Inside the Legal Challenge to the FAA’s Drone Registry

/0 Comments/in , /by

Last December, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) rushed an arbitrary and ineffectual recreational drone-owners’ registry into effect, mere days before Christmas and just in time to criminalize the flying of toys by thousands of children and hobbyists. The agency has potentially roped those toys under its definition of “aircraft” for purposes of all aircraft regulation as well. Following this bureaucratic overreach, a hobby drone operator who happens to be a lawyer, John Taylor, filed suit in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, challenging the registry.

Here are some of the highlights from Taylor’s brief in the case:

“For the first century of American aviation and beyond, the federal government made no attempt whatsoever to regulate recreational model aircraft.”

The FAA first wrote on the matter in 1981 in Advisory Circular 91-57, a guidance document calling for “voluntary compliance” with certain safety standards. In 2001, the FAA concluded that model aircraft fliers ought to comply with AC91-57, but that the FAA had no ability to enforce compliance because “Federal Aviation regulations do not apply to [model aircraft].” Model aircraft have historically and sensibly been considered categorically different from traditional manned aircraft. As Taylor put it, you might “use the word ‘train’ in defining a ‘model train,’ [but] it does not turn a model train into a train.”

“The FAA seeks to revise history when it argues its failure to register model aircraft, or otherwise treat them in any manner as ‘aircraft,’ in the past was the exercise of an ‘enforcement discretion.”

Since Oct. 2015, when the FAA first announced its intent to regulate recreational drones, the agency has attempted to erase from history its longstanding policy and now claims it has always considered model aircraft to be “aircraft” subject to federal aviation rules. Why? Because Congress, in 2012, barred the agency from promulgating any new rules governing recreational model aircraft activities—hence the claim that the rules now in force have always existed. Taylor sees this for what it is: an attempt to conceal “a direct and blatant violation of” federal law.

“Congress has adopted the FAA’s consistent interpretation that recreational model aircraft are neither ‘civil aircraft’ nor ‘public aircraft.’ As such they are not aircraft at all.”

This is the correct stance to take, because drones differ from manned aircraft in nearly every respect. What’s more, federal aviation laws and regulations are clearly written with manned aircraft in mind. For example, regulations require that an aircraft’s airworthiness certificate be displayed near the entrance to the cockpit and be legible to passengers and crew. The FAA has yet to clarify how it expects drone operators to comply given there are no cockpits, passengers, or crew. Meanwhile, federal aviation regulations include steep civil and criminal penalties for violations – for example, a possible 20 year prison sentence for shooting down an “aircraft” – that are clearly wildly disproportionate to drones. Nevertheless, the FAA insists these penalties apply.

“The FAA’s sudden re-characterization of any contrivance that flies as ‘aircraft,’ and thereby allowing it to shoehorn recreational model aircraft into aircraft regulations, places hobbyists in an untenable no-man’s land of compliance. The FAA has taken us down a rabbit hole of irrationality to achieve its goal of legally justifying registration.” (Emphasis added)

In addition to outrageous potential criminal and civil penalties, drone operators are now expected to comply with mutually exclusive directives from the FAA. For example, the agency demands that recreational drone owners swear an oath not to fly above 400 feet, yet by deeming drones to be “aircraft,” these operators are subject to federal regulations requiring them to fly above 500 feet at all times except during, for example, emergencies, or take-off and landing maneuvers. There is no way that drone fliers can comply with both rules simultaneously. Further, “the FAA’s broad new interpretation of the definition of ‘aircraft’ would similarly make Frisbees, paper airplanes, and other small flying toys subject to the myriad statutes and regulations applicable to ‘aircraft.’”

“People are entitled to a coherent and applicable definition of a term governed by such a massive and important body of federal regulation. It should not be subject to the FAA’s ever-changing whim.”

In its rush to regulate drones, the FAA created a regulatory scheme that is unconstitutionally vague and utterly irrational. Case in point: while the flight of any toy drone weighing more than 0.55 pounds is considered to be a threat to the safety of the national airspace requiring mandatory and criminally enforceable registration of drone operators, the pilot of an “ultralight aircraft, which can weigh up to 254lbs [and] carry a human” can fly without being registered.

