Saturday, July 18, 2015

Trump Ignites Firestorm With McCain 'Not a War Hero' Comment

Donald Trump left no doubts at Saturday's Iowa Family Leadership Summit: He was there to speak his mind on immigration, President Barack Obama, Sen. John McCain, and many other topics, politically correct or not.

He used the forum to escalate his feud with McCain, denying that the former prisoner of war should be considered a hero and referred to McCain as a 'loser."

"He’s not a war hero," Trump said. "He’s a war hero because he was captured? I like people who weren’t captured. ...  Perhaps he is a war hero, but right now, he said some very bad things about a lot of people."

McCain was a Navy pilot in the Vietnam War who was shot down and held for more than five years in North Vietnam's "Hanoi Hilton" prison, where he was repeatedly tortured.

Trump said he avoided service in the Vietnam War through at least 4 student and medical deferments, adding that he did not serve because he "was not a big fan of the Vietnam war. I wasn't a protester, but the Vietnam war was a disaster for our country."
Trump also referred to McCain as a '"loser."

McCain, said Trump, "is not so hot," and "I supported him for president. I raised $1 million for him. He lost, he let us down. He lost. I have never liked him as much after that."

He also refused to apologize for calling McCain "a dummy" earlier this week for slamming his supporters, saying he doesn't think that his words are inappropriate from a person running for president.

"I'm in Phoenix, we have a meeting that is going to have 500 people," said Trump. "We get a call from the hotel. Turmoil. Thousands and thousands of people are showing up in three or four days. The hotel says, we cannot handle this.'"

Eventually 15,000 people showed up, said Trump, "wonderful, great Americans," and McCain "called them all crazy. They were not crazies. They were great Americans...I know all about crazies. He insulted me and he insulted everybody in that room."

A spokesman for McCain, Brian Rogers, said no comment when asked about Trumps remarks, the Associated Press reports.

Trump made it clear that he wouldn't pull his punches for anyone.

"We are so politically correct that we cannot move anymore," Trump told moderator Frank Luntz, who reminded the real estate magnate to watch his language he was using in front of the evangelical audience attending the Iowa event. 

Reaction was swift as rivals who had thus far failed to take on Trump blasted the real estate mogul on Twitter. In an even more unusual move, the Republican National Committee weighed in with a statement condemning Trump.

RNC Chief Strategist and Communications Director Sean Spicer released a statement hours later:

"Senator McCain is an American hero because he served his country and sacrificed more than most can imagine. Period. There is no place in our party or our country for comments that disparage those who have served honorably.”

His fellow candidates and the Republican National Committee quickly moved to isolate Trump for his attacks on McCain, the party's 2008 presidential nominee.

"His comments have reached a new low in American politics," said former Texas Governor Rick Perry in a statement calling for Trump to "apologize immediately." 

"His attacks on veterans make him unfit to be Commander-in- Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, and he should immediately withdraw from the race for president," added Perry, a former Air Force captain. 

Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican presidential nominee managed to flash a sense of humor along with a well placed barb.

Continue Reading.....

John Boehner Says California's Drought Is Obama's Fault. He's Almost Right

We should be pointing fingers at California lawmakers—not the president.

Thank you, John Boehner, for flagging an underrated feature of California’s ongoing water crisis: The government deserves blame.

Well, that’s not exactly what the Republican House Speaker and Ohio Congressman said on Facebook earlier this week. Beneath a photograph of a sign promoting water conservation in Arcadia, California, Boehner (or, at least, Boehner’s social-media minion) railed against what he called “President Obama’s man-made water shortage in the West”:

Though this is also the man who said mere months ago that he is “not qualified to debate the science over climate change,” Boehner has a point when he emphasizes managing water resources “in a way that actually makes sense” over “liberal environmentalists’ backwards priorities” —i.e., reducing water use for landscaping and (gasp!) letting lawns go brown.

Allow me to explain: Water conservation by individual people and localities, no doubt, is an important part of managing California’s worst-on-record drought. But even more important is getting state and local water management policies right, since all relevant research implies this drought will hardly be the state’s (or the country’s) last.

