Crazy Pic: TSA Catches Something Major in Flower Bouquet

. . .A passenger flying through Seattle-Tacoma International Airport last month was stopped when a knife was found hiding in flower stems the traveler was trying to bring in their carry-on.

The traveler was stopped during the routine screening of carry-on luggage on July 23, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) shared. . .

View this post on Instagram

Roses are red Violets are blue A knife hidden in your flowers can’t be carried through So, pack it in your checked bag along with your oversized shampoo. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ We’re not just pollen your leg. Let us bee clear, you won't have knife day if you try to sneak a prohibited item through TSA security. Knives of any kind are not allowed in your carry-on. So once and flor-al, don’t hide prohibited items in your carry-on. This is our advice to you, take it or leaf it. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ One of our officers from Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SEA) discovered it during a routine screening of carry-on bag on July 23. Follow us on Twitter and Facebook for more information and travel tips. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ #TSA✈️ #prohibiteditems #traveladvice #instatravels #travelgram #bagcheck #airport✈️ #helovesmehelovesmenot

A post shared by TSA (@tsa) on

(Read more from “Crazy Pic: TSA Catches Something Major in Flower Bouquet” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

WATCH: President Trump Calls for ‘Red Flag’ Gun Confiscation Laws

Following two mass killings in Texas and Ohio over the weekend, President Donald Trump called for gun control in a statement from the White House Monday morning, in the form of expanded background checks and “red flag” gun confiscation laws.

“The first lady and I join all Americans in praying and grieving for the victims, their families, and the survivors,” Trump said near the beginning of his address. “We will stand by their side forever. We will never forget. These barbaric slaughters are an assault upon our communities, an attack upon our nation, and a crime against all of humanity.”

The president also unequivocally denounced the racist ideology that appears to have motivated the El Paso suspect.

“The shooter in El Paso posted a manifesto online consumed by racist hate,” Trump noted. “In one voice, our nation must condemn racism, bigotry, and white supremacy. These sinister ideologies must be defeated. Hate has no place in America. Hatred warps the mind, ravages the heart, and devours the soul.”

In discussing how to respond on a policy level later in the address, the president voiced his support for so-called “red flag” laws, which empower judges to take people’s guns away by court order if the person is deemed to be a “grave risk to public safety.”

“We must make sure that those judged to pose a grave risk to public safety do not have access to firearms and that if they do, those firearms can be taken through rapid due process,” Trump said. “That is why I have called for red flag laws, also known as extreme risk protection orders.”

While the impulse to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people is an understandable one, the devil is always in the details. Not all so-called “red flag” laws are created equal, and they can often be nightmares for due process rights.

Taking Second Amendment rights away from people for non-criminal reasons is already on the books. Someone who has been adjudicated “as a mental defective” or involuntarily committed to a mental institution can’t buy a gun.

But again, due process is key.

As Independent Institute Research Director Dave Kopel explained to Congress back in March, while some state laws stipulate that only law enforcement can bring a red flag petition to a judge, newer versions allow petitions to be brought by “spurned dating partners or relationships from long ago.”

Another problem with some so-called red flag laws is that they allow confiscation orders to be issued ex parte, meaning that they can be issued when a judge only hears one side of the story and the target of the petition is not permitted to defend himself.

In addition to the confiscation laws, the president also called for other “real bipartisan solutions” in response to the shootings, which include reforms to America’s mental health care system to “better identify mentally disturbed individuals who may commit acts of violence” for treatment and “when necessary, involuntary confinement.”

He also voiced support for legislation ensuring that mass shooters would get the death penalty “and that this capital punishment be delivered quickly, decisively, and without years of needless delay.”

Trump’s full remarks can be found here.

(For more from the author of “President Trump Calls for ‘Red Flag’ Gun Confiscation Laws” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Shooting at a Packed Nightclub in Canada, Where Gun Control Is Already Way Stricter Than the U.S.

Shots rang out at a packed Toronto nightclub as an altercation involving a firearm sent five people to the hospital, one with life-threatening injuries, according to local police.

A Toronto police official told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation said that it was “fortunate there’s five victims only,” because “the club was completely full.”

The CBC reports that 3 victims from the early Monday morning shooting were found at the scene, while two fled and took themselves to the hospital.

“It’s very concerning,” the official added, “the club was packed with patrons.”

The story also notes two other shootings in Toronto over the weekend.