“Simply put, the FAA’s rules regarding real aircraft, when applied to recreational model aircraft and other small flying devices, make no sense. The absurd and contradictory results in applying full-size aircraft regulations to these toys… show a lack of ‘consideration of the relevant factors’ and a ‘clear error of judgement.’”

The FAA has provided no rationale as to why it is reversing a century of non-regulation. Of course, a regulatory agency is not barred from changing its mind, but it must demonstrate a rational connection between the change in policy and the problem it purports to solve. Setting aside the fact that Congress has clearly spoken on the issue and curtailed the FAA’s authority in this space, there is no good reason for drones to be governed by regulations written for manned aircraft, making the policy arbitrary and capricious.

Last year, the FAA tried to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people by presenting a false narrative to justify the indefensible overcriminalization and over-regulation of drone hobbyists. John Taylor’s ongoing lawsuit will, with any luck, put the brakes on this instance of executive overreach. (For more from the author of “Inside the Legal Challenge to the FAA’s Drone Registry” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Koch Brothers Push 2-Year ‘Stop, Cut, and Fix’ Spending Plan on Congress

/0 Comments/in , /by

To put Washington’s fiscal house in order, an organization inside the conservative Koch network is pushing Congress to skip a budget and move straight to a two-year spending bill instead.

Dubbed “Stop, Cut, and Fix,” the plan calls for a continuing resolution that would fund government in fiscal years 2017 and 2018 at current spending levels and then set up a spending cut in fiscal year 2018 according to limits imposed in the 2011 Budget Control Act.

By funding the government for two years, Congress would suspend the annual threat of a government shutdown because of disagreements between Democrats and Republicans. That could buy enough time for lawmakers to rework the mechanics of the budget process, said Andy Koenig, a senior policy analyst with the business group Freedom Partners.

“This gives them an opportunity to do process reforms,” Koenig told The Daily Signal, “move into 2018 knowing what spending levels would be, and hopefully get Congress on that normal budget path.”

Freedom Partners is a more conservative version of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, funded in part by Charles and David Koch, the politically active and libertarian billionaire brothers.

Republican leadership has made a priority of funding the government through regular order—that is, passing individual spending bills one at a time to fund distinct government agencies.

That effort appears to be faltering as time is running out. The House and Senate have finished work on just three of the 12 spending bills. Lawmakers have until Sept. 30 to fund the government or risk a government shutdown.

“Let’s be realistic, they’re not doing a budget. Probably, they’re not going to finish more than a few appropriations bills,” Koenig said.

He predicted lawmakers are “going to do a CR,” or continuing resolution, a stopgap spending measure that locks in federal spending for a particular amount of time.

Rather than negotiate that spending deal days before a potential government shutdown, the Koch network of donors and activists wants lawmakers to begin work now. Conservatives regularly complain that last-minute spending agreements only increase the size of the federal debt.

Before Congress goes on July recess, Koenig said, Freedom Partners is trying to raise the profile of the issue to avoid any impromptu spending increases.

The plan would establish spending cuts before the November elections and would go into effect in fiscal 2018, which begins Oct. 1, 2017, regardless of which party controls the House or the Senate.

Koenig paints a bleak picture if Washington fails to cutback on spending, a habit he warns could lead to “the bankrupting of America.”

His organization projects that within 15 years, the national debt will double, Social Security and Medicare will run out of money, and interest on the national debt will triple. (For more from the author of “Koch Brothers Push 2-Year ‘Stop, Cut, and Fix’ Spending Plan on Congress” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

SCOTUS Once Again Chips Away at Gun Rights

/0 Comments/in , /by

While everyone is waiting with bated breath for the super legislature — aka the Supreme Court — to issue its opinions on cases involving abortion, affirmative action, and immigration, the big news from today is what it declined to consider. Following a disturbing pattern of allowing lower court decisions chipping away at the landmark Heller decision to stand, the high court declined to grant cert to petitioners in the case involving the sweeping gun and magazine bans in New York and Connecticut (New York State Rifle and Pistol Association el al. v. Cuomo).

Following the Sandy Hook shooting, states like New York and Connecticut banned a bunch of semi-automatic rifles containing cosmetic features that make them look scary. They also require forced registration of those firearms already owned by private citizens. Additionally, they banned magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, and in the case of New York, mandated that they not be loaded with more than seven rounds. Initially, New York banned all magazines that hold more than seven rounds, but had to modify the law because most manufacturers don’t even make such small magazines except for sub-compact carry pistols.

