Right Before Orlando Slaughter, Ex-CIA Head Gen. Petraeus and Astronaut Mark Kelly Launch Gun Control Group

Retired U.S. Army Gen. David Petraeus, who has long resisted calls to run for political office, is teaming up with retired NASA astronaut Mark Kelly to create a new group urging greater gun control.

The two announced on Friday that they were launching Veterans Coalition for Common Sense to encourage elected leaders to “do more to prevent gun tragedies.” The group will feature veterans from every branch of the military who are urging lawmakers to toughen gun laws, the organization said in a news release.

“As service members, each of us swore an oath to protect our Constitution and the homeland. Now we’re asking our leaders to do more to protect our rights and save lives,” said Kelly, the husband of former Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and co-founder of Americans for Responsible Solutions, a group that advocates for tougher gun laws. (Read more from “Right Before Orlando Slaughter, Ex-CIA Head Gen. Petraeus and Astronaut Mark Kelly Launch Gun Control Group” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Smartest President Ever Unable to Deduce Motive of Pulse Nightclub Terrorist

The shooter in Orlando is tied to ISIS and worked for a security firm in Jupiter, passing all tests to obtain guns. He was known to the FBI since 2013.

Another man was arrested on a tip today as he was traveling to the Gay Pride parade in Los Angeles carrying possible explosives and rifles with ammo. The car had Indiana plates and he had the components of a pipe bomb.

Remarkably law enforcement in LA are telling the people they are safe and they have no reason to believe there is an ongoing terror threat.

The shooting in Orlando, Florida is tied to ISIS and that has been confirmed. The terrorist was shouting “Allahu Akbar” in the street and in the nightclub.

The president said in a speech that the slaughter of 50 people and the wounding of 53 was an attack but he doesn’t know what the motives are. He never used the words Islamic, radical Islamic, or any other realistic term.

His mentioning of his concern for LGBTs falls a little flat because he certainly isn’t protecting them. Shall we wait until they are being thrown off buildings in this country?

Apparently the terrorist’s ties to ISIS, including a 9/11 call to them at the time of the attack, was not a dead giveaway. Omar Mateen, the terrorist, pledged allegiance to ISIS in the moments before the attack.

The president called it murder and a massacre, saying they don’t know the motivation and only know that the shooter was filled with hate. He mentioned “terror” but that was as close as he got to describing it accurately.

Obama politicized the terror attack, saying this is about gun violence and it’s to easy to get a gun in this country.

The shooter worked in security and passed all tests to have a weapon, however.

Obama is trying to define down what terrorism is and reduce it to terrorism only if ISIS comes over as an army waving a black ISIS flag on their way over. That’s a dangerous viewpoint and it’s insane.

Attacks “inspired by” are still terror attacks.

The Islamic State has just taken credit for the terror attack in Orlando and this was broadcast from their own media. They usually don’t announce responsibility so quickly over their official media but maybe they are tired of the president pretending it’s not what it is.

He’s beginning to repulse me. Fifty, FIFTY people are dead, Fifty-three are seriously wounded and he’s trying to say it’s gun violence. It’s very disappointing. He’s not protecting us.

(For more from the author of “Smartest President Ever Unable to Deduce Motive of Pulse Nightclub Terrorist” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Pro-ISIS Son of Afghan Immigrants Commits Worst Mass Shooting in US History; Cops Take 3 Hours to Take Him Out

By Ashley Fantz, Ralph Ellis, Faith Karimi and Eliott C. McLaughlin. An American-born man who’d pledged allegiance to ISIS gunned down 50 people at a gay nightclub in Orlando — the deadliest mass shooting in the United States and the nation’s worst terror attack since 911, authorities said Sunday. . .

Mateen carried an assault rifle and a pistol into the packed Pulse club about 2 a.m. Friday and started shooting, killing 50 people and wounding at least 53, police said. After a standoff of about three hours, police crashed into the building with an armored vehicle and killed Mateen.

“It appears he was organized and well-prepared,” Orlando Police Chief John Mina said early Sunday. Authorities have not described finding any accomplices. (Read more from this story HERE).

_____________________

Shooter Born to Afghanistan Immigrants; ISIS Claims Responsibility

By CBS New York. The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria has claimed responsibility for the shooting, CBS News reports. The terror group’s news organization, Aamaq Agency, said the attack was “carried out by an Islamic State fighter. . .”