As I pointed out for a different story earlier this year (which was also about circumventing Canada’s firearm laws), Canada’s gun control situation looks much like what the gun control lobby says it wants right now, as opposed to the more draconian laws in most European countries, which look like what more extreme voices in the gun control movement actually want:

While most long guns are classified as “non-restricted” in Canada, most handguns are deemed “restricted” firearms (some are banned) and are under extensive regulation.

All gun owners have to be licensed, and there are extra licensure requirements for “restricted” firearms.

License applications require third-party references.

Concealed carry is virtually nonexistent unless you need to carry for work.

All “restricted” guns have to be registered with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

The government regulates private gun storage.

Last year, the country’s liberal government proposed expanding background checks to cover a person’s entire life history and requiring government authorization for the transportation of privately owned guns. Now, Canadian gun control advocates believe that a full handgun ban is “within our reach.”

U.S. politicians have responded to shootings in Ohio and Texas over the weekend by proposing different forms of reactionary gun control. President Trump gave an address from the White House in support of “red flag” gun confiscation laws, while House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., put out a joint statement calling for expanded background check legislation. (For more from the author of “Shooting at a Packed Nightclub in Canada, Where Gun Control Is Already Way Stricter Than the U.S.” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

GOP Lawmaker Accuses Republicans of ‘Enabling White Supremacy’ by Refusing to Condemn Trump

A Republican state lawmaker from Nebraska is gaining attention for calling out the GOP for “enabling white supremacy in our country” after a mass murderer with racist motivations killed 20 people and injured several others in El Paso, Texas.

State Sen. John McCollister of Omaha accused President Trump of stoking “racist fears in his base,” in a Twitter thread demanding Republicans speak out against white nationalism and condemn President Trump.

In an interview with the Omaha World-Herald, McCollister elaborated on his Twitter thread, attacking Nebraska’s GOP congressional delegation for neglecting to voice a full condemnation of the president.

“I’d like to see some moral outrage from some of our Republican officeholders,” McCollister said. “The silence is deafening.”

This is asinine. What “racist and immoral activity” is “enabling white supremacy” in the Republican Party? Refusing to join the Left in screaming “Trump is racist!” every time the president says something rude? The remarks McCollister cites about “sh*tholes” or the “go back” comments do not show that President Trump believes white people are racially superior to people with darker skin. They’re impolite, they’re not traditionally presidential, but they’re not “enabling white supremacy.”

Which Trump comments qualify as stoking “racist fears” in his base? Ask the Left, and they’ll say anyone who uses the phrase “illegal immigrant” should be condemned. Is President Trump stoking fear by frequently making statements about the illegal immigration issue or the border crisis? Should Republicans stop talking about these issues because they enable “white supremacy,” since white supremacists don’t like migrants from south of the border?

What does “enabling white supremacy” even mean? Would white supremacy cease to exist if Trump never said or tweeted anything controversial? How exactly would condemning Trump disable white supremacy? Say Republicans did condemn the president; say they even impeached him. If Trump were removed from office or if he loses the 2020 election, would racists in America stop being racists? Obviously not.

And what evidence of “white supremacy” is there in the GOP anyway? McCollister only mentions Trump. Is he implying that the El Paso murderer is somehow related to the Republican Party or inspired by his rhetoric? There’s no evidence that the murderer was a Republican or a Democrat. In his manifesto, the murderer attacked Democrats and Republicans. He ranted about environmental degradation caused by climate change in addition to illegal immigration. You might just as soon call him an eco-terrorist as a white supremacist terrorist, if you wanted to play stupid word games with acts of evil to score political points.

If McCollister knows about white supremacists in the Republican Party, he should out them and show what they’ve done to advance that racist ideology. If he’s going to accuse Republicans of being “complicit” with racism, he needs to do more than complain that the GOP won’t join in with Democrats and the media in hating the president.

President Trump, speaking for himself, condemned racism and white supremacy Monday in a speech on the weekend’s mass shootings. “Our nation is overcome with shock, horror and sorrow,” Trump said. “We are outraged and sickened by this monstrous evil.”

“In one voice, our nation must condemn racism, bigotry and white supremacy,” Trump said. “These sinister ideologies must be defeated. Hatred has no place in America.”