Groundwater is California’s most important reserve in times of drought, and it is essential to farmers, many of whom rely on deep wells to irrigate crops. Yet before Governor Jerry Brown signed the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act into law last fall, California had effectively zero rules on the books about pumping groundwater. And in practice, it still doesn’t; that groundwater act won’t really go into effect for decades to come.
So, even though the state’s surface is literally uncoiling like a spring due to severe groundwater loss, and even though some small-town residents have no water coming out their taps for the very same reason, Californians can still stick new straws into the big ol’ milkshake glass. It’s about as serious a tragedy of the commons as they come. If state lawmakers had chosen to act decades ago, or if local water districts actually kept track of how much groundwater farmers and homeowners are pumping, California’s bind would be far less serious.

Though Boehner references in his Facebook post a bill that essentially pins blame for the drought on federal environmental policies, Obama is not at fault for any of this. (And, for what it’s worth, that bill is unlikely to go anywhere, as similar efforts have failed to pass the Senate.)

But lawmakers at the state and local levels do deserve some blame. There’s lots of water in California; it’s just not nearly as well managed as it needs to be. There’s plenty of room for policy reform, including tighter, smarter groundwater management, encouraging conservation-based pricing schemes for residents, and creating a more effective water market to promote agricultural conservation.

On this one, Mr. Boehner, I tip my hat to you.

Hillary Clinton is not even likable ENOUGH at this point.

…does get the basic message out (which is to say, it’s noting that Hillary Clinton is not getting the support that she’d need to win the general election), I feel that it does not really pop as a graphic.  This is a real shame, because their readers deserve something that pops.  So, I have gone through the trouble of giving this graphic a little of the old razzmatazz:
No, no need to thank me.  Really and truly.  I am a giver.
Moe Lane (crosspost)
PS: Note that that’s a poll of adults.

[COMMENTARY] Guest commentary: FBI needs new anti-terrorist strategy

When Fox News starts to question the wisdom of current FBI strategy dealing with potential terrorists, it's time for the country to listen. Civil rights advocates, right-wing anti-government zealots and assorted leftists have long complained about FBI tactics when it comes to political dissidents. The arrest of Alexander Ciccolo on July 4 seems to have awakened Fox. Can the rest of the nation be far behind?
Ciccolo, the 23-year-old son of a longtime Boston police captain, was one of the dozen or so "terrorists" arrested in the weeks leading up to July 4. FBI Director James Comey proudly announced their arrests at the bureau's headquarters a few days later. He claimed that the action of his bureau had prevented several Independence Day attacks and had saved lives.

What Comey didn't say was that some, if not all, of this could have been prevented had his agency followed an entirely different approach to cracking down on potential terror suspects.

That, of course, is not the policy of the FBI. Instead of neutralizing would-be or suspected bombers or shooters, Comey's agents spend millions of dollars and waste countless hours carefully weaving a case that has sent dozens of misguided young Americans to long prison sentences for plotting to kill Americans or aiding designated enemies.

The Ciccolo case is typical in many respects, although it differs from the others in one significant way. Last fall the young man's police officer father informed the FBI that his mentally ill son was increasingly captivated by ISIS propaganda. Instead of picking him up for a serious talk about where that would eventually lead him, the FBI began to monitor his activities. An informant recorded Ciccolo's pro-ISIS comments for the agency. When Ciccolo bought a gun, he was arrested for violating a law that prohibits someone convicted of a drug arrest from owning one.
After his arrest, the FBI reported that Ciccolo intended to build a pressure cooker bomb and explode it at an unnamed university. The bureau is very good at developing a long list of crimes, often involving conspiracy since no actual violence occurred, and Ciccolo will probably face a much longer list of charges than that simple gun possession on which he was arrested.