While almost every circuit court found a constitutional right to gay marriage, none of them thus far have found a constitutional right to own common guns and ubiquitous magazines, thereby upholding the laws in the blue states. The Second Circuit upheld all the provisions of the New York and Connecticut laws except for the seven round load rule. Despite the Heller decision’s clear constitutional finding that individuals have a right to own and bear common self-defense weapons, the Second Circuit felt that a scary looking pistol grip on a commonly used weapon deems it a substantial governmental interest — enough to limit the individual right to own such a weapon. On Monday, the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of the Second Circuit’s decision.

Typically, one cannot read too much into the Supreme Court’s decision not to grant cert to those seeking to overturn a lower court’s decision. After all, justices have limited time and resources and cannot hear every appeal. Moreover, they often like to wait for a circuit split before rendering a final decision. But following the Heller decision affirming the plain meaning of the most sacred of inviolable rights, how can they continuously allow circuit after circuit to chip away at Heller — both by banning common guns and magazines and by categorically upholding plenary bans on right to carry? They have already refused to consider two other appeals on cases banning gun ownership and have not granted cert to any case where a circuit court has upheld bans on carrying outside one’s home. The Second, Third, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuit Courts have all ruled there is no right to self-defense outside the home — in contravention of the plain language of the Heller decision.

Indeed, in the case of lower courts upholding sweeping gun bans, the silence of more than three justices willing to grant cert (it takes four) is deafening. As Justice Thomas has noted in his dissent on the denial of cert on the two previous assault weapons bans, the other justices (presumably Roberts and Kennedy included) are clearly allowing the Second Amendment to become a second-class right. [1] How can Kennedy and Roberts decline to join in the vote to hear the appeal when the lower courts are vitiating the plain implications of Heller? In Heller, the Supreme Court made it clear that governmental interest cannot be factored in to mitigate an individual right to own or bear firearms because the Second Amendment “is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people,” and “[t]he very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government… the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.” [2] How then can they allow the lower courts to uphold sweeping gun bans on the basis of a government interest for public safety, especially in the case of the Seventh Circuit which upheld the Illinois assault weapons ban simply on the basis that it “may increase the public’s sense of safety.” [3] Those pistol grips and picatinny rails on the rifle are sure scary. If looks could kill! Maybe we should limit the First Amendment’s right to assemble in large numbers because large crowds scare people.

The ongoing debate over gun rights in the courts demonstrates once again that even as the courts create new super rights for favored classes or for foreign nationals, they can’t be relied upon to protect the most basic rights of Americans. It also demonstrates that even if we succeed in filling the current Supreme Court vacancy, given that the lower courts are unanimously against gun rights, we can’t even count on five justices willing to overturn them. The judiciary is a dead end for those seeking preservation of constitutional rights in the long run. (For more from the author of “SCOTUS Once Again Chips Away at Gun Rights” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Media Reports Reveal Reason Behind Trump’s Firing of Campaign Manager

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Corey Lewandowski helped convince Republicans across America that Donald Trump should be their next president.

But according to reports emerging in the news media, he could not convince the family members who make up Trump’s closest inner circle of advisers that he was still an asset to the campaign.

Lewandowski was dismissed on Monday as Trump’s campaign manager, even though much of the operational control of the campaign had been ceded to adviser Paul Manafort.

CNN’s Dana Bash tweeted that Trump’s daughter Ivanka was behind the decision.

The Washington Post reported that Lewandowski was ousted “at the urging of [Trump’s] three adult children and many key allies.”

“It just came to a head. There were a lot of voices that came together at once,” the Post reported, quoting an anonymous Republican official. “They were moving into a general election phase and wanted one coherent management style.”

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said the transition reflects the reality of a presidential campaign.

Trump and his team are “rapidly learning the general election, 50 states simultaneously, is a much bigger, more complex system,” Gingrich said. “The general election is like a gigantic football team — it takes a whole different set of requirements both for the candidate and for the team.”

The Post quoted another unnamed GOP official as saying that Lewandowski was not opposed by Manafort, but by Trump’s children.

“What he is saying to operatives is that the critical mass was finally reached with Trump’s kids,” said the second official.

