MARXIST “CONSTITUTIONAL” SCHOLAR ATTACKS 2nd AMENDMENT, Demands Repeal

/0 Comments/in , /by

Aha! Someone is finally actually taking up the debate that, if you wish to disrespect the Second Amendment, you actually need to repeal it.

I teach the Constitution for a living. I revere the document when it is used to further social justice and make our country a more inclusive one. I admire the Founders for establishing a representative democracy that has survived for over two centuries.

In other words, when the Constitution furthers a “progressive”, “social-justice” end, it is to be revered. When it does not it is to be reviled. Well, so be it — at least this douche declares his intent up front in the first paragraph.

But sometimes we just have to acknowledge that the Founders and the Constitution are wrong. This is one of those times. We need to say loud and clear: The Second Amendment must be repealed.

Ah, now we get to it.

Good. Unlike all the other jackwads who have talked about “gun control” (and managed to pass over 50,000 blatantly unconstitutional laws), this one wants to talk about the lawful means by which one can infringe the Second Amendment — simply write it out of the Constitution itself!

However, in the process of attempting to make his argument he lies — repeatedly. Let’s go through the lies, because virtually the entire argument he makes is a lie.

Sure, the Founders knew that the world evolved and that technology changed, but the weapons of today that are easily accessible are vastly different than anything that existed in 1791. When the Second Amendment was written, the Founders didn’t have to weigh the risks of one man killing 49 and injuring 53 all by himself. Now we do, and the risk-benefit analysis of 1791 is flatly irrelevant to the risk-benefit analysis of today.

Oh really?

Well, don’t tell Jefferson that, who armed a private militia with a couple dozen cannon. Or, for that matter, anyone who owned a Blunderbus back then, which were a crude form of shotgun that was often loaded (as were cannon) with grape — named for it’s rough shape and size. Grapeshot was the preferred anti-personnel load because like a shotgun it spread out and covered a lot of people, but unlike a shotgun each piece was deadly on its own, and in a cannon each piece wasn’t much different in size than a musket ball.

Incidentally, The Founders also didn’t have military weapons that murdered millions with one button push, nor “remote weapons” that could be fired without personal risk. Today we have both, and yet the purpose of the Second Amendment is to prevent any sort of tyrant from using any of their weapons against the people at-large without the risk of the people firing back with equally-effective weapons.

We have spent close to 70 years under the premise in this world that if one party has really horrible weapons then others must develop and keep them because the risk of retaliation is too high and that deterrent effect will inhibit their first use. You can disagree with the premise but not the result; 70 years hence beyond the point at which only one party has had those weapons they have not been used.

The burden of proof is on those who claim that such a policy and capability is ineffective; the overwhelming evidence is that it is. That’s one reason that I have repeatedly advocated that the United States must declare as formal policy that if a weapon of mass destruction is used on our territory by Muslim Nutjobs we will immediate nuke both Mecca and Medina at ground level, rendering both impassible to humans for 1,000 years. Since these nutjobs also believe that you cannot go to heaven without having made said pilgrimage in your lifetime the continuation of the principle of MAD, which has served the world quite well on the manifest weight of the evidence for 70 years, would be promulgated to said Muslim nutjobs quite effectively.

Second, at a more-micro level, the worst rates of crime are where the most onerous gun laws exist. Chicago is just one big fat example; the entire State of Illinois requires a registration with the State Police for any purchase of a gun or ammunition and the bearing of an FOID card, and until recently (when the Supreme Court struck said law as unconstitutional) the mere ownership of a pistol was a crime anywhere in the city itself since the 1960s. Yet the gang-bangers don’t seem to care about such things; they buy, own and use guns and ammunition all the time, every one of them illegally. Unfortunately since those guns are illegal to own and possess they also don’t practice with them so their use tends to be inaccurate and thus they often shoot someone other than their intended victim by accident. Gangbangers and their violence are horrible, but what’s even more-horrible is when they wind up shooting a 3 year old accidentally because they’re a terrible shot.

Third, again at a more-micro level, in states where gun laws have been liberalized violent crime rates have gone DOWN at a rate that exceeds that where such changes in the law have not been made. It appears that “MAD” works on both a macro, international level and at a micro level, in that thugs actually consider the possibility that they may wind up with a bunch of extra holes in their body in unpleasant places if they attempt their crimes. Where that possibility is higher, they are deterred and choose either non-violent, non-personal criminal acts or no crime at all.

In point of fact so far in Chicago (as of 6/15) this year there have been 1451 people shot and 259 killed, or more than five times Orlando. Chicago remains a place where it is basically impossible for a citizen to lawfully own and possess a firearm for self-defense, and the gang-bangers know it. They are also not deterred by lots of cops who cower instead of respond.

But liberty is not a one way street. It also includes the liberty to enjoy a night out with friends, loving who you want to love, dancing how you want to dance, in a club that has historically provided a refuge from the hate and fear that surrounds you. It also includes the liberty to go to and send your kids to kindergarten and first grade so that they can begin to be infused with a love of learning. It includes the liberty to go to a movie, to your religious house of worship, to college, to work, to an abortion clinic, go to a hair salon, to a community center, to the supermarket, to go anywhere and feel that you are free to do to so without having to weigh the risk of being gunned down by someone wielding a weapon that can easily kill you and countless others.

That’s certainly true. But before you repeal the Second Amendment you must first show that doing so will prevent someone who wants to kill you from doing it — and not just with a gun either, instead of increasing the risk that you will fall victim to said violence.

Of course there’s that wee problem; recent history says that the Unicorn-fart utopia this “professor” believes in doesn’t exist. In France, for example, less than a year ago a bunch of Islamic Nutjobs shot up a theater and killed a lot of people — more than double the number of dead in Orlando were accrued. France not only has no Second Amendment it is unlawful for civilians to possess semi-automatic weapons of any sort on a virtually impenetrable basis. Yet these Muslim Whackjobs had no trouble managing to obtain and use both the weapons and their ammunition. I remind you that there are no EU nations with a strong Second Amendment-like part of their governing documents, which means that the common statement that places such as Chicago have a lot of gun violence “because other states that are nearby have loose restrictions” is a flat-out lie.

What France showed us, and what Orlando showed us, is that in the gravest extreme the cops will not help you either because they cannot get there fast enough to matter or will literally cower in the corner despite their superior numbers and firepower while the bastard kills you instead of taking him on. You either have the ability to help yourself or you die. And that leads to the next point:

Just think of what would have happened in the Orlando night-club Saturday night if there had been many others armed. In a crowded, dark, loud dance club, after the shooter began firing, imagine if others took out their guns and started firing back. Yes, maybe they would have killed the shooter, but how would anyone else have known what exactly was going on? How would it not have devolved into mass confusion and fear followed by a large-scale shootout without anyone knowing who was the good guy with a gun, who was the bad guy with a gun, and who was just caught in the middle? The death toll could have been much higher if more people were armed.

Oh really? It appears that one third of the people who were in that building were either shot or killed. The terrorist expended over 200 rounds unanswered (there was one off-duty cop who tried to engage the shooter at the outset but failed) and the cops sat outside for three hours despite the murderous bastard’s proud declaration at the onset of violence via his own 911 call that he was a follower of ISIS and intended to kill everyone.

Rather than storm the building immediately, which incidentally was the lesson that Columbine supposedly taught, the cops cowered outside and let that murderous beast slaughter everyone he wished, literally taking his sweet time to execute the wounded!

If 10% of the 300 people inside had been armed odds are that within seconds the assailant would have turned his back on one or more of them at close range. While there might have been collateral damage from the resulting returned fire it is incomprehensible that the death toll would have been anywhere near the 50 who died and the 3-hour delay would not have occurred — thus more of those who were shot would have received immediate and effective medical attention instead of bleeding out on the floor while the cops refused to do their damned job.

Further let me remind you that Florida Statutes, 790.06 explicitly prohibits the carrying of a concealed weapon into any place where the primary sale is the licensed dispensation of alcoholic beverages for immediate consumption — such as Pulse. That law is blatantly unconstitutional as “Shall not be infringed” is not followed by “except where alcohol is commonly sold under license for immediate consumption.

Therefore, the manifest weight of the evidence is that it was the outrageous and unconstitutional infringement on the Second Amendment that was directly responsible for a large number of the people who were assaulted at Pulse meeting their demise, and a second level of direct responsibility lies with the intentional dereliction of duty on the part of the police who despite knowing that the shooter intended to kill everyone there because the shooter had made exactly that threat refused to immediately storm the building in an attempt to end the assault.

Next, I’d like to direct this blowhard professor’s attention to Oklahoma City, where a man with a bomb made out of common materials (fertilizer and diesel fuel) blew up a building and killed far more than in Orlando (168, to be exact, not including himself as he didn’t blow himself up in the explosion); in addition he injured something like 600 more people. There is no place in this country where you can go to the “bomb store”, obviously, yet that didn’t stop him from executing his murderous plan.

Finally, please list all the mass-shootings and where they have taken place. I would like you to separate them into two groups; places that are “gun free” zones by law or policy such as schools, bars, movie theaters, military bases (except at the gatehouses) and similar, including those where concealed carry is virtually impossible such as California, and those that were gun-rich zones such as police stations, courtrooms and the like.

You will note that in virtually every single one of these assaults, including but not limited to Chattanooga, San Bernardino, Sandy Hook, Columbine, Ft. Hood, Aurora and now Orlando it was unlawful or prohibited by the policy of the establishment for anyone other than a uniformed officer — and in some cases even for uniformed officers (e.g. Chattanooga) — to possess a firearm.

You will not find said jackwads assaulting police stations, biker bars (where despite policy or even law a material percentage of the people are carrying!) or similar. Gee, might it be that while said murderous nutjobs are willing to die they are not interested in dying as soon as they declare their intentions — and before they can inflict material harm on others?

The manifest weight of the evidence is clear:

Virtually every mass-shooting incident has taken place where the Second Amendment is disrespected. Said incidents do not tend to take place where the Second Amendment is respected.

Conclusion:

This “professor” ought to be stripped of his credentials and any degree granted by his institution burned when presented by a graduate, as he clearly cannot manage to logically analyze basic facts and thus it must be assumed that neither can his students.

The manifest weight of the evidence is clear: The Second Amendment must be restored to its original intent and meaning if we are to effectively deter these sorts of attacks. (For more from the author of “MARXIST “CONSTITUTIONAL” SCHOLAR ATTACKS 2nd AMENDMENT: Suffers Near-Fatal Self-Beclownment” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Audit Shows Majority of North Carolina Bathroom Bill Protest Petitions Were From out of State

/0 Comments/in , /by

Petitions delivered by LGBT activists to the North Carolina governor’s office, calling for a repeal of the state’s “bathroom bill,” were mostly signed by out-of-state individuals, the North State Journal reported.

In March, North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory, a Republican, signed House Bill 2 that established public restroom facility accessibility be based on biological sex.

A joint project of the Human Rights Campaign, the Campaign for Southern Equality, the ACLU of North Carolina, and Equality North Carolina, called Turn Out! NC, organized a drive in which the groups say they delivered 190,000 opposing petitions to McCrory’s office on April 25.

Media reports showed the groups delivering numerous boxes of petitions to McCrory’s office. A local TV anchor and reporter with WRAL-TV in Raleigh tweeted a photo that shows at least a couple dozen boxes stacked up:

An Associated Press photo shows Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin, along with others, delivering boxes to McCrory’s office. The photo is credited to Jason E. Miczek with AP Images for Human Rights Campaign.

“While they made for a compelling visual, the boxes themselves and the signature boasting that followed painted a misleading picture of the public opinion in North Carolina, as was affirmed by a recent analysis of the petitions,” Sister Toldjah wrote in an op-ed for Independent Journal Review.

The governor’s office claimed on Twitter that the groups delivered enough petitions to fill two boxes. McCrory’s office tweeted a photo showing a much larger stack of out-of-state petitions next to a smaller pile of petitions:

Sandy Rios, director of governmental affairs for the American Family Association and host of “Sandy Rios in the Morning” on American Family Radio, says LGBT activists created illusions with empty boxes.