One doesn't have to be a flaming liberal to realize that something is wrong with the FBI's current strategy of building an airtight case against people like Ciccolo. On July 15 Fox News commentator Neil Cavuto interviewed former CIA intelligence officer Joshua Katz regarding the Ciccolo case. Katz sounded almost like a leftist except that he politely criticized the bureau for not following another course of action against these homegrown dissenters. He suggested that the bureau could have intervened earlier so that it wouldn't have to make an arrest.

So why doesn't the bureau, and others, adopt a policy of early intervention? Why, in the Riverside case last fall, did the FBI pay a convicted drug dealer about $250,000 to infiltrate a ragtag gang of four young men? That wasted countless hours of their agents' time at a cost approaching $1 million, when they could have just as effectively ended their plan to join ISIS by intervening early on.

Arrests, trials and convictions are more exciting, newsworthy, and justification for promotions and bigger budgets than quietly warning potential terrorists that their conduct could lead to long prison terms. But that warning would have been a lot cheaper for the government and would have saved many young people, like Ciccolo, from the ruin they now face.
Ralph E. Shaffer is professor emeritus of history at Cal Poly Pomona.

Barack and Valerie’s Great Communist Party Marriage

Rich new information on Valerie Jarrett’s red diaper loyalties and ties.

In my current book, Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage, I write of the phenomenon of Communist Party marriages. “Theirs was the first ‘party marriage’ that I observed,” wrote Whittaker Chambers in Witness, describing the decidedly non-sacramental marriage of two of his Communist Party comrades, before writing of his own “party marriages.”

From Marx and Engels, to Herbert Marcuse and Wilhelm Reich, to Betty Friedan and Kate Millett, to Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, our comrades on the far left have bequeathed a legacy of noxious ideas on marriage and family. Their political-cultural wreckage is being felt today more than ever. In many ways, it has come to full fruition only now in a culture that gleefully redefines marriage and gives us the likes of Barack Obama and Valerie Jarrett in the White House, a damaging political marriage if there ever was one. For seven years now at their home-base at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Obama and Jarrett have been politically and ideologically inseparable. Their White House wedding has fundamentally transformed the country.

Sure, Barack’s matrimonial vow might be to Michelle, but his ideological soulmate has long been Valerie Jarrett. And both Barack and Valerie hail from a truly remarkable line of mentors and family members with deep fidelity to the American Communist Party.
Those political bloodlines are so stunning, so bizarre, especially when they intersect across the generations, that people often react dismissively when presented with the information. I’ve laid out the linkages probably more than anyone, mainly in a book on Obama’s mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, who was a hardcore member of Communist Party USA (card no. 47544) and in several major articles on Valerie Jarrett for The American Spectatorthe first one running about 5,000 words and appearing in the July/August 2011 print edition.

Again, the common lines are just incredible—but they are real. And the connections get even more jaw-dropping when you toss in mentors for a third leg of the political trinity responsible for two presidential terms of Barack Obama, one David Axelrod. Axelrod was also influenced by comrades with fond commitments to Communist Party circles, and specifically in rotten, politically misbegotten Chicago. I’ve written of Axelrod’s background, too, for The American Spectatorincluding a cover piece in the March 2012 print edition.

So, why am I writing now? What’s the latest in this nightmarish political soap opera?
My latest offering here is prompted by the fine work of Judicial Watch, which has obtained by FOIA request the FBI files of three crucial figures who formed Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s most intimate adviser. The three are Jarrett’s father, James Bowman, her father-in-law, Vernon Jarrett, and her grandfather, Robert Rochon Taylor. Judicial Watch has posted these documents online, and I’ve suffered through them carefully with a mix of amazement, agony, and despair for what has happened in this country. They are at once disturbing and depressing, yet further confirmation that the most politically extreme individuals who once agitated and propagandized in our blessed country were able to place their political children as high as the White House in the 21st century. For the old comrades, it simply took time for the seeds to root and flourish—and only then with the harvest made possible by really oblivious American voters who don’t understand the ash-heap of ideological baggage they’ve permitted to be brought into the country’s first house.