Members of the Trump family long ago soured on Lewandowski, the Post reported, citing another anonymous source.

“The kids do not like him, and they’re certainly happy with Manafort. Donald was Corey’s only supporter within Trump Tower,” this source told the Post.

When reached by the Associated Press, Lewandowski had little to say.

“Paul Manafort has been in operational control of the campaign since April 7. That’s a fact,” Lewandowski said without further comment.

“This shows donors, activists and party officials that he is willing to make significant changes, even if it means parting ways with a trusted political aide,” said Republican strategist Ryan Williams. “Now Trump needs to demonstrate that he is willing to change his own approach by toning down his rhetoric and becoming a more disciplined general election candidate.” (For more from the author of “Media Reports Reveal Reason Behind Trump’s Firing of Campaign Manager” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

MEET THE “ISLAMOPHOBES”: From Bill Maher to Mark Levin

/0 Comments/in , /by

What do talk show host Bill Maher, author and Eagle Forum Founder Phyllis Schlafley and Conservative Review Editor-in-Chief Mark Levin all have in common? They’re all Islamophobes, according to a new report released by the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) on Tuesday.

“Confronting Fear: Islamophobia and its Impact on the U.S. 2013-2015” is a joint project of CAIR and the U.C. Berkeley Center for Race and Gender meant to outline the funding streams for, and cast aspersions on, what it calls “The U.S. Islamophobe Network.” This list boasts 33 “inner core” and 41 “outer core” groups, while offering “a four-point strategy designed to achieve a shared American understanding of Islam in which being Muslim carries a positive connotation.”

CAIR’s “inner core” consists of “[g]roups whose primary purpose is to promote prejudice against or hatred of Islam and Muslims and whose work regularly demonstrates Islamophobic themes,” while the “outer core” is made up of “[g]roups whose primary purpose does not appear to include promoting prejudice against or hatred of Islam and Muslims, but whose work regularly demonstrates or supports Islamophobic themes.”

Essentially, it’s a hit job on anyone who has ever dared say anything negative about radical Islam and has ever been willing to speak up against it. Such groups included on CAIR’s Islamophobe list include:

ACT! For America, American Islamic Forum for Democracy, Center for the Study of Political Islam, Clarion Project, David Horowitz Freedom Center, Florida Family Association (Fla.), Investigative Project on Terrorism, Jihad Watch, Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), Tennessee Freedom Coalition (Tenn.), Adelson Family Foundation, American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), American Family Association, American Islamic Leadership Coalition, Christian Broadcasting Network, Concerned Women for America, Eagle, the Glenn Beck Program, HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, the Mark Levin Show, National Review, Really Big Coloring Books, Inc, The Washington Times, and WND.

Again, these are some. Not all.

But let’s not forget who’s throwing these labels around here.

We’re talking about CAIR. This is a group affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood and was an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2007 Holy Land Foundation case, in which the DOJ investigated and prosecuted a conspiracy to direct funding to Hamas. Ironically, or maybe not, this is also the same group that President Obama confers with on his “countering violent extremism” agenda.

The Ku Klux Klan is the oldest of America’s hate groups, and in 1925 the white supremacist group could boast four million members and enormous political influence and popular support. Today, however, their numbers and resources are vastly diminished, their bigoted views are socially and politically marginalized, and they are virtually irrelevant within the national landscape. This progressive erosion of the Klan’s social acceptability serves as a model for CAIR’s strategy toward contemporary Islamophobic groups.

So not only are critics of Jihadism to be labeled Islamophobes en masse, but they should also be delegitimized with the same scrutiny of the Ku Klux Klan.

From a tactical perspective, the move is brilliant. This is the same thing that the social left used to silence and browbeat social conservatives for years on every single issue even remotely related to marriage and the family, and it all began with the Southern Poverty Law Center similarly designating every pro-traditional marriage organization in existence as a “hate group.”

Once that happened, it wasn’t too long before it no longer mattered to many how compelling the argument for conjugal, stable, permanent families was and still is. Now, if you hold the position, you’re labeled a hate-mongering bigot and are not to be trusted.

CAIR’s “network” looks similar in scope. It doesn’t matter that many of the groups listed in this report have clearly made the distinction between peaceful interpretations of Islam that don’t seek to subvert our way of life and Jihadism. They’ve been branded; Saul Alinsky would be proud.