Law enforcement sources told CBS News the gunman has been identified as Omar Mateen, 29, a U.S. citizen from Port St. Lucie. Mateen was born to Afghan parents. CBS News reports Mateen has no apparent criminal history and that authorities are investigating whether he had ties to Islamic terrorism. . .

Police Chief John Mina also said the shooter had some sort of “suspicious device.” He said the suspect exchanged gunfire with an officer working at the club around 2 a.m., then went back inside and took hostages among more than 300 people inside. (Read more from this story HERE)

_____________________
‘Gays Must Die’ Preached at Orlando Mosque

By WND. In a disturbing twist, a speech given by a Muslim speaker in 2013 at the Husseini Islamic Center in the Orlando suburb of Sanford, Florida, in 2013 called for death to homosexuals.

Sheikh Farrokh Sekaleshfar said killing of homosexuals is the “compassionate” thing to do: “Death is the sentence. We know there’s nothing to be embarrassed about this, death is the sentence.”

Sheikh Sekaleshfar’s call for the death of all homosexuals is based on the tenets of Islam. He is viewed as an expert on Shariah Islamiyya or Islamic Law.

At the time of his talk, WFTV Orlando tried to find out why the mosque invited Dr. Sekaleshfar to speak in the first place.

Reporter Field Sutton stated, “Off camera, one of the people who is a member here told me that Sheikh Farrokh Sekaleshfar’s speech last night on women’s issues was well-received, and not particularly controversial. But we already know that many people in the Sanford area and around central Florida are upset about what is coming tonight.” (Read more from this story HERE)

PATHETIC: McConnell May Rescind Trump Endorsement

By Betsy Fischer Martin, Tammy Haddad and Steven T. Dennis. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Thursday that Donald Trump needs to pick an experienced running mate because “he doesn’t know a lot about the issues” and strongly urged him to change course on his rhetoric.

In an extraordinarily frank interview with Bloomberg Politics’ Masters in Politics podcast, McConnell, who is on a book tour touting his autobiography The Long Game, also expressed broader concerns about the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.

“He needs someone highly experienced and very knowledgeable because it’s pretty obvious he doesn’t know a lot about the issues,” McConnell said. “You see that in the debates in which he’s participated. It’s why I have argued to him publicly and privately that he ought to use a script more often—there is nothing wrong with having prepared texts.”

The Kentucky Republican’s frustration with Trump has been clear, especially this week after Trump’s tarring of Judge Gonzalo Curiel as biased against him because the Indiana-born former prosecutor is “Mexican.” Still, McConnell said he remains “comfortable” backing Trump. (Read more from “PATHETIC: McConnell May Rescind Trump Endorsement” HERE)

________________________________________

McConnell: Trump ‘Doesn’t Know a Lot About the Issues’

By Newsmax. …McConnell, perhaps the most careful and strategic politician in Washington, rarely goes off script himself, and has been sending Trump the same message for weeks in hopes he’ll pivot to the general election.

McConnell said staying on script “indicates a level of seriousness that I think is important to convey to American people about the job you are seeking.”

“I think he’d have a much better chance of winning if he would quit making so many unfortunate public utterances and stick to the script,” he said.

McConnell said he delivered that message in person when the two were in the green room together at the recent National Rifle Association convention in Louisville. (Read more from “McConnell: Trump ‘Doesn’t Know a Lot About the Issues'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Conservative Congressmen: We Can Lead No Matter Who’s in the White House

Several members of Congress told The Stream Thursday that conservative policies will emerge from the House no matter who is President in 2017.

“We’ve got things we’re going to do here regardless of who the president is,” Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) said at the monthly Conversations with Conservatives in response to a question from The Stream about how conservatives plan to lead if Donald Trump wins the White House.

Gohmert recalled that under President George W. Bush, “We had a Republican in the White House,” he said. “We had some great things we wanted to move forward on, and I was surprised as a freshman how much we were affected by the agenda that President Bush had at the time.”

So who the president is “does have an effect, it is a legitimate question,” he continued. “But I think because this is not an election like we’ve ever seen in my lifetime, we’re going to be able to have more say than we have in the past, if we will stand up and say. But that’s been a concern in the past. We just kind of limped along with whatever agenda anybody else had. I think that now you’ve got people who are actually pulling the wagon, and pushing from the other side, and we’ve got a real chance to start achieving some of our agenda.”

Kansas Republican Tim Huelskamp praised House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) for putting forth a series of policy proposals in recent weeks. “As it stands now, we have a Democrat nominee and a Republican nominee that have the highest negatives probably ever in the history of presidential politics,” said Huelskamp at the Capitol Hill meeting, “and I think for Republicans, personalities divide, but policies unite.”