I’ll first highlight what’s new in the Judicial Watch cache and then delve into some further connections and insights unique to my knowledge of these individuals and their associations.
What is new is that these files show the highly disturbing level of communist work and associations by no less than three men very close to Valerie Jarrett. They show beyond any doubt that our current president—who I’ve here described as our first Red-Diaper Baby President—has been steered by a longtime leading adviser who, without question, has the classic rearing of a red-diaper baby. Beyond that, the FBI files on Jarrett’s father, James Bowman, are the single biggest revelation. I was plainly not aware of the reservoir of radical activity by Bowman. In my previous research, I could find nothing on Bowman, though I found quite a bit on Vernon Jarrett and a small amount on Robert Rochon Taylor. The Bowman material is shocking.

And finally, though I did not see the name of Frank Marshall Davis, Obama’s mentor, in these files, I’m now even further certain that Davis would have not only known these men but worked closely with each. They were all in Chicago at the exact same time and all operating in the exact same close-knit circles of the city’s Communist Party generally and of a much smaller group of African-American communists specifically. Even tinier still, they were Chicago-based African-American communist writers, journalists, Party activists, and agitators. There is simply no way—no way—that James Bowman, Vernon Jarrett, Robert Rochon Taylor, and Frank Marshall Davis did not know and work together. Unimaginable. And thus, here’s an equally intriguing thought: There is simply no way that our nation’s political-ideological first couple, Barack Obama and Valerie Jarrett, have not had fond conversations reminiscing about this common ancestry. Boy, to be a fly on the wall for one of those rosy reminiscences down the old Party lane….

That said, here is a person-by-person breakdown of what the Judicial Watch material has unearthed, courtesy of the now publicly viewable FBI files, sprinkled with my own observations:

First, James Bowman. Born in Washington, D.C., February 5, 1923, Bowman eventually resided in Chicago and Denver before moving to Iran in 1955, where Valerie was born. The FBI files state that he attended Howard University from 1939-46, earning a bachelor’s degree in biology followed by a medical degree. He would work for at least two different hospitals in Washington before moving to Chicago to work for Provident Hospital. It was in Chicago that—like Frank Marshall Davis, like Barack Obama—Bowman earned his radical sea-legs and began his political path. He lived in Chicago from roughly 1947-53, precisely when Frank Marshall Davis launched his Chicago Star Communist Party-line newspaper.

Valerie’s father had numerous communist ties. He was a member of a front-group that is new to me, the Association of Internes [sic] and Medical Students, which Congress described as “an organization which has long been a faithful follower of the Communist Party line.” He was very active on the student front, including with the communist group, American Youth for Democracy, one of Frank Marshall Davis’ favorite organizations. Among other groups listed in Bowman’s file that were likewise favorites of Davis were the International Labor Defense and the awful American Committee for Protection of Foreign Born (ACPFB).

A few words on ACPFB: This group had been so extreme that the Democratic Congress’s huge “Investigation of Un-American Propaganda Activities in the United States” (published in 1944) devoted a lengthy 15-page section just to ACPFB, atop innumerable added references elsewhere in the report. Key members included prominent African-American communists Langston Hughes and Paul Robeson, the gushing admirer of Joe Stalin, plus the usual assemblage of duped liberals/progressives, ranging from theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, to the great Orson Welles, to famed movie actor Edward G. Robinson.

As the Congressional report noted, ACPFB “was founded by the Communist Party in order to exploit racial divisions in the United States for its own revolutionary purposes.” Its modus operandi was to polarize Americans along racial lines in order to advance the Soviet agenda. Closely linked to International Labor Defense, the primary (concealed) intention of ACPFB was to protect foreign communists who came to America and agitated for the Soviet Comintern. The core objective was to prevent deportation of these foreign-born communists living in America. One such figure was German communist Gerhart Eisler, who became a major CPUSA cause, and whose name was omnipresent throughout Frank Marshall Davis’s Chicago Star.

Few communist fronts so directly served Soviet interests. Quite deservedly, ACPFB was designated as a subversive group by the office of President Truman’s attorney general, Tom Clark.

Via: Spectator

Continue Reading.....

Hillary Forbids Young Supporters From Talking To Press


"Here's what struck me," said Susan Page of USA Today, "when I read the coverage in the Des Moines Register this morning. Jennifer Jacobs, who's been on your show, was covering this last night. Big demonstrations outside of young people for O'Malley and Hillary Clinton. She went up to the Clinton supporters -- these are protesters for Clinton -- and they were told they were not allowed to [speak to] a reporter."
Page continued, "Now, why in the world would the campaign tell their own supporters who came out to campaign in favor Hillary Clinton ... these are the young people, college kids, for Hillary, and they've been told not to talk to reporters.

The Freedom to Speak and Participate in Elections

One of the rights we should celebrate (and cherish) during Liberty Month is freedom of speech.

Another is our ability to freely choose our representatives in local, state and federal elections.

Freedom to speak on public policy issues as well as on candidates and politics is directly related to the election process. Indeed, that freedom is essential to the integrity and security of elections.

But that First Amendment right has been under sustained attack for several decades.

Congress has imposed restrictive campaign finance rules that interfere with Americans’ ability to speak in the political arena, run for office, and associate with others who hold similar views.

The First Amendment has been under particular attack in the last five years with the unfair, ill-informed assaults—some coming from President Obama himself—on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United.

In Citizens United, the Supreme Court threw out a federal ban on independent political expenditures, by unions, corporations, and nonprofit membership associations like the NAACP and the Sierra Club. Independent political expenditures amount to nothing more, nor less, than independent political speech.

The Court’s ruling restored a vital part of the First Amendment that had been taken by a law originally vetoed by Harry Truman, who called it a “dangerous intrusion on free speech.” Before the Court set matters right, pornographers had more free speech rights than associations, corporations and unions.

Criticism of independent political speech is decidedly odd. Organizations unhappy with the Court’s decision harp on the idea that the Bill of Rights protects only individuals.

Yet none of these carping voices questioned that the First Amendment protects media corporations, whose right to free speech was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1964 in New York Times Company v. Sullivan.

If the Bill of Rights applies only to individuals, then no organization would enjoy other Constitutional protections, like the Fourth Amendment right against warrantless searches or the Fifth Amendment right against the seizure of private property without “just compensation.”

This would leave them completely at the mercy of the government. The Feds would be free to search the internal records of a union like the AFL-CIO or a company like Google upon a mere whim or to nationalize the assets of any outfit—for any reason or no reason at all—without having to compensate its owners or stakeholders.

This perilous view reached its zenith last fall when every single Democratic U.S. senator voted in favor of a constitutional amendment that would allow Congress to restrict anything that could in any way “influence elections.”

The proposal would give the federal government virtually unlimited power to abridge the core political speech and associational rights of Americans. Simply put, it would gut the First Amendment. It is truly frightening that such a proposal could receive so many votes. It demonstrates that too many of our leaders—including those who have sworn to uphold the Constitution—are prepared to put our precious right to speak freely, to participate in our democratic election process, at serious risk.

Unfortunately, in its most recent decision on elections, the Supreme Court ignored the clear text of the Constitution to approve an election change that reduces the accountability of government in the election process.

This June, in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, the Court threw out a claim by the Arizona state legislature challenging a ballot proposition that stripped the legislature of its redistricting authority.

The referendum transferred that authority to a supposedly independent redistricting commission although, as Chief Justice John Roberts noted in his dissent, this commission was not so “independent” in practice.

This transfer clearly violated the Elections Clause of the Constitution, which gives redistricting authority to the “Legislature” of each state. Yet the majority of the Court denied that the term “Legislature” really means “Legislature.” It was an astonishing opinion—and not just because it effectively rewrote the Constitution. The ruling approved the transfer of a power that directly affects elections from an elected body to an unaccountable government bureaucracy. No matter how much we complain about gerrymandering and the politicized redrawing of legislative districts, legislators who engage in such behavior are answerable to the people in elections. The bureaucrats appointed to these commissions are not. No matter how unhappy you may be about the way they draw the districts, you can’t vote unelected commissioners out of office.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights as written guarantee our liberty, freedom, and economic opportunity. We should celebrate those guarantees rather than try to rewrite, limit, or impede them.

Sessions' & Gowdy's bill stand above a crowded list of "Sanctuary Bills" in Congress

If any good can come from the tragic shooting of a San Francisco woman earlier this month at the hands of a five-times deported illegal alien, it's that Congress may finally take action to punish sanctuary jurisdictions that protect illegal aliens, including the federal government which has been releasing criminal aliens onto the streets.

The response has gotten confusing because at least a dozen bills have been offered in recent weeks to end sanctuary jurisdictions. They have all earned varying levels of attention, with the one pushed by Fox News' Bill O'Reilly getting the most attention even though it's not the best bill.
The bills differ in scope and effectiveness, allowing House and Senate leaders to pick and choose the bill they want to move. If recent history serves as a lesson, House and Senate leaders will choose the weakest possible bill to move even though a large majority of American voters are furious and want criminal aliens removed from the United States.


NumbersUSA supports passage of the Davis-Oliver Act introduced by Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions (S.1640) and South Carolina Congressman Trey Gowdy (H.R.1148). It's named after Michael Davis, Jr. and Danny Oliver, two California deputy sheriffs who were murdered by illegal aliens. Among many other things, the bill would:
  • Withhold SCAAP funding, 'Cops on the Beat' funding, or any other law enforcement DHS grant to jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration agents (sanctuary jurisdictions)
  • Allow states to pass immigration enforcement laws so long as the penalties do not exceed the federal penalties
  • Require DHS to provide all known data to the National Crime Information Center for aliens who have final removal orders, overstayed or misused a visa, or entered in to a voluntary departure agreement
  • Provide grants to local jurisdictions that help enforce immigration laws
The Sessions-Gowdy bills would go beyond simply ending sanctuary cities through additional measures to increase public safety as a whole. They would strengthen the enforcement of federal immigration laws, end benefits for known terrorists, and prevent foreign citizens who pose a threat to public safety from entering the country in the first place.


None of the other bills, including the so-called "Kate's Law" pushed by O'Reilly, would do as much to make our communities safer. But more importantly, none of them, except for the Sessions-Gowdy bills, address the federal government's sanctuary policies. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has released nearly 70,000 convicted criminal aliens over the last two years. Only the Sessions-Gowdy bills would end this federal complicity.

Both Presidential Hopefuls Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) have introduced sanctuary bills. The Cruz bill is similar to Kate's Law in that it would only imprison previously deported aliens that return to the U.S. It wouldn't require jurisdictions to notify ICE when they release criminal aliens from prison.

The Paul bill would only block funding to jurisdictions that don't cooperate with federal immigration agents, while allowing the federal government to continue its sanctuary policies.

Legislation has also been introduced by Rep. Scott Desjarlais (R-Tenn.), Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), Rep. Lou Barletta (R-Penn.), Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), and Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), but all of these bills would only block funding to sanctuary jurisdictions without addressing the feds policies.


The only bill that comes close to the effectiveness of the Davis-Oliver Act is Rep. Marsha Blackburn's (R-Tenn.) CLEAR Act. NumbersUSA has promoted this bill in past years, and it's still a good bill, but the Davis-Oliver Act is more thorough and incorporates almost all of the CLEAR Act's state and local enforcement provisions.


The Sessions version only has 5 cosponsors. The Gowdy version has more than 30 cosponsors and has already been approved by the House Judiciary Committee. Just this week, Reps. Dave Brat (R-Va.) and Lynn Jenkins (R-Kan.) added their names to the list of cosponsors, but both bills need a lot more support!

We have faxes posted to your Action Board urging your three Members of Congress to support the Davis-Oliver Act. Please send these faxes, and if you've already sent them, there's more you can do. Next Monday, please call your Members of Congress or contact them through Social Media. Let's do everything we can to help get the Davis-Oliver Act signed in to law!

SAT, JULY 18th

Chicago suburbs hit with lawsuit for guns used in city crime

Summertime in Chicago, shootings ring out on the South and West sides as gang members execute drug-fueled vendettas. Bodies pile up, and innocent civilians are caught in the crossfire. 
Still, nothing seems to stop the bullets flying from illegal weapons.
Father Michael Pfleger, pastor of St. Sabina on Chicago’s South Side, is trying something new; pressuring the municipalities where he says the illegal guns originate.
He and several co-plaintiffs are now suing the Villages of Riverdale, Lyons and Lincolnwood. Each town is home to a gun store that Pfleger claims is lax with oversight for gun purchases. 
He wants the villages to crack down and prevent “straw purchasing” -- buying weapons in bulk, then selling them into the black market at a profit.
“We’re not asking anybody to take away guns from [legal] gun owners,” Pfleger said.
The lawsuit argues that a disproportionate number of crime guns originate from the targeted villages.
However, the heart of the issue is gang violence. And the ATF says gang guns don’t necessarily come from the gun shops in Riverdale, Lyons and Lincolnwood.
“The largest percentage of crime guns used by gang members are coming from Indiana,” Special Agent Thomas Ahern said.

Oklahoma Governor Issues Executive Order Authorizing Officials To Arm Full-time Military Personnel At Certain Facilities…

Oklahoma EO
In response to the attack on Marines in Tennessee, Gov. Mary Fallin has authorized Oklahoma military officials to arm full-time personnel at facilities similar to the ones that were attacked on Thursday.
On Friday, Gov. Fallin issued an executive order that allows Maj. Gen. Robbie Asher to arm certain full-time personnel in military installations throughout Oklahoma.
“Four unarmed Marines were killed in what appears to be a domestic terrorist attack,” Gov. Fallin said. “It is painful enough when we lose members of our armed forces when they are sent in harm’s way, but it is unfathomable that they should be vulnerable for attack in our own communities. For that reason, I want to make sure that our National Guardsmen are authorized to arm themselves at our military facilities.”
The personnel may be armed with weapons that “adequately provide for security of the facilities and their occupants.”
Those facilities include military recruiting offices.
“This attack is a horrible tragedy for our country and especially those in the State of Tennessee,” she said. “Our thoughts and prayers go out to the families and friends of those who were killed.”
Denying a soft target for the terrorists.

POLITICS Sanders And O’Malley Shouted Off Stage At Progressive Conference


Netroots Nation, the annual conference of ultra-left-wing activists, had two Democratic Party presidential candidates in attendance at their event in Phoenix, Ariz., this year… And shouted them both off stage.
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley participated separately in a candidate discussion moderated by journalist and illegal alien Jose Antonio Vargas. Both speakers were interrupted by shouting protesters from the #BlackLivesMatter movement and were unable to continue.
O’Malley was being interrupted by protesters and, after pleas from the stage and event organizers, was allowed to continue. He went on to say, “I know, I know…Let me talk a little bit…Black lives matter, white lives matter, all lives matter,” which the crowd did not appreciate. The chants and boos got louder and the candidate left the stage.
O'Malley gaffes with this crowd: "Black lives matter, white lives matter, all lives matter." Huge groans and boos.
Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading....

WATCH LIVE: Brush Fire Jumps California Highway, Sets Cars Ablaze

This is just terrifying to watch.
A brush fire in the San Bernardino mountains spread rapidly within the last hour and jumped the 15 Freeway, setting multiple cars and a big rig ablaze. Local schools have been evacuated, and the scene has become a highway full of abandoned vehicles — some completely burnt out — as helicopters circle the scene and make water occasional water drops.
This is just terrifying to watch.
A brush fire in the San Bernardino mountains spread rapidly within the last hour and jumped the 15 Freeway, setting multiple cars and a big rig ablaze. Local schools have been evacuated, and the scene has become a highway full of abandoned vehicles — some completely burnt out — as helicopters circle the scene and make water occasional water drops.
Most people are believed to have evacuated the scene on their own — only a few injuries have been reported thus far, but officials won’t know the casualties until they get the fire under control.

Popular Posts