“Let’s nudge ourselves from our Religion of Peace’ slumbers for a moment and consider Muslim Brotherhood ideology,” writes Andrew McCarthy, author of “The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America,” in National Review. According to McCarthy, a key memo obtained by the FBI outlines how the Muslim Brotherhood’s “American tentacles,” like CAIR, envision themselves as waging:

[A] kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.

However, the Muslim Brotherhood and its international affiliates aren’t like Al Qaeda (the Jihadist equivalent of Che Guevara) or ISIS (who operate more like Mao Zedong, both analogies courtesy of Dr. Sebastian Gorka). Rather, McCarthy explains, its vision of a “ground-up revolution” is one “in which the use of force plays a part but is just one aspect of a multi-faceted aggression arsenal.”

What’s one way to make this happen? Completely rid yourself of legitimate criticism. And if we’ve learned anything from the marriage debate that culminated in last year’s Obergefell decision, or even recent battles over Religious Freedom laws, the best way to do that is smear, smear, and smear. (For more from the author of “MEET THE “ISLAMOPHOBES”: From Bill Maher to Mark Levin” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Department of Defense Proposes New Military Promotion System

/0 Comments/in , /by

Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced that he would end the “one-size-fits-all” promotion system for military officers, Military Times reported. This could open up more opportunities for diverse military career options.

Carter’s “Force of the Future” reform was announced June 9.

“It aims to help the military bring in more top talent, especially for high-tech career fields focused on cyber warfare and space,” according to a Military Times article. “Advocates say it will help the military fill important manpower shortfalls with highly skilled professionals and, more broadly, create greater ‘permeability’ between the active-duty military and the civilian sector.”

Many of the changes Carter intends to make will need Congress to change the Defense Officer Personnel Management Act, a law concerning most aspects of military promotion, according to Federal News Radio. Carter said the Defense Department will focus on four specific changes, “including a relaxation of the ‘up or out’ promotion process, which he said is fundamentally sound, but too rigid,” Federal News Radio reported.

Carter is requesting that the Pentagon waive all DOPMA-related rules for career fields, if necessary.

According to Carter, this will “ enable them to respond to an uncertain future, in ways that can be tailored to their unique capability requirements and particular personnel needs, without casting off a system that still largely meets our needs for most officers across the force”

One significant change is the opportunity for “lateral entry” into the upper ranks of the military. Promotions will be based on performance rather than tenure in a position. Military services would have the ability to do this, but it would not be required.

Lateral entry will also mean civilian professionals will not have to start at the bottom of the ranks, according to Military Times.

“Now, I have to say we can’t do this for every career field — far from it,” Carter said. “It will probably never apply to line officers, as they’ll always need to begin their military careers as second lieutenants and ensigns.”

These changes are not without controversy and opposition.

“For many in the rank-and-file military, it seems absurd, a bewildering cultural change that threatens to upend many assumptions about military life and traditional career paths,” wrote Andrew Tilghman for Military Times.

Military Times also reported that the U.S. Navy is the most enthusiastic about Carter’s proposal. The Army and Air Force have said they will consider lateral entries if the change is approved by Congress. The Marine Corps seems to be the most wary of the changes. One Marine personnel officer said he supports the proposal because it does not require services to make changes.

“We are prepared to observe the ‘experimentation’ efforts of other services and adopt the best practices where applicable and advantageous,” said Col. Gaines Ward, head of the service’s promotions and policy branch, as reported by Military Times.

Each military service would be able to work out which changes to implement for themselves.

“It’s up to the services. We’re not trying to bind them in, were offering to give them flexibility,” said a senior defense official. (For more from the author of “Department of Defense Proposes New Military Promotion System” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Undercover Reporter Who Purchased an AR-15 May Have Broken Federal Law

/0 Comments/in , , /by

The CR Wire reported Thursday that CBS News was SHOCKED at how easy it was for an American citizen to purchase a firearm legally – as if there was no constitutional right to do so.

Well, it appears the CBS reporter who tried to ridicule gun laws may have committed a federal crime in unlawfully purchasing the gun, at least according to the gun store who sold it. The store, SpecDrive Tactical, contacted Virginia State Police and the ATF to report the possible crime.

The Washington Free Beacon reports:

SpecDive said that when CBS News’ Paula Reid purchased the rifle she told the store’s general manager the gun was for her own use. However, when CBS reported on the story they revealed the gun was purchased for the story and transferred to a third party a few hours later. “The rifle we purchased was legally transferred to a federally licensed firearms dealer and weapons instructor in Virginia, just hours after we bought it,” the report said.

“Ms. Paula Reid came into the shop with cash, claiming she wished to purchase an AR-15 to, ‘undergo training,’” Ryan Lamke, SpecDive’s general manager, told the Washington Free Beacon. “She refused basic, free instruction of firearms safety under the pretense that she was using the firearm for training with a NRA certified instructor.”

“Due to the information provided in the CBS News report filed today, I suspect Ms. Reid committed a straw purchase and procurement of a firearm under false pretenses.”

If Ms. Reid did, in fact, mislead the store about her intentions to give the gun over to a third party immediately after purchase it is “in clear violation of the law,” SpecDrive owner Jerry Rapp made clear.

ATF told the Free Beacon that they are aware of the situation and considering opening an investigation. CBS News remains steadfast that their employee did not break any federal law.

Of course, we don’t wish any evil on people, but if Ms. Reid and CBS News were to be punished for their hit piece it would be something like poetic justice. (For more from the author of “Undercover Reporter Who Purchased an AR-15 May Have Broken Federal Law” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Was This an Assassination Attempt at a Trump Rally?

/0 Comments/in , /by

A man arrested at a Donald Trump rally in Las Vegas told authorities he tried to grab an officer’s gun so he could kill the candidate, according to federal authorities.

A complaint filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Nevada charges Michael Steven Sandford with an act of violence on restricted grounds. He’s expected to appear in court on Monday afternoon.

Authorities said Sandford went to a Trump rally on Saturday at the Treasure Island Casino and approached a Las Vegas police officer to say he wanted an autograph from Trump. The report says Sandford grabbed the handle of an officer’s gun in an attempt to remove it, and was arrested. (Read more from “Was This an Assassination Attempt at a Trump Rally?” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

YOUR ANTIQUE MEDIA: Islamic Terror Attack in Orlando Completely Unrelated to Islamic Terror

/0 Comments/in , /by

The mainstream media are desperate to distract from the facts of the Orlando shootings, choosing instead to blame Republicans and conservatives for the deaths of 49 individuals at a gay bar called Pulse. In reality, the attacks were perpetrated by an American-born Islamic jihadist who pledged allegiance to the Islamic State during the attack, and had in the past “boasted of ties to the terrorist groups Hezbollah and Al Qaeda.”

Instead of discussing the ramifications of terror worldwide and in our midst, the liberal media have reignited their quest for new gun control legislation and have sought to blame this attack on Republicans in general, and presumptive Republican candidate Donald Trump in particular.

Omar Mateen’s “bullets and the blood he left behind that early morning were a reminder that in many corners of the country, gay and transgender people are still regarded as sinners and second-class citizens who should be scorned,” wrote The New York Times editorial board in a scathing piece aimed squarely at Republicans. They write that the “precise motivation for [Mateen’s] rampage remains unclear.”

“So far this year, more than 200 anti-L.G.B.T. bills have been introduced in 34 states,” writes the Times editorial board, focusing on the politics of Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). “The 49 people killed in Orlando were victims of a terrorist attack. But they also need to be remembered as casualties of a society where hate has deep roots.”

As Bernard Goldberg notes, this editorial is completely ridiculous. “If the killer were Christian the Times would have connected the dots and concluded he was driven by his religion,” he writes. Yet the Times failed to mention Islam or ISIS when discussing an Islam-inspired attack on U.S. soil.

“So, he [Mateen] was a gay Muslim Democrat,” notes Jim Treacher for The Daily Caller. “He hit the trifecta of victimhood.” Mateen belonged to too many minority groups, so many that liberals claim at all costs that he cannot be blamed for his own actions. “That means it has to be the gun’s fault, and the NRA’s fault, and the GOP’s fault, and Christians’ fault, and white people’s fault,” writes Treacher.

The Times editorial is not a reflection of the paper’s denial of jihadist terror. Rather, it is a deliberate attempt to deflect blame from the very ideology that repeatedly spawns this sort of activity, and the Times has to know that.

From Nidal Hasan, to the Boston Bombers, the Underwear bomber, the San Bernardino shooting, and now Orlando, the perpetrators of these attacks have drunk from the same poisonous well of sharia-compliant jihadist ideology demanding death to the infidels. Many warnings were ignored or overlooked in these cases. It doesn’t matter whether these were lone wolf terrorists or ISIS-inspired: all of these attacks were carried out in the name of Islam. Obviously, the overwhelming majority of Muslims would never consider committing such an act, and are opposed to such actions.

But it is ludicrous to claim that these attacks have little or nothing to do with Islam, or come from a bastardization of that faith. After all, Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has a Ph.D. in Koranic studies from Iraq’s Saddam University for Islamic Studies. These attacks clearly originated from a jihadist interpretation of Islam.

The media should be asking how the Obama administration, once again, has failed to protect Americans from another Islamic attack. According to the Daily Beast, Mateen was placed on two FBI watch lists, but the FBI’s 10-month investigation into his activities was closed after no terror ties or plans were discovered. In fact, Mateen was the subject of three different FBI investigations from 2013 to 2015, and they always came up empty.

Clarice Feldman, writing for American Thinker, pointed out that “Internal operating instructions of the FBI limited the amount of time they could keep watch on him and both the local and federal authorities were paralyzed by fear of being dubbed Islamophobic. So chilling accounts by his fellow workers were discounted as the result of prejudice, and a report by a local gun shop that he’d tried without success to purchase ‘body armor and bulk ammunition from the store’ was ignored.”

Also, the security company, G4S, that Mateen worked for from 2007 until the night of his terrorist rampage, should be called before Congress for its actions regarding how it handled concerns about his fitness for the job as an armed security guard. G4S is a British-based company that has contracts with the U.S. government to guard airports, most of our nuclear facilities, and to transport illegal aliens to sanctuary cities and other locations, once they have crossed over into the U.S.

According to NBC News, FBI Director James Comey said that “colleagues said Mateen claimed to have family connections to terror groups al Qaeda and Hezbollah, and that he hoped law enforcement would raid his home ‘so he could martyr himself.’” Yet as a result, his employer simply moved him to a less sensitive job. They didn’t take away his company-issued service weapon, a .38 handgun, nor did they fire him. In fact, while the company filed a psych evaluation form with the State of Florida to pass Mateen for firearm clearance, the doctor whose name was on the form says he was never evaluated, certainly not by her. The company now claims it was done by a different, unnamed doctor.

President Obama’s lack of passion over the victims was striking when he first discussed the attack. But when he was criticized by Trump, Obama became passionate and angry, and explained why using the term “radical Islam” was nothing but a talking point—which is why he doesn’t use it.

“So there is no magic to the phrase of radical Islam. It is a political talking point. It is not a strategy,” said Obama. “And the reason I am careful about how I describe this threat has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with actually defeating extremism.”

However, as National Review’s Andy McCarthy writes, the point of using the term “radical Islam” is not to convince or deter Islamic radicals—it is to understand our own mindset and identify “whether we understand what we are fighting.”

“Sharia supremacists have their own civilization and cultural norms by which they judge themselves,” argues McCarthy. “They couldn’t care less what we think.”

Al-Baghdadi is convincing to Muslims around the globe because he understands the Koran and preaches an ideology derived from the Muslim faith. Yet the Obama administration has worked to cleanse the FBI counter-terrorism analytic lexicon of words such as “Muslim, Islam, Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and sharia.”

Obama administration officials continue to blindly ignore the ongoing threat of jihadists. “One month after the San Bernardino terrorist attack that left 14 innocent people dead, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson told advisors that right wing extremists pose just as much of a threat to the country as Islamic extremists.”

And just days before the Orlando attack, the Homeland Security Advisory Council cautioned the Department of Homeland Security that it should avoid terms such as “jihad,” “sharia,” and “takfir.”

Political correctness, whether by the media or by administration officials, is not going to protect American citizens from future terrorists. Both the NRA and the ACLU believe further reforms to the terrorist watch list, such as a way to redress inclusion on the list, are still necessary. But the discussion about gun rights—and using the list to prevent potential terrorists from accessing guns—is a distraction from the greater threat of Islamic terror.

Future terrorists will find a way to access guns regardless of the law. The Obama administration is well on its way to issuing green cards to over one million immigrants from majority-Muslim countries before he leaves office. Is anyone confident in the vetting process for all of these people? If the Obama administration and the complicit media continue to deny the real cause of terror, many more Americans will fall victim to terrorists like Omar Mateen. (For more from the author of “YOUR ANTIQUE MEDIA: Islamic Terror Attack in Orlando Completely Unrelated to Islamic Terror” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Taking Away Constitutional Rights at the Discretion of the Government

/0 Comments/in , /by

If the news reports are correct, the latest “gun control” proposal being put forward by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, is a “measure that would block people on the Transportation Security Administration’s no–fly list from buying firearms,” according to ABC News.

There is one major problem with that proposal: It is potentially unconstitutional since it would take away a constitutional right—your Second Amendment right to bear arms—at the discretion of a government official in a secret, nontransparent process that has no adequate due process protections.

Let’s be clear—we don’t want terrorists buying guns in this country. Nor do we think that they have a Second Amendment right to do so. But this blunt instrument is not the right solution.

The Terrorism Screening Database is the official name for the “Terrorist Watchlist” maintained by the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center. This database is the U.S.’s central repository of foreign and domestic known and suspected terrorists. How individuals get onto this list is classified, as is the process for individuals getting from that list onto the no-fly list maintained by TSA.

We don’t know what evidence is required by the government or what the standards are for the government having a “reasonable suspicion” that would place any American citizen on the no-fly list. And more than one court has held that the procedures for an American who may have mistakenly gotten onto the list to get off are inadequate. The ACLU complains that the government often fails to “provide meaningful notice“ and to explain why an individual is listed

We certainly know that the government makes mistakes. Rahinah Ibraham was a scholar and doctoral candidate at Stanford University with a valid student visa who ended up on the list through a clerical error by an FBI agent. As an alien, she would not be entitled to purchase a gun, but the mistake that landed her on the list and the ten years of litigation she went through to get off of the list shows the problem with the lack of transparency and due process involved in the maintenance of the no-fly list.

Another well-known case is that of Stephen Hayes, a senior writer at The Weekly Standard and a regular on Fox New (and a former Heritage intern). He also was put on the no-fly list with no notice to him; the first he knew about it is when he showed up at the airport for a trip to Minneapolis.

Or Abe Mashal, a 34-year-old Marine veteran who also got put on the no-fly list and was part of a lawsuit against the government by the ACLU, in which a federal judge said that the current redress system for getting off of the secret list was “wholly ineffective” and fell far short of the due process required by the Constitution.

No one questions that we need a no-fly list to prevent suspected terrorists from being able to take over airplanes and repeat the type of horrendous attack that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001.

But there are literally tens of thousands of individuals on that list today and the “reasonable suspicion” standard for getting on that list is not a very stringent legal test; keep in mind that apparently in many of these cases there is not enough evidence to actually arrest the individual and prosecute him for supposed terrorist activities. And while one might assume that it is suspicion of terrorist activity that will get you on the list, some reports indicate that other factors such as just traveling to certain countries or having a similar name to someone on the list can get you on the no-fly list.

If a member of Congress proposed taking away your right to criticize the federal government under the First Amendment or your right to vote in the upcoming election because you are on the government’s secret no-fly list, people would be shocked at the very idea of taking away such fundamental rights based on mere suspicion; without requiring the government to prove its case against you in a court of law; and without any of the due process rights we are guaranteed under the Bill of Rights as citizens of the United States.

But so many liberals would like to write the inconvenient Second Amendment out of the Bill of Rights, that they see no problem with treating it as simply a privilege that the government can take away at will.

If Congress truly wants to bolster our counter-terrorism efforts, they should concentrate on strengthening the investigative tools that can be used by law enforcement, as well as increasing the prosecutorial resources and war-fighting ability needed to stop the murderous acts of jihad being perpetrated against Americans.

That means focusing on the terrorists themselves, and not on measures that take away the constitutional rights of Americans at the discretion of government bureaucrats. (For more from the author of “Taking Away Constitutional Rights at the Discretion of the Government” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.