued that it was not reasonable for someone to be afraid of another person for simply holding a weapon in a non-threatening manner. Further, she pointed to the exception for conduct – like the right to keep and bear arms – protected under federal and state constitutions.

    Karen testified she carried a handgun whenever an unknown vehicle arrived at the property. The legal brief she filed with the court indicated she did not know or trust Rachel, and that Nichole had allegedly threatened violence against Karen in the past.

    A unanimous, five-member panel of the Supreme Court of North Dakota invalidated the order. The court below had erred in not addressing whether Karen’s actions were constitutionally protected and, if they were, by not excluding evidence of the activity as required by state law. In fact, “Karen Keller’s conduct … was constitutionally protected. Nothing in the record suggests her conduct violated the statutory limitations of possessing a firearm… No evidence exists that the disorderly conduct was anything but possession of the gun, and nothing in the record suggests Karen Keller’s actions went beyond her constitutional right to possess a handgun on her private property.” The only evidence alleged as “disorderly conduct” was constitutionally protected activity that had to be excluded from the court’s consideration, so nothing remained to support the restraining order.

    This outcome is entirely consistent with the law, with common sense and with reality. The core of the Second Amendment is the fundamental, individual right to possess and carry a firearm to defend oneself and one’s family. Karen Keller lived in a rural area some distance away from the nearest city, and made it a rule to carry a firearm when unfamiliar persons dropped by. In this particular encounter, she made no threats, did not display her weapon in an aggressive or menacing way, and stayed close to her residence at all times. Millions of Americans keep a gun at home for the same reason – because the police can’t always be there to stop a burglary or home invasion or other crime as it unfolds.

    To decide – as the court of first instance did – that possessing a gun on one’s own property, without more, amounts to “disorderly conduct” is directly at odds with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, and equates mere gun possession with lawlessness. As we know, the overwhelming majority of gun owners are not criminals and use their lawfully possessed firearms responsibly. Unfortunately for Karen Keller, though, she had to go through a lengthy and likely expensive legal appeal process before her rights were vindicated.


  • With Fox News’s Ratings in Free Fall, their Future Looks Bleak

    It is becoming clearer each day that the absence of the O’Reilly Factor from Fox News’s prime time schedule is quickly and ominously having a disastrous domino effect on the entire network’s evening ratings, and on the popularity of many of the channel’s non-prime time programs, as well. O’Reilly’s consistent #1 ranking at 8 PM provided the strong lead in that helped to keep the 9 and 10 PM FNC programming hours at or near the top of the cable news rankings.

    The loss of Bill O’Reilly, however, is only a part of a perfect storm that seems to be engulfing the troubled network. Media wizard Roger Ailes is no longer the guiding hand at the helm of FNC and News Corp CEO Rupert Murdoch is ceding more day to day authority to his heirs, sons James and Lachlan, who are widely reported to be much more more liberal than their father. Under the influence of this new guard, News Corp’s executives were therefore prone to unceremoniously dump O’Reilly less than three weeks after the damning New York Times article appeared rather than stand and fight the politically charged accusations against him. (It should be noted that O’Reilly, who continues to assert his innocence, has never had his day in court to confront and defend himself against his accusers, some of whom remain anonymous.)

    Read More…


  • Trump Drops Bunker Buster on Comey and the Deep State

    For all of his stage-crafted gravitas and preening, James Comey was a bantamweight, yearning to be anointed with the heavyweight crown by securing a lifetime sinecure from the Deep State.

    After all, his most prominent prosecution in his career as U.S. Attorney was convicting Martha Stewart — not for actual insider securities trading, but for lying to the FBI and misleading her investors by proclaiming her innocence. No matter, Comey the hi-octane prosecutor saved the securities industry from the ravages of Martha — the master manipulator of stuffed endive ginger dip.

    And with that coveted scalp, later as assistant AG under John Ashcroft, Comey appointed Patrick Fitzgerald to be the special prosecutor who nailed Dick Cheney’s aide Scooter Libby — not for the actual unmasking of Valerie Plame, a purported undercover CIA operative — but for obstructing the investigation. Fitzgerald, and Comey knew from the beginning the identity of the leaker, Colin Powell’s assistant Richard Armitage. While both Armitage and Powell continued their duplicitous silent assent to damaging W’s second term, Comey did nothing to stop this miscarriage.

    Read More…


  • Sweden drops rape chargers against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange

    Swedish prosecutors have decided to drop charges of rape against the founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange.  The charges stem from accusations by two women that Assange forced himself on them seven years ago.

    At the time, Assange had been arrested by British authorities and released on bail while he awaited extradition to Sweden.  Instead, he jumped bail and sought refuge in the Ecuadoran embassy in London.

    Swedish prosecutors have not exonerated Assange; they say that because they can’t prosecute him in the foreseeable future, they were forced to drop the investigation.

    Read More…


  • After ‘Poll Testing’ Impeachment of Trump – Dems Launch Concerted Effort to Backtrack on Impeachment Talk

    The Drudge Report’s headline linked to a report from McClatchy’s DC Bureau that discussed the Democratic Party’s plans to impeach Trump and their efforts to first poll test this action with voters.

    In a significant development, party operatives say they expect Democrats to poll-test the public’s views on impeachment, trying to acquire hard data about an issue that until now has not been seriously analyzed. Other strategists say that candidates and party organizations will begin conducting focus groups on the question.