Dozens of people are dead or injured after two acts of heinous evil committed by mass murderers over the weekend. Making Donald Trump the problem today, and attacking other Republicans for refusing to join in, is deplorable. (For more from the author of “GOP Lawmaker Accuses Republicans of ‘Enabling White Supremacy’ by Refusing to Condemn Trump” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Mass Shootings: The Unicorn Gun Control Policy as the Magic Solution

Inevitably after a mass shooting, the discussion turns to the weapon. Well, if we can’t identify this unique profile of evil mass murderers before they strike, what if we ensured they never got a gun?

That certainly is a laudable goal. After all, we all want to make sure that bad guys or those who are mentally unstable don’t have access to a gun — or any other weapon. But show me the piece of legislation that would prevent most of these attacks.

It’s clear that the advent of social media is fueling a copycat mentality, which is why so many of them are now writing “manifestos.” There is no doubt that if none of these people got any notoriety, the copycat mentality would be limited, but how is that feasible with today’s technology?

Leftists would argue that if they were allowed to pass some magic gun bill, it would deny these people the means with which to commit these acts. But they need to consider the following:

Violent crime and murder have dropped precipitously, almost miraculously, since 1993. This is probably the only positive social trend we’ve enjoyed in recent years. This period coincided directly with the trend of loosening of gun laws in most states, particularly right-to-carry laws. In 1993, fewer than 30 percent of Americans lived in right-to-carry states; now that number has grown to 70 percent. According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, there are now 17.25 million people who hold concealed carry permits, a 273 percent increase since 2007. Violent crime, including from gun homicides, got cut in halfwhile the number of guns owned has increased over 60 percent since the 1990s. While this doesn’t categorically prove that more guns equal less crime, it certainly refutes the thesis of the Left that more gun control is the answer.

Over the past few years, after two decades of a steady decline in murder, violent crime has risen in some major liberal citiesdirectly after they enacted stricter licensing and background checks, “assault weapons” bans, and magazine capacity limitations. Meanwhile, most other jurisdictions continue to experience a drop in crime.

While the mass shootings are shocking, any public policy debate must look at crime and gun violence in totality.

While the rise in mass shootings is devastating, we should not lose sight of the fact that in 1993, there were 24,530 homicides, compared with 17,284 in 2017, despite the massive growth in population. The homicide numbers in most parts of the country are still historically low, even factoring in the mass shootings.

The Left will want to focus on AR-15-style rifles in particular, but even in 2017, with the worst mass shooting ever, only 403 of the 15,129 homicide victims died from a rifle shot, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting [table 8]. Almost four times as many people died from knife attacks, and 696 died from fists or other physical “personal weapons.” The overwhelming majority of murders were obviously from simple handguns, which no legislation will remove from the streets.

Most of those murders are caused by career criminals in the daily gang and inner-city warfare taking place in cities like Chicago and Baltimore. Particularly in Chicago, “a substantial portion of the city’s violent crime” is perpetrated by gangs working for the Mexican cartels empowered by our open border, according to the DEA. That is a much bigger public policy issue with much easier answers.

In my hometown of Baltimore, we have stricter rules than anything Democrats realistically want to enact at the federal level. Remember, Maryland requires a full license, not just a background check, just to own a gun in one’s home and not carry it. Yet gun violence in Maryland is soaring. In addition, following Sandy Hook, Maryland enacted a ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds and banned the sale of 45 commonly owned semi-automatic rifles that have been used in some of these mass shootings.

It’s simply not credible to support letting gun felons out of jail under the guise of “criminal justice reform,” loosening sentencing of known criminals, refusing to lock up any violent juvenile, such as the Parkland shooter, handcuffing the police, and encouraging sanctuary cities – but then suddenly claim a magical, gun-based solution to the vexing problem of first-time mass murderers. Liberals refuse to get tough on the elements of crime that drive most homicides in this nation, and in fact want looser standards for criminals, wishing at the same time to strip law-abiding citizens of the right to arm themselves. Many of the major cities in this country stand as a testament to this point.

The soft-on-crime crowd can’t have it both ways. They can’t seek tougher laws on guns while seeking lenient laws on the violent criminals. They can’t promote federal policies that incentivize or bully states into putting more names in a NICs database while promoting policies that encourage states to lock up as few criminals as possible. The entire criminal justice “reform” movement has created a culture, pressure, and incentive for cops and county governments to be as lenient as possible on incarcerating juveniles, the exact opposite of the cultural pressure from the past two decades.

This is why we need to focus on stopping violence in totality, not just one form of it, especially when we first need to learn the source of the trend. To virtue-signal about guns and Trump as a white supremacist while not only ignoring the homicide problem but promoting policies that will lock up fewer murderers is no virtue at all. It’s merely signaling to the media to further divide the country rather then pursuing commonsense solutions based on rational thought.