“LGBT activists are masters of PR and public manipulation,” Rios told The Daily Signal. “With the help of the media, they mold public opinion by skewing poll questions and results, masterfully creating inevitability as they did on gay marriage.”

“The truth is, this is a movement fueled by smoke and mirrors…and empty boxes,” Rios added.

The North State Journal obtained an audit of the petitions through a public information request and found that 85 percent of the petitions came from out of state.

“We had so many signatures on the petitions, we printed only the list of names rather than more than 185,000 pages of individually signed petitions. And contrary to what Gov. McCrory has suggested, thousands of these signatories are North Carolinians,” The Human Rights Campaign said in a statement, WRAL.com reported.

The Human Rights Campaign did not respond to request for comment by email or phone.

“House Bill 2 is bad for North Carolina; it’s bad for our reputation and it needs to be repealed,” Chris Sgro, executive director of Equality North Carolina, told The Daily Signal. Sgro said:

Gov. McCrory and legislative leaders have heard from both tens of thousands of North Carolinians, poll after poll that shows that a majority of North Carolinians oppose House Bill 2, and hundreds of thousands of people across the United States that House Bill 2 is detrimental to our civil rights and to our economy.

Under North Carolina’s law, The Heritage Foundation’s Ryan T. Anderson wrote that private schools and business are free to establish whatever bathroom policies they would like.

Retail giant Target implemented an “inclusive” bathroom policy in April, allowing individuals to use the bathroom of their choice, based on gender identity.

Over 1.3 million people have signed a pledge to boycott Target that was started by the American Family Association, a nonprofit that supports Christians values.

“With its profits in the gender-free toilet, Target CEO Brian Cornell was on the hot seat with investors for the decision, which analysts say has cost the retailer more than $4.5 billion—and counting,” Family Research Council President Tony Perkins’ Washington Update from Thursday says.

“As everyone on Wall Street knows, Target’s stocks have taken a nearly 20-percent nosedive since April 19, when the change was announced,” the Washington Update added. (For more from the author of “Audit Shows Majority of North Carolina Bathroom Bill Protest Petitions Were From out of State” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

‘Radical Islam’ Does Matter in Identifying Enemy, Experts Say

/0 Comments/in , /by

Using the phrase “radical Islam” to describe the Islamic State or other jihadist groups will not win the war, but is nonetheless relevant in identifying the ideology—not the religion—that America is fighting, experts said.

“I don’t believe the phrase “Islamist extremism” or “Islamist terrorism” is some sort of incantation that’s going to fix everything,” Walter Lohman, director of the Asian Studies Center at The Heritage Foundation, said in an email to The Daily Signal.

“In fact, I don’t even think it’s the most important thing in this whole issue set. What’s most important are the policies that we pursue and the action that we take to defeat it, whatever you want to call it. But it does matter because we—Muslims, as much as other Americans—are engaged in a war of ideas as well as a war on terrorism.”

In a speech Tuesday, President Barack Obama roundly criticized Republicans who have insisted he use the words “radical Islam,” or “Islamist,” to describe the Islamic State.

“What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to try to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this?” Obama said after meeting with his national security team. “The answer is none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. This is a political distraction.”

Lohman, who last December hosted a forum, “Muslim Voices Against the Islamic State and Islamist Extremism,” said the point is to understand the ideology.

“Islamism is a political ideology and it has to be taken on,” Lohman continued in the email. “If we physically dissuade terrorists from hurting people, we still have to stop Islamists from coercing people into their way of thinking by other means. Actually identifying the ideology is key to that, and unfortunately, that ideology is cast in religious terms. It’s like a Muslim civil society leader in Indonesia told me one time talking about the much more serious threat in her own country, ‘What difference does it make whether they are terrorists or not. They (Islamists) all want the same thing.’”

White House press secretary Josh Earnest later added that, “It is not uncommon on cable TV to see some GOP congressman I’ve never heard of demand to know why the president doesn’t say ‘radical Islam.’”

During his remarks, Obama said, “Not once has an adviser of mine said, ‘Man, if we use that phrase, we are going to turn this whole thing around.’” The president added that the United States doesn’t want to feed the Islamic State’s narrative that the militant group represents true Islam.

“Since before I was president, I have been clear about how extremist groups have perverted Islam to justify terrorism,” Obama said. “As president, I have called on our Muslim friends and allies at home and around the world to work with us to reject this twisted interpretation of one of the world’s great religions.”

But the “radical” in “radical Islam” is an obvious distinction from mainstream Islam, and it’s Obama that doesn’t seem to recognize that, said James Carafano, vice president for the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute at The Heritage Foundation.

“A label may seem superficial. American soldiers in Normandy didn’t care whether they were fighting Germans or Nazis,” Carafano told The Daily Signal. “The real fear is that the president is not prosecuting the war to win. It’s horrible to imply using the word ‘Islam’ is racist. ‘Radical Islam’ refers to an Islamist ideology, and is by definition a distinction from Islam.” (For more from the author of “‘Radical Islam’ Does Matter in Identifying Enemy, Experts Say” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Senate Republicans Cave to Democrats, Agree to Vote on Gun Control Bills

/0 Comments/in , /by

After waging a nearly 15-hour-long filibuster, Senate Democrats succeeding in persuading Republican lawmakers to vote on gun control proposals this coming Monday, The Hill reported.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell scheduled the four proposals to be heard, two from Republicans and two from Democrats, which could potentially amend the Commerce, Justice, and Science appropriations bill.

Democrats have rallied behind a bill sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) that would give the attorney general discretion to block the sale of firearms in cases where “reasonable suspicion” exists that an individual has or will commit a terrorist attack.

Critics of Feinstein’s proposal argue authority granted under the bill would be too broad and could impact innocent Americans.

Instead, Republicans have opted to support a proposal from Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) that would allow the attorney general to temporarily suspend the purchase of a firearm, up to 72 hours, with a court order required for anything longer.

Furthermore, a suspension could be approved for individuals who have been the subject of a terror investigation within a five-year period.

Cornyn put forward a similar proposal last year, but it was shot down because of an attached amendment that would have placed penalties on sanctuary cities.

In addition, the Senate will hold votes for expanded background check proposals, including one by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) that would authorize and fund the National Instant Background Check System and provide incentives to share mental health records and federal record sharing.

Democrats have put forward their own proposal that would expand background checks across the board for the sale or transfer of any firearm, as well as impose penalties on states that do not cooperate. (For more from the author of “Senate Republicans Cave to Democrats, Agree to Vote on Gun Control Bills” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Father of Orlando Victim Wishes Son Had Been Armed

/0 Comments/in , /by

A common refrain from gun-rights activists following any kind of mass shooting is that if somebody else had been armed during the shooting, the shooter could have been stopped much earlier.

In the wake of the tragic mass shooting at a gay club in Orlando that killed 49 and wounded 53, one of the people coming forward to make this claim is Mark Allen Bando, whose son was one of the victims.

Calling into Sean Hannity’s radio show show Monday, Bando, who is a retired Detroit police officer said, “His mom talked to him on the phone that evening before he went to the club, so she knew he was going. When she woke up Sunday morning and heard there’d been a massacre there, she went over there — she hadn’t heard from him so she feared the worst — and just today they finally told us that he was one of the victims that was killed at the scene. He never even made it to the hospital.”

Bando went on to say that he wishes more Americans would arm themselves to protect against madmen like Omar Mateen, the Orlando shooter.

“There is a simpler solution, as Donald Trump has said many times, if you have somebody shooting back, the game’s over,” he said. “When the shooting started there wasn’t one person in there that wouldn’t have traded everything he owned in the world to have a loaded gun. But these people don’t realize it until they’re in a situation that’s far too late.”

Bando’s son, who lived in Orlando, had just turned 32 on June 1.

“He lived down there and I lived up here and I never got a chance to teach him how to handle firearms,” Bando said. “I think if we’d have lived in closer proximity, he would have become proficient. He probably would’ve gotten a [concealed pistol license] and carried a gun and that could’ve made a difference last night.” (For more from the author of “Father of Orlando Victim Wishes Son Had Been Armed” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Hackers Who Stole DNC Research On Trump Make A Massive Move

/0 Comments/in , , /by

It didn’t take long for opposition research on Donald Trump to be leaked to the public.

A man calling himself “Guccifer 2.0” — which is a tribute to the Romanian hacker who exposed Hillary Clinton’s private email server — released the documents to the far-left site Gawker.

Thev documents were stolen from the Democratic National Committee last week by Russian government hackers. The research includes detailed accounts of Trump’s record and attacks on his personal character. The presumptive Republican nominee’s marriages are also discussed in detail.

The 200-page document, which was compiled before the start of the presidential primaries, tries to make the case that Trump is without a core and lacks any solid principles:

One thing is clear about Donald Trump, there is only one person he has ever looked out for and that’s himself. Whether it’s American workers, the Republican Party, or his wives, Trump’s only fidelity has been to himself and with that he has shown that he has no problem lying to the American people. Trump will say anything and do anything to get what he wants without regard for those he harms.

Others pages includes details on when Trump has switched his position or said something that could be “offensive.”

People commenting on Gawker were worried that the leaked document might take the wind out of Clinton’s sails, especially since there isn’t a lot of new information about Trump in the report.

One of the top rated comments said, “Happening this early, I think it’s a bad thing. Also opens up to lots of jokes about insecure files and emails.”

The hacker also claimed he has an extensive amount of data which includes donor lists, personal mail, and finanical reports, but said he was holding onto that for the time being. (For more from the author of “Hackers Who Stole DNC Research on Trump Make a Massive Move” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Orlando Shooting Witness Explains Why He Held Club’s Door Shut During Escape

/0 Comments/in , , /by

One of the first witnesses interviewed after the shooting in Orlando Sunday said he and another witness held closed a small exit door in an apparent attempt to prevent the shooter from following their group into an alleyway.

Luis Burbano, an actor based in Orlando, explained the scene of the crime in two interviews with Fox News Channel and ABC News. Burbano said he was in the club while the shooting was ongoing for “no more than a minute, minute and a half.”

Burbano claimed he and a group of around 20 people were able to escape through a small side alley for employees just outside the main building. As the sounds of gunshots began to get closer and closer, Burbano and another witness held closed a small door. Burbano said the entire group was “crammed” in the alley while trying to escape through a hole in a fence.

“We went to this alleyway which led for only employees and … me and this random guy tried blocking the door, cause at that point, like I said, the bullets were getting louder and closer so we blocked this door,” Burbano told ABC News.

“And we did hear banging, and I pray it wasn’t anyone trying to escape, because I would forever feel guilty, but at that point there was about 20 people in front of us crammed in this little alleyway with a big hole in one of the fences and just trying to topple over, just trying to … escape, just run.” (Read more from “Orlando Shooting Witness Explains Why He Held Club’s Door Shut During Escape” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Egypt Says It Has Found Plane Wreckage

/0 Comments/in , /by

Egypt said that it spotted and obtained images from the wreckage of the EgyptAir plane that crashed into the Mediterranean last month, killing all 66 people on board, according to a statement by the country’s investigation committee.

The committee said that the vessel John Lethbridge, which was contracted by the Egyptian government to join the search for the plane debris and flight data recorders, “had identified several main locations of the wreckage.” It added that it obtained images of the wreckage located between the Greek island of Crete and the Egyptian coast . . .

The EgyptAir Airbus A320 en route to Cairo from Paris had been cruising normally in clear skies on an overnight flight on May 19. The radar showed that the doomed aircraft turned 90 degrees left, then a full 360 degrees to the right, plummeting from 38,000 feet (11,582 meters) to 15,000 feet (4,572 meters) before disappearing at about 10,000 feet (3,048 meters). (Read more from “Egypt Says It Has Found Plane Wreckage” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

After Orlando, Trump Pitches for LGBT Support, Still Sending Mixed Messages About Marriage

/1 Comment/in , /by

In the days after America’s deadliest mass shooting, presumed GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump is making a hard pitch for support among LGBT Americans by tying shooter Omar Mateen to radical Islamic beliefs he reportedly espoused before killing 49 people at a popular Orlando gay bar.

Earlier this week, Trump said same-sex attracted Americans should support his candidacy over former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s. While the likely Democratic nominee has backed the full LGBT agenda, including redefining marriage and eliminating sex segregation in restrooms, Trump said her willingness to allow Syrian and other refugees into the country endangers same-sex attracted Americans.

An Attack on Who We Are

“Crooked Hillary wants to increase these immigration numbers very, very substantially,” said Trump at a campaign event on Tuesday. “She’s no friend of women. And she’s no friend of LGBT Americans. No friend, believe me.”

Mateen attacked the club “to execute gay and lesbian citizens for their sexual orientation,” he said. “It’s a strike at who we are as a nation. It’s an assault on the ability of a free people to live their lives, love who they want, and express their identity.”

Trump has given mixed messages with regards to the political issues often prioritized by LGBT groups. Last August, he said he believes marriage should be limited to between a man and a woman, but he also opposed a constitutional amendment making that view the law because it wouldn’t pass. “Anybody that’s making that an issue is doing it for political reasons. The Supreme Court ruled on it.”

The thrice-married Trump has said marriage should be a states’ rights issue, and that as president he would appoint judges that support traditional views on marriage and religious liberty. But he also supports workplace laws that puts same-sex sexual attractions in the same category as race or sex. According to leading social conservative Maggie Gallagher, he only “conditionally” backs the First Amendment Defense Act, a popular conservative bill that would guarantee religious liberty for business owners and others opposed to redefining marriage.

A Limited Response

Trump’s success to gain LGBT support appears to be limited, so far, with mostly small and anonymous backing. The Washington Examiner quoted three people who said they were gay and declared their support for Trump. In a post at PJ Media, an anonymous gay blogger backed Trump, saying that liberals believe “appeasing Muslims is more important than defending the lives of gay people. Every progressive who runs interference for Islamic murderers is complicit in those murders, and I can no longer be a part of that team.”

That blogger said he was writing anonymously thanks to the danger of being a public Trump backer.

One influential gay conservative who came out this week said LGBT Americans should stand with Trump. “It’s disgusting what the Democratic Party is doing right now. I’m shocked and that’s why I came out,” Gateway Pundit blogger Jim Hoft told Newsmax TV. “These Democrats, Steve, we are going to see more dead bodies, more dead mothers, babies and dead gays in nightclubs until they wake up!” In his original blog post, he called gays to “come back home to the Republican Party.”

While he declined to say whether Clinton or Trump would prove better for the LGBT movement’s goals, gay lobby Log Cabin Republicans president Gregory Angelo told The Stream that “national security is — or should be — an important issue for LGBT Americans. In his remarks in New Hampshire, Mr. Trump emphasized this point.”

Angelo previously described Trump’s views as “all over the place.” At the time, Angelo said he was encouraged that Trump

has attended a same-sex wedding, opposes discrimination against gay people in the workplace, and told a lesbian reporter that the LGBT community can expect ‘forward motion’ on equality when President Trump is in office, [but] the promise Mr. Trump has made to appoint justices to the Supreme Court who would overturn the 2015 marriage equality ruling is deeply concerning.

Some LGBT leaders are not taking so kindly to Trump’s outreach, however. Chad Griffin, President of the radical Human Rights Campaign, told CNN that “he is no friend to the LGBT community. … I bet there is not a single family member or friend or brother or sister or girlfriend or boyfriend that is suffering from this great loss that found any comfort in what Donald Trump had to say today.”

Angelo criticized people whose “knee-jerk reaction is to call someone a hypocrite simply because they are moved to offer support for a community in need,” in reaction to those like CNN’s Sally Kohn and Anderson Cooper who criticized Christians who oppose the LGBT movement’s goals yet condemned Mateen’s actions. “People who hadn’t so much as uttered the phrase ‘LGBT community’ are now stepping up to offer compassion and support. That should be embraced instead of shunned by injecting that compassion with politics.”

Normally Democrats

LGBT voters typically back Democratic candidates. In 2012, President Obama won their support three-to-one over GOP nominee Mitt Romney, and few expect Trump to make much progress in reversing that pattern.

Although, Angelo argued, “in a post-marriage equality country…the LGBT community dividing along ideological lines and eschewing traditional identity politics. There could be a shuffling of ideology among the LGBT electorate in this election cycle, but only time will tell whether that translates to more votes for the Republican nominee for president.” (For more from the author of “After Orlando, Trump Pitches for LGBT Support, Still Sending Mixed Messages About Marriage” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Obama-Clinton Ban on Muslims

/0 Comments/in , /by

For all indignation from the Democrats over the so-called “Muslim ban” proposed by GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, one would think they’ve never supported such a thing. Wrong.

According to a investigative report from ABC News published in 2013, the Obama-Clinton State Department stopped processing Iraqi refugee requests for six months in 2011 after it was discovered that two al Qaeda-Iraq terrorists, who had previously attacked US soldiers in Iraq and were trained in bomb making, entered the country as refugees and were living in Bowling Green, Kentucky.

Given the majority of the population in Iraq is Muslim, this should be considered the Obama-Clinton Muslim ban–much those bans proposed towards Syria and other countries in the aftermath of the Paris massacre.

The State Department, which Clinton led at that time, was directly in charge of refugee requests when the Iraq ban was imposed. The Obama Administration took this action after it was discovered two Iraqi men, Waad Ramadan Alwan and Mohammed Shareef Hammadi, who had claimed persecution, revealed to undercover officials their plans to use “a bomb to assassinate an Army captain they’d known in Bayji, who was now back home – and to possibly attack other homeland targets.”

In fact, Alwan had built bombs in Iraq that were targeted at US soldiers in the past. ABC News reported that the “FBI found his fingerprints on a cordless phone base that U.S. soldiers dug up in a gravel pile south of Bayji, Iraq on Sept. 1, 2005. The phone base had been wired to unexploded bombs buried in a nearby road.”

Still, he was permitted to come to Bowling Green and live with Hammadi, where Alwan was living in public housing and receiving public assistance.

Listening to President Obama and now presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton yesterday, however, one would think they’ve never tried to stop such men from entering the United States.

Obama and Clinton gave Trump a one-two punch on Sunday and Monday over Trump’s so-called “Muslim ban.”

“That’s not the America we want,” President Obama said Monday. “It doesn’t reflect our democratic ideals. It will make us less safe.” That followed remarks from Clinton, who said, “Inflammatory anti-Muslim rhetoric and threatening to ban the families and friends of Muslims Americans as well as millions of Muslim business people and tourists from entering our country hurts the vast majority of Muslims who love freedom and hate terror.“

Their attacks were not only hypocritical, but not entirely fair to Trump either.

Although some of Trump’s language is regrettable, he has recently recalibrated to echo language from his former presidential primary rival Ted Cruz to temporarily block refugees from nations where there are terror-related concerns. (More specifically, Cruz offered legislation to allow governors to decline to accept Syrian refugees until the State Department could provide adequate assurances that the refugees posed no security threat.)

But nuance has been largely cast aside in the name of politics. Meanwhile, un-vetted refugees continue to pose a threat to the United States and its allies.

Earlier this month, Germany arrested three men, one of them a Syrian refugee, on suspicion of an ISIS-plot to bomb and “take out as many bystanders as possible.” In January, US officials arrested two refugees on terror-related charges, too.

The bare fact remains that both Obama and Clinton have supported a ban against refugees from a Muslim country in the name of protecting the homeland.

Surely they must have believed it made America more secure.

The question for both of them today is, with ISIS explicitly infiltrating refugee flows in 2016, why wouldn’t similar action continue keeping us safe? (For more from the author of “The Obama-Clinton Ban on Muslims” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.