“I think on plenty of issues, it’s very unclear what Donald Trump thinks, and what his official stands are,” he said.

According to House Freedom Caucus Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), “We anticipate unveiling five pieces of legislation we think are important.” Jordan, who like Huelskamp praised Ryan’s policy agenda, named the religious liberty-focused First Amendment Defense Act and welfare reform as two areas of top concern for the Freedom Caucus.

One area of common concern for conservatives and establishment Republicans is education reform. Moderator Genevieve Wood, a senior fellow in communications at the Heritage Foundation, asked Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) about a bill she has introduced that would improve school choice and relieve parents of some of the burdens imposed by federal mandates.

According to Lummis, her bill would allow parents who object to federal mandates to “get an education savings account for their child in the amount that is the average for that state to educate a student” and take that money elsewhere. Lummis said that while the bill would apply to all federal mandates, it was introduced after President Obama’s May mandate that schools will risk federal funding if they do not allow gender-confused teenagers to use the restroom, locker room and other sex-segregated facilities of their choice.

That mandate is being opposed by states that filed a lawsuit against the federal government late last month. (For more from the author of “Conservative Congressmen: We Can Lead No Matter Who’s in the White House” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Average Family Today Has Less Income Than When Obama Took Office

What’s the most important economic statistic to gauge a society’s prosperity?

I often use per-capita economic output when comparing nations.

But for ordinary people, what probably matters most is household income. And if you look at the median household income numbers for the United States, Obamanomics is a failure. According to the Census Bureau’s latest numbers, the average family today has less income (after adjusting for inflation) than when Obama took office.

In an amazing feat of chutzpah, however, the President is actually arguing that he’s done a good job with the economy. His main talking point is that the unemployment rate is down to 4.7 percent.

real_median_household_income_by_race_and_hispanic_origin_-_1967-2014_courtesy_of_daniel_mitchells_international_liberty_blog

Yet as discussed in this Blaze TV interview, sometimes the unemployment rate falls for less-than-ideal reasons.

(For more from the author of “Average Family Today Has Less Income Than When Obama Took Office” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Romney Makes Official Announcement About Third-Party Candidacy to Take on Trump

Mitt Romney, excoriated for months by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump as a failed candidate for the way in which he conducted his 2012 GOP campaign for president, attacked Trump again Friday but said he will not enter this year’s race as a third-party candidate to take on the billionaire.

Romney, who energized the party’s #NeverTrump movement in March by lambasting Trump’s policies and character, also indicated he would never vote for Trump for president and said he was looking with interest at the platform of Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson.

Romney was interviewed Friday by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer.

“I think you’re not going to find a credible candidate actually running as a third-party contender,” Romney said. “I’d like to see someone run, but that’s not likely.”

Romney said he would not be the one to oppose Trump, but spoke wistfully of battling the presumptive GOP nominee.

“I thought it was time for someone new. I’m glad I wasn’t out there with Donald Trump,” he said. “Had I been in the race, I can assure you I would have taken him on. I’m sure he believes he would have been successful pushing me aside just like he did others in part because I would have been seen as an establishment Republican.”

Romney continued his assault on Trump’s character, labeling Trump as a “dangerous” president who is “too great a departure from the values of our country.”

“Presidents have an impact on the nature of our nation, and trickle-down racism, trickle-down bigotry, trickle-down misogyny, all these things are extremely dangerous to the heart and character of America,” he said.

When asked if Trump was a racist, Romney said that Trump’s comments “appeal to the racist tendency that exists in some people, and I think that’s very dangerous.” (For more from the author of “Romney Makes Official Announcement About Third-Party Candidacy to Take on Trump” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Socialist Scumbag Sanders Only Candidate Not to Denounce Tel Aviv Terror Killings

Both Trump and Hillary Clinton have issued statements condemning the Islamic terror attack in Tel Aviv. This was Trump’s statement.

I condemn, in the strongest possible terms, the outrageous terrorist shootings that took the lives of at least four innocent civilians and wounded at least twenty others in Tel Aviv yesterday.

The Israeli security forces’ investigation is ongoing, but some facts have already emerged — and they are grim.

Just as fast as the condolences arrive from the civilized world is the praise arising out of the uncivilized one. Hamas praised the attack, calling the attackers “heroes.” Reports out of Hebron indicate that residents of the terrorists’ hometown lit up the night sky with celebratory fireworks. One Palestinian “news organization” even referred to the shootings, in which the assailants dressed up as observant Jews, as a “Ramadan treat.” The leader of Hamas called the injured terrorist a “hero.” How despicable!

The American people stand strong with the people of Israel, who have suffered far too long from terrorism. Israel’s security is a matter of paramount importance to me and the American people.

But while even Hillary had to say something, there is no press release from the Sanders campaign condemning the brutal terror attack against civilians. That makes him the only candidate in the race not to have issued such a statement.

While Bernie Sanders has been notoriously weak on foreign policy, he has also taken his campaign in an overtly anti-Israel direction. From the lie about Israel killing 10,000 “innocent people” in Gaza, the Simone Zimmerman scandal, the appearances with members of the Students for Justice in Palestine hate group and the push for an anti-Israel Democratic platform, his campaign has been ugly.

And it’s hard not to wonder whether Bernie’s silence in the face of evil isn’t also a message. (For more from the author of “Socialist Scumbag Sanders Only Candidate Not to Denounce Tel Aviv Terror Killings” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

House Republicans Go Strong on National Security

The United States is under growing threats, and House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and his team deserve credit for recognizing that threat and outlining a plan for making America safer, stronger, and more prosperous.

During the last seven years under President Barack Obama, the United States has grown less safe. Threats are rising, such as state-sponsored cyberattacks affecting millions of Americans, terrorist attacks at home and abroad, Russian and Chinese aggression, and dictators with nuclear missiles.

At the same time, Obama has offered weak and misguided leadership and overseen a dramatic weakening in America’s ability to defend itself. Ryan, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., and the chairmen of the House national security committees offer in their agenda a clear-eyed view of the world as it really is, and a striking criticism of Obama’s failures.

Recognizing the problem is the first step toward fixing it. But the House Republican national security agenda does more than recognize the problem, it outlines a laundry list of steps that must be taken. While lengthy, the agenda boils down to the simple idea of keeping America safe, strong, and prosperous.

The House GOP agenda is particularly strong on protecting the homeland, addressing a range of issues from homegrown threats to border security, to enhanced cyber defenses. It also calls for a stronger response to the Islamic State, also known as ISIS, paired with a dedicated effort to win the battle of ideas against radical Islam. It is clear that defeating terrorists abroad and protecting Americans from terrorists at home are the top priorities of House Republicans.

Ryan’s agenda makes important commitments to our friends. House Republicans are right to stand up against Obama’s policy of disengaging with the world and turning our backs on our friends. U.S. alliances, such as NATO, or with countries like Japan, South Korea, and Australia, are vital to keeping our country safe and prosperous. The U.S. should stand with its friends because it benefits our economy and our security.

This agenda is also right to support the economic benefits of free trade. As Heritage analysts Bryan Riley and Anthony Kim have put it, “the freedom to trade is the foundation of America’s modern economic system that provides historically unprecedented opportunities for individuals to achieve greater economic freedom and prosperity.”

For all the strengths of this agenda, there are some gaps. The threat of terrorism is real and enduring, but the new challenge facing the United States is a return of conflict with other major countries.

The U.S. is not at war with Russia and China, but both are taking deliberate efforts to weaken America’s position in the world, to undermine our relationships with our friends, and to strengthen our adversaries. This challenge is fundamentally different from that of terrorism, and requires leadership from Congress and the next president.

Ryan’s agenda mentions the challenges from Russia and China, but misses an opportunity to put this challenge on par with the ongoing threat from terrorism.

The House GOP agenda also misses an opportunity to push for rebuilding the U.S. military. While the agenda calls for “adequate, predictable budgets” for the military, it does not mention the 25 percent budget cut that the military has received in the last five years, and the resulting dramatic cuts to the size and readiness of the U.S. military.

The U.S. military cannot be rebuilt to the size and strength it needs to be to protect our vital interests without a larger defense budget.

Ryan has laid out an agenda that is in keeping with what most Americans want: a safe, strong, and prosperous country. This agenda follows President Ronald Reagan’s goal of peace through strength, and that view still resonates with most Americans, particularly in the face of growing threats. This national security agenda is strong and bold. Now Ryan and House Republicans need to put these words into action. (For more from the author of “House Republicans Go Strong on National Security” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

House-Passed Debt Relief for Puerto Rico Splits Conservatives

A bill establishing a legal framework for Puerto Rico to restructure its $72 billion debt load passed the House by a 297-127 vote after months of haggling among the Obama administration, Democrats, bondholders, unions, Puerto Rico officials—and conservatives.

About the only thing conservatives agree on about legislation the House passed Thursday night providing rescue to Puerto Rico’s debt crisis is that it’s not a bailout.

“There are good reasons to be for the bill, and there are good reasons to be against the bill, but this is not a bailout,” said Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-S.C., referencing the fact that Congress’ solution does not include federal taxpayer money for Puerto Rico. “I certainly don’t want to see people saying I voted against it because it’s a bailout. That is a cheap, and intellectually dishonest way to deal with this. I hope we take it to a higher level intellectually and be honest on both sides of the aisle.”

Hosting a briefing for reporters Thursday afternoon on Capitol Hill, conservative House members laid bare their differences over the bill.

Mulvaney, a leader of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, opposed the bill.

Ever since House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., promised to act on a solution for Puerto Rico and its 3.5 million American citizens, the debate over what Congress should do was an uncomfortable one for conservatives who have little sympathy for financial mismanagement.

But Puerto Rico’s debt crisis is unique.

While financially struggling American cities have access to debt relief under Chapter 9 of the U.S. bankruptcy code, Puerto Rico is exempt from this right as a territory.

When the original version of the bill, introduced in April, was rejected by Republicans who stopped it from even getting a vote, some conservatives realized they could use their positions to shape the legislation in a positive way.

Most prominent among those actors was Rep. Raúl Labrador, R-Idaho, a leader of the Freedom Caucus, who is Puerto Rican.

Labrador voted in favor of the bill, which he helped negotiate.

The 40 or so members of the Freedom Caucus were unusually quiet during negotiations of the bill, deferring to Labrador and the closeness he has with the issue, tied to the island by his heritage and his presence on the congressional panel with jurisdiction over Puerto Rico, the Natural Resources Committee.

Though fellow conservatives credited Labrador with adding provisions favorable to them to the bill, by including language that payments to pensioners would not be prioritized over secured debt—among other things—many of his colleagues did not ultimately follow his lead.

“There’s been good arguments from my colleagues, but with one most important caveat,” said Rep. Dave Brat, R-Va., a Freedom Caucus member who voted against the bill. “The people of Puerto Rico have to be in favor of this. If they are in favor of it, I am in favor of it. A former governor is against it, the current governor is against it, the people are against it. The United States Congress does not ever have the right to overrule the legislative body of another territory.”

Labrador, who spoke at the briefing on Capitol Hill with Brat, quickly interrupted the Virginia freshman, noting a ruling from the Supreme Court Thursday that said Puerto Rico is not sovereign, even though it has its own government and constitution.

“The Supreme Court today affirmed the responsibility we do have [for Puerto Rico],” Labrador said. “What I fear, actually, is that because of the responsibility we have, that not only is the bill not a bailout out, but I believe this bill is preventing a bigger cry for a bailout to these states like Illinois and California that are mismanaging their finances.”

The Puerto Rico debt relief legislation provides new federal oversight over the island by creating a control board with powers to manage the territory’s financial affairs, and enforce balanced budgets. The board’s seven members are to be appointed by President Barack Obama, from a list of names provided by congressional leaders.

There would be a stay on litigation as the control board gets an opportunity to oversee negotiations between creditors and the Puerto Rican government over settling terms of the debt.

In an example of the split between conservatives, though many support the concept of a restructuring board, and believe it can help Puerto Rico enact economic reforms, some wish the legislation contained more “pro-growth” provisions.

The Republican Study Committee, the largest conservative group in the House, expressed disappointment that House leaders prevented a vote on an amendment to the bill that would have exempted Puerto Rico from the Jones Act.

The Jones Act, meant to protect American shipping interests, requires vessels transporting goods within the country to be U.S.-built and owned, and at least 75 percent U.S.-crewed.

“While I would like to help the restructuring, I think in a broad context it’s a bad message for other entities,” said Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., a Freedom Caucus member who supported the bill despite some reservations. “What it does do in the broader context is this is the beginning of the end. Puerto Rico is a unique situation, but I think in the broader context, the American people will see it for what it appears to be.”

At least one conservative is able to put any tension over the bill aside.

“The great thing about conservatives is we can disagree, but I know Raúl [Labrador] is smart and Raúl is a good guy,” said Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, who opposed the legislation. “It’s possible the board could address these issues, especially with the way Raúl has helped reform the board, and I’m grateful he has.” (For more from the author of “House-Passed Debt Relief for Puerto Rico Splits Conservatives” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.