If “doing something” is limited to releasing criminals from jail while locking up the guns, it’s better to do nothing at all. (For more from the author of “Mass Shootings: The Unicorn Gun Control Policy as the Magic Solution” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

WATCH: No, the United States Doesn’t Lead the World in Mass Shootings

. . .A common myth you can expect to hear a lot in the coming days and weeks is that the United States “leads the world in mass shootings” and therefore we must pass some law that will do nothing to stop future mass shootings, but will infringe on the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

What you might not hear is that this claim is completely bogus.

Sure, if you following conservative media, you’re probably aware of this. Townhall, The Daily Signal, Bearing Arms, FEE, The Washington Examiner, and others have all previously reported on how the myth that the United States leads the world in mass shootings is based on a deeply flawed study, which has been debunked by the Crime Prevention Research Center. . .

The following video from John Stossel explains how the myth got started and why it’s bogus:

. . .

In the end, the problem of mass shootings (and gun violence in general) is not one to be solved by knee jerk reactions, finger-pointing, useless legislation or unconstitutional gun grabs. The left will do whatever they can to politicize these incidents because they think they can gain power from it. They don’t expect most Americans to do the research required to fully understand the big picture. (Read more from “No, the United States Doesn’t Lead the World in Mass Shootings” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Feds Investigating AOC’s Chief of Staff Who Suddenly Resigned, Report Says. Here’s Why.

By The Blaze. The controversial chief of staff for Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), who suddenly resigned Friday, is under federal investigation, a new report reveals.

According to the New York Post, the Federal Election Commission is investigating Saikat Chakrabarti for possible campaign finance violations, potentially shedding new light on his sudden departure from Ocasio-Cortez’s office.

The investigation comes after government watchdog group National Legal and Policy Center filed complaints with the FEC in March, alleging Chakrabarti created shell companies to circumvent strict federal guidelines governing PAC finances and disclosure requirements. . .

According to the Post, the investigation includes probing the motive behind salary rules implemented by Ocasio-Cortez’s office. In March, she announced no staff member working in her office would make less than $52,000 or more than $80,000.

By capping Chakrabarti’s salary at $80,000 — despite most congressional chiefs of staff earning more than $140,000 per year — it would have allowed Chakrabarti to avoid requirements mandating he reveal outside income, which are triggered for staff members earning more than $126,000. (Read more from “Feds Investigating AOC’s Chief of Staff Who Suddenly Resigned, Report Says. Here’s Why.” HERE)

__________________________________________________

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Chief of Staff, Spokesman Leave Her Office

By Politico. Saikat Chakrabarti, the controversial chief of staff to high-profile freshman Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, will be leaving her office to work for a non-profit focusing on the Green New Deal.

Corbin Trent, Ocasio-Cortez’s communications director, will also be leaving the congressional office. Trent will work on Ocasio-Cortez’s 2020 reelection campaign, according to the New York Democrat. (Read more from “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Chief of Staff, Spokesman Leave Her Office” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

El Paso Killer is an Environmental Extremist; Made Chilling Admission to Police, Charged With Capital Murder

By Natasha Lennard. An entire paragraph of the [El Paso killer’s] manifesto is dedicated to environmental degradation and Malthusian claims about the need to “get rid of enough people” to protect ever dwindling resources. The author cites the Christchurch shooter’s lengthy manifesto, titled “The Great Replacement,” as an inspiration, reiterating the paranoid fears of demographic shift and white decline. The Christchurch shooter self-identified as an “eco-fascist,” writing, “there is no nationalism without environmentalism.”

Against the perilous climate change denialism typical of U.S. conservatives, environmental decimation is broadly seen as a liberal and left concern. . .

[The El Paso killer’s manifesto continued,] “The American lifestyle affords our citizens an incredible quality of life. However, our lifestyle is destroying the environment of our country,” the El Paso manifesto notes, adding, “Everything I have seen and heard in my short life has led me to believe that the average American isn’t willing to change their lifestyle, even if the changes only cause a slight inconvenience. … So the next logical step is to decrease the number of people in America using resources.” Read more about the man charged with capital murder from this left-wing publication HERE)

___________________________________________________

By The Blaze. The man accused of killing 20 people at an El Paso Walmart was officially booked into the El Paso jail on capital murder charges early Sunday morning, records show. . .