    The results of their polling must have been God awful shocking for the Democrats and their liberal MSMbecause today in every way the Democrats are retreating from impeaching Trump.

    Read More…


  • After Mueller, Trump Critics Worry: Maybe There’s No Scandal

    Eli Lake is right: The DOJ’s appointment of widely-respected former prosecutor Robert Mueller to lead the special inquiry into the Trump campaign’s potential collusion with Russia is a reprieve for a Trump Administration in crisis—a reprieve that it will almost certainly squander, but a reprieve nonetheless.

    How do we know? Because the responses from Trump’s most dogged critics on the Russia question betray a kind of anxiety about the Mueller appointment—an anxiety that the no-nonsense law enforcement wise man will lower the temperature in Washington without actually uncovering enough damaging material to bring down the President.

    Read More…


  • Comey “Friend”, Benjamin Wittes, Outs Himself As Source for New York Times “Comey Memo” Storyline

    The gist of Benjamin Wittes outline is that he interpreted his friend -the magnanimous harbinger of truth, justice and the American way- James Comey, as expressing a feeling of undue potential influence by horrible Trump that Comey did not feel with the more well regarded Obama.  etc. etc.  {insert pearl-clutching/couch-fainting violin music here}

    Except there’s a problem.

    Not only did FBI Director James Comey testify to congress that neither President Trump nor President Obama ever attempt interference; but there are earlier media reports which outlined President Obama’s administration specifically interfering with an investigative intention of FBI Director Comey (emphasis mine):

    March 29th 2017 – Newsweek:  FBI Director James Comey attempted to go public as early as the summer of 2016 with information on Russia’s campaign to influence the U.S. presidential election, but Obama administration officials blocked him from doing so, two sources with knowledge of the matter tell Newsweek.

    […]  the source with knowledge of Comey’s request says that the FBI director wanted the Russian interference made public earlier and that it was a sluggish White House that denied Comey and delayed the announcement. “The White House shut it down,” that source says. “They did their usual—nothing.” Both sources spoke to Newsweek on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to speak to the press.  (link)

    Funny how FBI Director James Comey, as relayed by his good friend Benjamin Wittes, was concerned about Trump’s potential innuendo of influence, but Director Comey was perfectly okay with Obama’s specific interference to block Comey’s intended investigative action.

    Read More…


  • ‘I Have A Sickness:’ Weeping Ex-Congressman Anthony Weiner Pleads Guilty To Sexting Teen Girl (Andrew Breitbart is Smiling Somewhere!)

    Weiner did not comment as he walked out of the courthouse, but in court he said his “… destructive impulses brought great devastation to my family and friends and destroyed my life’s dream of public service.”

    He cried as he apologized to the teen saying, “I have a sickness, but I do not have an excuse.”

    Weiner’s attorney said his client “accepted full responsibility” and “apologized, offered no excuses, and made a commitment to make amends.” He said Weiner is “focused on his recovery.”

    The judge told Weiner he would have to register as a sex offender.

    Read More…


  • Judge dismisses ‘clock boy’ lawsuit saying the school didn’t discriminate against ol’ chipmunk face

     

    • A federal judge ruled both the city of Irving, Texas and the school district do not owe damages to Ahmed Mohamed’s family
    • In 2015 his teacher at MacArthur High School called the police because she thought a clock Ahmed made was a ticking bomb
    • Ahmed’s father,  Mohamed Mohamed, filed a lawsuit claiming his son’s Fifth Amendment rights were violated by the arrest
    • Court documents obtained by DailyMail.com reveal the case was dismissed because the judge said there was no proof of ‘racial or religious’ discrimination  

    Read More…

     


  • ‘THE WAR OF TWO AMERICAS’ — A NEW FREEDOM CENTER PAMPHLET BY DANIEL GREENFIELD

    America is in the middle of a civil war. It’s not just a struggle between political parties. It’s a clash of political civilizations. The totalitarian left has rejected the outcome of two presidential elections and our entire system of government. It doesn’t believe that sanctuary states and cities have to obey the law.
    But it demands that we obey its will. And if we don’t, its thugs will audit us, boycott us and beat us.
    It has spied on President Trump and lied about him. It has used every agency of the government, from the IRS to the EPA, to punish its enemies and enforce its radical agenda.
    The left rules as a shadow government of judges and reporters, bureaucrats and activists. Its tactics range from riots in the streets to subversion in government agencies.
    And it must be stopped.
    Today there are two Americas. One has free speech and the other doesn’t. One has elections and the other doesn’t. In one America, the people elect their leaders. In the other they are appointed for life.
    If the Unamerica of the left isn’t defeated, there will be only one America. And it will be a place without the Constitution, without free speech or free elections.
    This is the war of the two Americas. And only one America can survive.
    To download the full pamphlet, click HERE

  • Run Quiet – Run Deep: Media and Politicians Keep Missing Trump Strategy

    President Trump has a long history of action that almost all media and political opposition seem to ignore when trying to attack him.   Every effort to “get” Trump fails due to a key flaw in their approach; a flaw they can never overcome.

    President Trump approaches his opposition in politics similarly to his opposition in business, with one key and consequential difference.  In business opponents challenge goals based on financial ends; in politics opponents challenge based on intent or motive.

    Read More…