FBI Special Agent in Charge Emerson Bowie told KTSM that “enhanced charges” are likely given the probability the killer was a white nationalist inspired by hatred for Hispanic people. . .

A manifesto posted online, which has been attributed to the killer but not yet confirmed by authorities as authentic, said the attack was “a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas.”

Indeed, the killer made a similar chilling admission to police.

According to ABC News, citing law enforcement officials, the killer told authorities his goal was to “shoot as many Mexicans as possible.” (Read more from “El Paso Killer Booked on Capital Murder Charges, but Makes Chilling Admission to Police” HERE)

___________________________________________________

Mass Shooting That Killed 20 in El Paso Investigated as ‘Domestic Terrorism’: Officials

By ABC News. Twenty people were killed and dozens more injured on Saturday morning in a massacre at an El Paso, Texas, Walmart that was packed with back-to-school shoppers, making it one of the deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history, officials said. . .

The suspect was identified by authorities as Patrick Crusius, 21, of Allen, Texas. He is being held on a charge of capital murder, court records show.

John Bash, the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Texas, said Sunday that federal authorities are investigating the incident as an act of “domestic terrorism,” meaning the suspect was allegedly intent on “coercing and intimidating a civilian population.” . . .

In El Paso, the suspect Crusius was “taken into custody without incident” and without any law enforcement officers firing their weapons, according to El Paso Police Department Sgt. Robert Gomez. He later told investigators he wanted to shoot as many Mexicans as possible, two law enforcement officials told ABC News.

“He was forthcoming with information. He basically didn’t hold anything back,” El Paso Police Chief Greg Allen said during Sunday’s news conference, declining to comment on specifics of what the alleged gunman told investigators. (Read more from “Mass Shooting That Killed 20 in El Paso Investigated as ‘Domestic Terrorism’: Officials” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Trump Wants to Pull All U.S. Troops out of Afghanistan by the 2020 Election

NBC News is reporting that Donald Trump has told White House aides that he wants to pull all U.S. troops out of Afghanistan by the 2020 election.

Current negotiations with the Taliban may make that possible. The two sides appear to be inching closer to a political deal that would include a total withdrawal of all U.S. forces.

But the NBC report alludes to some serious friction between the State Department and the Pentagon over the timing of the withdrawal. “It’s tense,” said one former official briefed on the debate:

Last December Trump threatened not only to immediately withdraw all troops from Afghanistan but also to shut down the U.S. embassy in Kabul, complaining to aides that it is too large and expensive, according to officials. The president’s threat to close the U.S. embassy — which has not been previously reported — so alarmed administration and military officials that they quickly offered him a plan to move up the timing of efforts to scale back the size of the embassy staff, officials said. . .

But Trump argued that without a military presence U.S. embassy staff could be in danger, so it should be closed, the officials said. He also said it was time for the U.S. to get out of the war there otherwise it could bankrupt the U.S. like it did Russia in the 1980s, the two former defense officials said.

(Read more from “Trump Wants to Pull All U.S. Troops out of Afghanistan by the 2020 Election” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Neighborhood Tells 82-Yr-Old Granny to Curb Her American Flag Enthusiasm, but She’s Refusing

A homeowner’s association in Arizona is the news this weekend [and] it couldn’t be for less flattering reasons. The HOA told 82-year-old Donna Cordero that she can’t keep her new American flag decoration because it doesn’t fit the neighborhood’s look. . .

The series of events that led to this conflict are outlined in detail by columnist Laurie Roberts here, along with photos. But to summarize: a firefighter on an emergency call to a neighbor asked Cordero why none of the homes had the numbers painted on the curb, and Cordero brought it up with the HOA, which told her that she would basically have to handle it herself because they had no one responsible for such things.

The HOA insists that it’s not about the flag per se, explaining that other residents in the neighborhood have traditional, flown flags that are within the HOA’s guidelines. They maintained their position against objections, and most of the neighbors complied leaving, as USA Today described it, an ugly blotch of mismatched white paint where a flag used to be. . .

But Donna Cordero has not complied, and says he doesn’t intend to.

“You’ve got to stand for something or you will fall for nothing and I’m not going to fall for nothing,” she said. “This is my property and I just can’t believe anybody would find that flag offensive.” (Read more from “Neighborhood Tells 82-Yr-Old Granny to Curb Her American Flag Enthusiasm, but She’s Refusing” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE