Showing posts with label National Rifle Association. Show all posts
Showing posts with label National Rifle Association. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 2, 2018

New York WEAPONIZES Regulatory Powers Against The NRA

AP Photo/John Minchillo


Regulatory powers have just been dangerously weaponized against the National Rifle Association. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s recent directive to financial regulators wants them to pressure private companies to break ties with the NRA, “or else…”


New York has never been known as a bastion of freedom, yet this is even highly reminiscent of all-out fascist tactics to eliminate basic fundamental human rights through weaponized regulations. And although no person should ever have the kind of power Cuomo exerted to “decree” private businesses and banks follow his orders, don’t be surprised if they cave to the tyranny.


“I am directing the Department of Financial Services to urge insurers and bankers statewide to determine whether any relationship they may have with the NRA or similar organizations sends the wrong message to their clients and their communities who often look to them for guidance and support,” the governor wrote in a statement.


The Department of Financial Services, which regulates the banking and insurance industries in New York, followed up with guidance letters to insurance companies and banks, according to Reason. 


The guidance then includes slight variations on the following language from the banking letter:


The Department encourages its chartered and licensed financial institutions to continue evaluating and managing their risks, including reputational risks, that may arise from their dealings with the NRA or similar gun promotion organizations, if any, as well as continued assessment of compliance with their own codes of social responsibility. The Department encourages regulated institutions to review any relationships they have with the NRA or similar gun promotion organizations, and to take prompt actions to managing these risks and promote public health and safety.


Why is this such a terrifying ordeal? The regulatory body that oversees these industries is warning companies under its power that they may be assuming reputational risk (a regulated area that draws official attention) by doing business with legal organizations such as the NRA. This reputational risk is said to exist because these groups are “gun promotion organizations,” which boils down to nothing more than them taking public policy positions at odds with those favored by the state’s political leaders.  Meaning the New York State government is weaponizing itself against any business it deems a political enemy…does this sound like East Berlin circa 1939 yet?


But this is hardly the first time government regulatory agencies have been weaponized against the public. “My father may have been the originator of the concept of employing the IRS as a weapon of political retribution,” Elliott Roosevelt observed of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The federal tax agency remains a handy bludgeon for politicians from that day through the present, including its recent deployment against Tea Party groups and its power to financially punish (at gunpoint of course) those who can’t afford or don’t wish to purchase government-approved health care plans. 


As Reason noted, yes, weaponizing regulatory agencies has been done before.  But making it explicit strips regulatory authority of any legitimacy. Punishing political opponents is a less compelling argument for such power than claims—valid or otherwise—that you’re enforcing good business practices. If it becomes standard practice, people are entitled to view regulators as nothing more than partisan hitmen and treat them accordingly.


New York’s long-established culture of corrupt and weaponized use of government power is a stain on the state, not something to be made official policy and extended to the country as an example to emulate.

Wednesday, March 28, 2018

BACKLASH: NRA’s Political Fund Donations SPIKE In Wake Of Parkland Shooting


It probably wasn’t the shooting at a Florida high school itself that caused donations to the NRA to triple since Valentine’s Day. But it was more likely than not the wave of anti-gun illogical and emotionally charged outbursts demanding those who are innocent of the shooting give up their rights that did it.


Supporters of the Second Amendment donated about $779,000 in February to the NRA’s political arm, the Political Victory Fund, according to recent Federal Election Commission (FEC) data. The figure marked a more than threefold increase compared to January when the PAC received nearly $250,000 in donations and was the fund’s second-best month over the last year.


Last weekend, thousands of people rallied in support of gun control during the “March for Our Lives” protest, with many placards openly attacking the NRA. The increasing onslaught against the organization, however, correlated with more donations going to the group’s PAC.


According to the Center for Responsive Politics, two weeks before the fatal school shooting, the NRA’s PAC received $27,100 from itemized contributions – donations that exceed $200 – from 51 donors. Over the next two weeks after the shooting, the itemized contributions skyrocketed to nearly $71,000 from 226 donors.


Most donations to the group – totaling $685,099 – came in small donations that did not exceed $200. This means that normal, average, everyday Americans propped up the NRA in the wake of protests. Multiple politicians are facing the fury of anti-gun activists who criticize them for accepting the NRA’s support and donations. Yet there’s little to no criticism of the Antifa thugs who accept money from George Soros to fund their violent Communist temper tantrums.


The NRA is obviously not going anywhere, and this wave of marches has only added to their funding.  NRA memberships have been on the rise as well.


NRA (National Rifle Association) memberships have skyrocketed in recent weeks since the mainstream media has been ramping up their anti-gun agenda. As the media continues to weaponize the news in the form of gun control propaganda, the NRA’s profiting continues to go up. –SHTFPlan


There’s nothing like a little scapegoating when it comes to placing the blame for mass shootings.  It seems like the blame falls always on the NRA and law-abiding gun owners, not the psychopaths who shoot up schools. And that’s exactly why NRA memberships and donations are skyrocketing.

Monday, March 5, 2018

Media Bias BACKLASH: NRA Memberships Up As MSM Propagandizes For Gun Control


NRA (National Rifle Association) memberships have skyrocketed in recent weeks since the mainstream media has been ramping up their anti-gun agenda. As the media continues to weaponize the news in the form of gun control propaganda, the NRA’s profiting continues to go up.


The Daily Mail reports that Google searches for “NRA membership” rose 4,900 percent since the Parkland Florida school attack. That rise occurred at a time when many Democrats, media personalities, and Hollywood celebrities were denouncing the NRA and leveling blame on the association for the shooting that took 17 lives in a gun-free zone.


Hollywood also took to social media to make sure they press an anti-gun agenda for the elitists as well.  Notorious leftist, Chelsea Handler tweeted the following:




There’s nothing like a little scapegoating when it comes to placing the blame for mass shootings.  It seems like the blame falls always on the NRA and law-abiding gun owners, not the psychopaths who shoot up schools.


CNN’s February 21 gun control town hall highlighted the media’s animosity towards the NRA, as it featured survivors from the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting confronting Republicans over NRA affiliation. The Guardian reported that one student spoke to Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) and asked, “Can you tell me right now you will not accept a single donation from the NRA?”


According to The Hill, a large swath of the American populace is equating these various attacks on the NRA with attacks on the Second Amendment and gun rights in general, while others see the attacks as proof of “media bias.” The result is an explosion in NRA memberships.


After several large corporations dropped discounts for NRA members, many took it as shots fired at the NRA for a crime they didn’t commit.  The Daily Mail quoted Cleta Mitchell, a former NRA board member and former Oklahoma lawmaker, who said, “There is no one. NO ONE. Who joins the NRA for a discount on a rental car. You can rest assured that the NRA will not lose a single member as a result of this. If anything, it should spur people to join the NRA as a means of demonstrating that we who believe in the Second Amendment will not be bullied by these left wing multi-billion dollar corporations.”


 

Wednesday, February 28, 2018

These Companies Still Support the NRA

These Companies Still Support the NRA | nra | Economy & Business Gun Control US News


This morning when I was reading the headlines, I came across one that talked about the companies which still supported the NRA after all the ridiculous boycotts that caused other businesses to withdraw their support. I eagerly clicked the link and saw this sub-headline:



Come for the discounts, stay for the opposition to common sense gun laws.



What???


Of course, then I saw that it was ThinkProgress and wasn’t surprised anymore, but I figured I should make my own list that was a bit more positive than their dismal droning, blaming the guiltless NRA instead of the FBI or the other law enforcement agencies that actually WERE at fault for not stopping the school shooting in Florida that took the lives of 17 people on Valentine’s Day.


For more information, read Part 1 and Part 2 of my investigation into the shooting.


*Climbs off soapbox.*


In the article, Josh Israel (any relation to Sheriff Scott Israel?) and Kira Lerner ranted:


After the shooting in Parkland, Florida, the NRA has been the focus of renewed national attention, as the group continues to successfully block any legislation to curb gun violence on the national level. Dallas’ mayor pro tem told the NRA Monday that the group will be “met with opposition” if it holds its scheduled May conference in his city. And over the weekend, hundreds of people gathered outside the group’s Virginia headquarters to hold a vigil and protest.


ThinkProgress asked more than two dozen corporations that offer incentives to NRA members whether they plan to continue their relationships with the gun lobby. A growing number of those companies have ended their relationship with the NRA since this list was initially published. (source)


Anyway, the following companies haven’t caved to pressure and continue to support the NRA. If you get a chance, you can support them in return.



Shots fired.


Many other businesses have severed ties with the NRA or have announced plans to do so.


The NRA denounced those companies in a statement, saying:


“Some corporations have decided to punish NRA membership in a shameful display of political and civic cowardice.


Let it be absolutely clear. The loss of a discount will neither scare nor distract one single NRA member from our mission to stand and defend the individual freedoms that have always made America the greatest nation in the world.” (source)


The companies which have caved to the public pressure of websites like ThinkProgress are:



  • Alamo Rental Cars

  • Allied Van Lines

  • Avis Rental Cars

  • Budget Rental Cars

  • Chubb (they underwrote carry insurance for gun owners)

  • Delta Airlines

  • Enterprise Rental Cars

  • First National Bank of Omaha

  • Hertz Rental Cars

  • LifeLock

  • Lockton (they underwrote carry insurance for gun owners)

  • MetLife

  • National Rental Cars

  • North American Van Lines

  • Republic Bank

  • Securian Financial Group

  • SimpliSafe

  • Starkey Hearing Technologies

  • Symantec (the company that produces Norton Antivirus software)

  • Teledoc

  • TrueCar

  • United Airlines

  • Wild Apricot


ThinkProgress smugly concluded:


In early 2013, weeks after the Sandy Hook shooting, ThinkProgress published a similar list. Since that time, several companies have discontinued their relationships with the pro-gun group.  Following a grassroots pressure campaign led by the global advocacy group Avaaz.org, both Best Western and Wyndham hotels stopped offering an NRA discount…


…A similar pressure campaign by a coalition of LGBTQ rights groups and gun violence prevention organizations began pressuring FedEx to do the same in 2016, but has not yet had success. (source)


It’s astonishing to me that the NRA is being publicly crucified, yet none of these people are talking about the failures of the FBI, the Broward County Sheriff’s office, or the local police to follow the laws that are already on the books.


Then again, I guess it isn’t really that astonishing at all. But it certainly demonstrates where their priorities are.


The post These Companies Still Support the NRA appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Monday, January 29, 2018

Virginia ‘Domestic Terrorism’ Bill is really a Rights-Trampling Power Grab

Leave it to Opposite Day “progressives” to reverse the intent behind Virginia’s state motto.


In one of those occasional convergences that happen every so often, the American Civil Liberties Union is coming down on the right side of pending legislation by opposing a Virginia bill “that would define domestic terrorism and add it to its list of criminal charges,” the Daily Press reports.


The bill “raises ‘significant constitutional concerns,’ particularly with the First Amendment [and] is written in a way that could allow the state government to target minority communities who have ‘unpopular beliefs,’” the report explains. “Specifically, the power that the superintendent of Virginia State Police would hold in labeling groups as domestic terrorist groups — without those groups being notified in advance — is a concern.”


While ACLU’s concerns are valid, the “minority” group the bill is intended to target does not people they are overly concerned about. Understanding that the legislation is a Democrat response to Charlottesville, it should come as no surprise that the intent is to take attention away from threats imported through “progressive” cultural and political “fundamental transformation” policies and point a finger and assumption of guilt toward the native-born.


Look at the two main shakers and movers behind the legislation: Delegate Marcia “Cia” Price and Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring, both “progressive” anti-gun / pro-“immigration” Democrats. So naturally they have no problem limiting rights to freely assemble and associate based on an edict that “defines domestic terrorism as a violent or criminal act that aims to intimidate or instill fear in someone because of their race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation or disability, or to stop someone from pursuing their constitutional rights.”


That’s a pretty loose benchmark, especially since we see college “safe spaces” and after-event counseling for “snowflakes” overwrought because a “conservative” was allowed to speak on a college campus. What does it really take for such as these to claim intimidation and fear, and why should their neuroses—real or faked — have any bearing on the rights of free people? And this goes a step further: If you “knowingly provide resources” (donate a few bucks, drive members to a rally site, etc.?) to such a group, you could apparently be up for a Class 5 felony.


But wait, there’s more!


“Price’s bill would require the Virginia State Police superintendent to identify groups that meet the definition of a domestic terrorist organization and to list them annually in the Virginia Register of Regulations, which is a guiding document for state agencies,” the report elaborates.  “The bill would require local police departments to report acts of domestic terrorism to the State Police, but those reports could be withheld from the public.”


What could go wrong, not only in giving police such powers to designate who’s who in “domestic terrorism,” but also in keeping the citizens they supposedly work for in the dark?


And understand that as backdrop to all this, there was another story from almost a year ago when Herring held “a town hall meeting at a ‘terror-linked’ mosque in Northern Virginia.”


Does anyone have any doubts as to what these people are doing and why?


Curiously — maddeningly, some would maintain — many Virginians are asleep at the switch. As their state turns from red to blue, with an influx of newly-minted citizens leading the way, the Republicans in the House narrowly missed losing their majority by just one vote in a contest that then had to be decided by pulling a name out of a canister. Literally.


It’s not lost on “progressives” that this is happening in the state that is home to National Rifle Association headquarters. And it’s not lost on a few of us that the end game this enables will allow Democrats to pass whatever anti-gun legislation they wish and to appoint judges who will uphold those “laws.”


—–


If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.


—–


David Codrea’s opinions are his own. See “Who speaks for Oath Keepers?”


The post Virginia ‘Domestic Terrorism’ Bill is really a Rights-Trampling Power Grab appeared first on Oath Keepers.

Tuesday, December 12, 2017

NRA Silent as States, Feds Ban Gun Sales to Medical Marijuana Patients

(ANTIMEDIA Op-ed)  The National Rifle Association (NRA), which fancies itself a champion of the Second Amendment and gun rights, is nowhere to be found as state governments are moving to confiscate firearms from medical marijuana patients.


Police in Honolulu, Hawaii, recently sent out a letter to 30 medical cannabis patients warning them they had 30 days to hand over their guns. When medical cannabis becomes legal in Ohio in 2018, patients will not be permitted to own or possess firearms. Similar restrictions have been imposed in California and Oregon despite state policy, and they are not new.


In 2011, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosive issued a warning that because cannabis is illegal at the federal level, patients cannot possess guns. “There are no exceptions in federal law for marijuana purportedly used for medicinal purposes, even if such use is sanctioned by state law,” the ATF said in 2011.


Despite the NRA’s vehemently opinionated stances on many issues, including whether or not suspected terrorists should have access to guns, the lobbying group had little to say at the time about the federal government’s infringements on cannabis patients’ gun rights, merely ‘reporting’ that If a person admits marijuana use to a licensed firearm dealer, the dealer is prohibited from transferring a firearm to that person because the dealer will have a ‘reasonable cause to believe’ that the person is an unlawful user.”


The NRA has not responded to Anti-Media’s request for comment on the Honolulu police order for cannabis patients to turn in their guns (considering the organization’s proud support for law enforcement, this is unsurprising). In fact, the order came and went after public outcry condemned the gun grab. Honolulu police have since backtracked, saying they will not be confiscating guns but will be enforcing their policy against future cannabis users who would like to purchase a firearm.


Still, the country’s foremost representative of gun rights has had no comment.


This puts the NRA in a contradictory position. The organization has made it clear it believes the 2nd Amendment is intended to fight tyranny, an obvious reference to the American Revolution.


As Wayne LaPierre, the NRA’s executive vice president, said in 2013:


I think without any doubt, if you look at why our Founding Fathers put it there, they had lived under the tyranny of King George and they wanted to make sure that these free people in this new country would never be subjugated again and have to live under tyranny.”


But during the revolution, the American rebels were largely spurred to action because of their opposition unjust laws.


In 2017, a vast majority of Americans oppose the war on cannabis, especially with respect to medicinal uses. Even Republicans now favor legalization. Yet the NRA is nowhere to be found to speak on behalf of the people and the gun owners they claim to protect while an over-bloated federal government violates the constitution to punish people for non-violently possessing a plant.


Rather, the NRA prefers to express its eternal support for law enforcement  the enforcers of unjust laws  and seems content to ignore the federal government’s violations of marijuana users’ rights simply because the federal government asserts   through unjust and outdated laws  that the plant is illegal.


But assuming laws are akin to wisdom and morality is a dangerous practice, as demonstrated by a 2016 ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that reaffirmed cannabis use and possession is grounds for infringing on the 2nd Amendment.


The court case itself was rooted in legality. A gun shop owner refused to issue a gun to a medical marijuana patient in Nevada precisely because the plant remains illegal at the federal level. In the 9th Circuit Court panel’s opinion, they cited federal law, writing:


Turning to federal firearms provisions, under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) no person ‘who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance’ may ‘possess . . . or . . . receive any firearm or ammunition.’ In addition, it is unlawful for ‘any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person . . . is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.’


In addition to citing legality, the panel claimed cannabis use “raises the risk of irrational or unpredictable behavior with which gun use should not be associated.”


In reality, research suggests violence and crime actually decrease in states that (illegally, according to the federal government) allow access to cannabis. In contrast, alcohol, a legal drug (according to the federal government), has well-documented, strong links to aggression, violence, and ‘irrational or unpredictable behavior.’ Because it is legal, however, gun access is not restricted to people who use the government-approved drug.


Though alcohol is far more dangerous than cannabis, alcohol gets a free pass because the federal government, which the NRA purports to mistrust, does not violently punish people for using it. The NRA remains silent when that same federal government, which, again, it believes its constituents might need to overthrow at some point, violates the 2nd Amendment. Rather than questioning laws as the glorified 18th-century American rebels did, the NRA prefers the government they mistrust simply enforce existing gun laws, like denying cannabis users their rights.


Apparently, the organization only believes in the notion of “shall not be infringed” if gun owners align with their own right-wing establishment views and law-and-order agenda, which often command submission to the very government they fantasize about overthrowing.


Op-ed / Creative Commons / Anti-Media / Report a typo

Friday, December 1, 2017

There’s No Excuse for Paper to Host Demonstrable Falsehood on ‘Automatic Rifles’

Despite having a responsibility to get things right, journalists get basics on guns wrong so often they’ve become the well-deserved objects of ridicule. But do they do it because they really don’t know, or do they do it because demonizing guns helps advance an agenda? (Uncredited graphic retrieved from Reddit)


“I own guns, but I also have a conscience,” guest columnist Dave Waldrop asserts in The Asheville Citizen-Times. “Does the NRA?”


What kind of obnoxious question is that? Especially since right out of the starting gate Waldrop showed everyone his big “but,” being the have-it-both-ways type who claims he believes in owning guns but


“The National Rifle Association (NRA) along with thousands of its members insist that the Second Amendment to our Constitution guarantees the right of Americans to own firearms,” Waldrop declares. “To many it appears the NRA is willing to ignore the harsh reality that too many people have been killed by people wielding assault rifles.


“These are automatic rifles that fire dozens of rounds before requiring reloading,” Waldrop asserts, just like he knows what he’s talking about. “How long will the NRA shirk its responsibility to support legislation that sets reasonable limits on (A) who can legally own firearms and (B) which firearms pose too great a risk of harming or killing Americans and, therefore, must be controlled or banned for the safety of all?”


“I have personally chosen not to join the NRA because of their rigid stance that perpetuates this needless killing,” Waldrop declares. “I will continue, like many of my friends, neighbors and relatives to own simple non-assault firearms for personal safety.”


There’s so much loopy with this guy’s “reasoning” it’s clear he has no clue as to the purpose behind the Second Amendment and what the citizen militia it deems “necessary to the security of a free State” would need in order to carry out that mandate. Either that or he knows full well and he’s being disingenuous instead of just ignorant. Regardless, one point he makes is such an obvious and blatant falsehood there is no excuse for The Citizen-Times editors to have allowed it to see its way into their pages.


Waldrop is conflating “automatic rifles” with semiautomatic firearms, and that’s been a move straight out of the gun-grabber playbook since the Violence Policy Center’s Josh Sugarmann explained the tactical deception back in 1988:


“The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.”


The reason the paper allowing this deception to continue is inexcusable is because many of us have been loudly objecting to it for decades every time some ambitious, oath-breaking politician or police chief tries to use it to advance citizen disarmament. A journalist influencing the public on a prominent issue lacking at least minimal subject matter knowledge is guilty of malpractice. An editor allowing it is guilty of worse. And it’s tough to write this off to mere editorial incompetence or ignorance from inside a “progressive” bubble, especially since many astute readers have been pointing out the lie for days now, and there’s still been no correction issued by the editors who authorized this guest column.


That’s especially egregious in light of the paper’s ethics policy, which claims to place paramount importance on truth, integrity, public interest and fair play. Then again, the Citizen-Times is “part of the USA TODAY NETWORK,” which itself is owned by Gannett. And when it comes to Gannett, guns and ethics, let’s just say past experience has shown little evidence of them having much of a conscience.


—–


If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.


—–


David Codrea’s opinions are his own. See “Who speaks for Oath Keepers?”


The post There’s No Excuse for Paper to Host Demonstrable Falsehood on ‘Automatic Rifles’ appeared first on Oath Keepers.

Tuesday, November 7, 2017

Callous Democrat WALKS OUT During Moment Of Silence For Texas Massacre Victims

timlieu


A junior Democratic congressman walked out during a moment of silence Monday night for victims of this weekend’s mass shooting at a Texas church. In a Facebook post, the California representative Tim Lieu said he would not respect the victims in Texas because he’s too busy ensuring the destruction of gun rights.


In a video posted on Facebook Monday evening, California Rep. Ted Lieu said that he would not join his colleagues who were observing the moment of silence in the chambers of the House of Representatives. “I can’t do this again; I’ve been to too many moments of silences,” Lieu said in the video. “In just my short period in Congress, three of the worst mass shootings in us history have occurred. I will not be silent.”


I urge us to pass reasonable gun safety legislation, including a universal background check law supported by 80 percent of Americans, a ban on assault rifles and a ban on bump stocks,” Lieu added.


Lieu had been vocal about his support for the destruction of rights on social media since the shooting occurred.


“My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and families affected by the mass shooting in Sutherland Springs,” he posted on Twitter Sunday. But just two hours later, after some of his followers objected to the measured nature of the tweet, Lieu decided to unload on the National Rifle Association instead.


Lieu has shown no sympathy or compassion for those who lost their lives.  Instead, he’s doing what every Democrat has done after a mass shooting: use it as an excuse to punish those who have committed no crime by taking away their rights.




“I agree my prior tweet could be better,” Lieu tweeted. “So here: I pray for the victims in TX. Also, screw the @NRA & can you help Dems take back the House.”


Democrats show very little in the way of compassion after an atrocity, instead, they quickly seek the destruction of rights – especially gun rights.  Maybe it’s a burr in their side that gun owners, for the most part, won’t vote for a Democrat.


 

Thursday, October 5, 2017

"Don't Ask Me To Pray For Victims" - Harvard Professor Calls NRA A "Domestic Terrorist Organization"

Authored by Emily Hall via CampusReform.org,


A Harvard University professor called the National Rifle Association a “domestic terrorist organization” Tuesday morning, adding that “Congress must act” on gun control.






“We have to have the courage to call the NRA exactly what it has become - a domestic terrorist organization that places profit above the lives of the American people,” Dr. Jonathan Walton declared during Morning Prayers, according to a blog post by The Memorial Church at Harvard.



Anticipating that “gun rights defenders will accuse me of politicizing this tragedy,” he proceeds to substantiate the accusation, speculating that mass murder “is what the NRA, weapons makers, and all who financially profit from this country"s pain desire” because “weapons sales increase and gun stocks rise following each mass shooting.”






“This nation is sick. Our cultural anxiety, toxic masculinity, and racial, religious, and ethnic bigotries are eating away at the soul of this nation,” Walton said later in the sermon.



“It even caused us to elect a madman to the presidency that embodies the worst aspects of our country’s cultural disease.”



He then decried the fact that Congress has not enacted further gun control measures, proclaiming that “if Congress is unwilling to act, then this nation should just own [its] sick and twisted reality,” rather than continuing to publicly mourn the victims.





“Mass shootings will just become a part of the quotidian fabric of American life - a sad, but an unsurprising event,” he continued.



“Thus, don’t ask me to pray. Don’t ask me to hold a vigil for victims. Nor will I light any more candles.”



Walton is the Plummer Professor of Christian Morals and Pusey Minister of the Memorial Church, as well as a tenured Harvard Divinity School Professor of Religion and Society.


He was arrested in September, along with a group of other professors, for protesting President Trump’s decision to repeal DACA by blocking the flow of traffic through Harvard Square.


The “Morning Prayers” page on the Memorial Church’s website notes that “a daily service of Morning Prayers has been kept at Harvard since its founding in 1636. Held Monday through Friday during term, the service consists of music, prayer, and a brief address given by a member or friend of the University.”


Campus Reform reached out to Walton for elaboration on his remarks, but did not receive a response in time for publication.


And then Nancy Sinatra piped in helpfully...


Sunday, September 10, 2017

In An Increasingly Divided America, Everyone Agrees On One Thing: "Everyone Else Is Wrong"

A recent poll by the Wall Street Journal/NBC News confirmed what many Americans probably suspected: The US was a country rife with political, economic and cultural divisions long before President Trump rode down that escalator at Trump Tower in June 2015.


And while politics isn"t the only factor driving the divide, as WSJ explains, it"s probably the most obvious. People who identify with either party increasingly disagree not just on policy, but on fundamental social and economic values...





“The wide gulf is visible in an array of issues and attitudes: Democrats are twice as likely to say they never go to church as are Republicans, and they are eight times as likely to favor action on climate change. One-third of Republicans say they support the National Rifle Association, while just 4% of Democrats do. More than three-quarters of Democrats, but less than one-third of Republicans, said they felt comfortable with societal changes that have made the U.S. more diverse.”



For example, Americans" views on the economy and the country’s future are often correlated with their feelings about one man: President Donald Trump.





“Our political compass is totally dominating our economic and world views about the country,” said GOP pollster Bill McInturff, who conducted the survey with Democratic pollster Fred Yang. “Political polarization is not a new thing.



The level under Trump is the logical outcome of a generation-long trend.”



Some of the starkest attitudinal divides were between people with a four-year college degree, and those who had only a high school education.  





“Rural Americans and people without a four-year college degree are notably more pessimistic about the economy and more conservative on social issues. Those groups make up an increasingly large share of the GOP.”



According to WSJ, peoples’ views about the president’s job performance are much more polarized than they were a decade ago.






“Eight months into the 1950s presidency of Republican Dwight Eisenhower, 60% of Democrats approved of the job he was doing. That level of cross-party support for a new president remained above 40% until Bill Clinton, when only 20% of Republicans approved of his performance after eight months in 1993. For Barack Obama, Republican support dropped to 16% at this point in his presidency in 2009.”



That trend has only accelerated under Trump…





“His job-approval rating among Americans overall has remained in recent months at about 40%, but just 8% of Democrats approve of the job he is doing, the survey found. By contrast, 80% of Republicans approve.”



Notably, Republicans’ outlook for the future improved remarkably after Trump triumphed over Hillary Clinton in November’s election.





“Mr. Trump’s election has brought a sharp mood swing among Republicans. In August 2014, 88% of Republicans said they weren’t confident that life for their children’s generation would be better than their own, a gloomy view of a central element of the American dream. Eight months into the Trump presidency, just 46% of Republicans say they lack confidence in their children’s future - a 42-point swing that is more dramatic than improvements in the economy would seem to justify.”



The survey showed that gun control, immigration and globalization – some of the most divisive issues facing the American public – were all key issues of Trump’s campaign.  



Surprisingly, views about gun control were once less partisan. Asked if they were concerned that the government would go too far in restricting gun-ownership rights or, alternatively, that the government wouldn’t do enough,


Republicans in 1995 were about evenly split. Democrats were divided 26% to 67%. Now, 77% of Republicans say they worry the government could go too far, while 71% of Democrats worry the government won’t go far enough.



The public’s views on immigration have also become pretty lopsided:





“Views of immigration have also become more partisan. In an April 2005 poll that asked whether immigration strengthened or weakened the U.S., a plurality of 48% said it weakened the nation, with 41% saying immigration strengthened the country. Now, a substantial majority of 64% view immigration as strengthening the country, while 28% say it weakens the U.S. The change is due almost entirely to a sharp shift in Democrats’ views. In 2005, just 45% of Democrats said the country was strengthened by immigration; now the share is 81%.”



Rural Americans and those without a college degree have particularly pessimistic views on the economy.





“Some 43% of rural residents gave a high rating to their local economy’s health, compared with 57% of urban dwellers. Among people without a four-year college degree, only 47% viewed the economy in their area as good or excellent, compared with two-thirds of people with a degree.



Both groups have been moving from the Democratic Party to the GOP.”



To be sure, most Americans say they"re aware of the growing polarization in the US: 80% of those surveyed saw the country as mainly or totally divided. However, in an ironic twist, they couldn’t agree on why. Democrats and independents tended to see the division as rooted in economics, while Republicans saw it as mainly a political divide.


To sum it up...





“It’s as if everyone agrees that it’s too divisive and we can’t get along, but also that everyone else is wrong,” said Mr. Yang.



Regardless of what’s driving it, one thing seems likely: It’ll likely get worse before it gets better.
 

Thursday, July 27, 2017

Far Left Militia Training For Guerrilla Warfare Using ‘Sabotage, Kidnapping, Executions, and Terrorism’

Far Left Watch is out with a fascinating read on left-wing militant groups training for violent civil war with conservatives. Reprinted with permission.


-----



Right wing radio personality, Dana Loesch and The National Rifle Association recently came under fire for launching a “controversial” ad. There was an immediate backlash from numerous left leaning publications claiming that the video was a call to violence. Interestingly enough, the recent spike in political violence has come overwhelmingly from the left. Even more concerning is the the growth of far left organizations openly advocating for “armed struggle”, especially considering the recent targeted shooting of Republican House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and three others by a deranged left wing activist.


One of the largest and fasted growing organizations that fits this description is Redneck Revolt, a self described “above ground militant formation” founded in June of 2016 that claims to have 30+ vetted branches nationwide.


30chapters


Redneck Revolt’s organizing principles mirror much of what you would see on any other far left organizing platform. They begin with their very reasonable, very east to support, opposition to “white supremacy”. They then dive into class theory, anti-capitalist, and anti-wealth rhetoric that could have been copied directly from The Communist Manifesto. And finally, they wrap up with open calls for “militant resistance” and “revolution”.


Since their inception, Redneck Revolt has been very busy recruiting at gun shows and community events, advocating for class war, contributing to the far left anarchist website It’s Going Down, and conducting armed anti-Trump demonstrations.


reportback


But what’s most alarming are the resources they provide on their website. They promote several PDFs that endorse “armed struggle” and even offer a 36 page “Mini-Manual Of The Urban Guerrilla” (bottom right of resource page) which pictures left-wing militants using RPGs and outlines tactics for guerrilla warfare including sections on “sabotage”, “kidnapping”, “executions”, “armed propaganda”, and “terrorism”.


resources


Guerrilla Warfare


execution


terrorism


That’s right. A far left militia claiming to have 30+ vetted branches is providing training materials for violent guerrilla warfare and all of this information is publicly available on their own website. Not surprisingly, the same left-leaning publications that were outraged by the NRA ad I mentioned earlier have not reported on this publicly available information. In fact, some of these publications have even championed the growth of the far left militia movement. In June, Mother Jones published an article praising Redneck Revolt and other left-wing militants. In July, The Guardian published an article with similar sentiments.


The mission of Far Left Watch is to investigate, expose, and combat far left extremism. Please share this article via Twitter, Facebook, etc. and encourage friendly media and YouTube content creators to report on this breaking information.


If you have any tips on far left activities please submit them here.

Friday, July 21, 2017

Graham Teaming with Durbin on ‘DREAMers’ Endangers Gun Owner Rights

Graham evidently wants anti-gun Democrats to be the majority. Durbin is happy to help him make that happen.



“At a press conference with U.S. Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., to unveil the “Dream Act” — which would provide pathways to citizenship for certain undocumented immigrants brought to the country illegally as children — [Sen. Lindsey] Graham described a moral imperative for his president and his party,” The Post and Courier reported Thursday.


“Graham, who won re-election in 2014, also told South Carolina residents who oppose the DREAM Act not to vote for him,” PJ Media adds.


No doubt about it – those calling the shots have created quite a dilemma by intentionally enabling the cultural terraforming. True, those brought in by parents taking advantage of the deliberate gaping holes in border security put a human face to that dilemma that’s easy to sympathize with.


And those intent on “fundamental transformation” are counting on Americans’ innate decency to allow them to continue with the fraudulent reshaping of the Republic and its laws. As for anyone who might object, most of those can be chilled by smearing them as xenophobes and racists, as if observable and demostrable truths are only for bigots.


Put all that aside for a moment though, and let’s just look at numbers we can all verify.


All credible polls show such populations favor gun restrictions by an overwhelming (71% to 25%) margin, and this is proven in the real world by the California experience. Further, after over 20 years the needle barely moves to the right, so the “assimilation” argument has had decades to work and hasn’t, despite “welcoming” moves up to and including so-called “sanctuary cities.”


Here’s a challenge for anyone who wants to argue with this:


Audit all credible polls against real world experience in places like California and then produce credible data – not opinion, not anecdotes, not isolated examples, but something that can be independently validated – demonstrating that “amnesty” and a “pathway to citizenship” for MILLIONS of foreign nationals in this country illegally (and legally, with CURRENT culturally suicidal policies) WILL NOT overwhelmingly favor Democrats and anti-gunners.


Show your sources and methodologies for determining this WILL NOT result in supermajorities in state and federal legislatures that will then be able to pass all kinds of anti-gun edicts. Show how this WILL NOT result in nominations and confirmations of judges to the Supreme and federal courts who will uphold those edicts and reverse gains made to date.


If you can’t, explain why a politician’s position on an issue that will end up eviscerating “legal” recognition of the Second Amendment should not be reflected in grades and endorsements.


The National Rifle Association refuses to consider or address this, falling back on an increasingly hollow “single issue” excuse, even though Executive VP Wayne LaPierre admits all rights are connected:



“[T]o defend firearm freedom, we need more than just firearm freedom.  One right depends on another. They’re all cut from the same cloth of what it means to be free people.”



NRA even spent millions of dollars on an ad campaign to make just that point, but were careful to avoid talking the impact of “immigration” on those freedoms.


And while Sen. Graham has voted “the right way” on most “gun bills” (disregarding that Congress is no delegated authority to put the right to keep and bear arms to a vote), his support for “pathway to citizenship” amnesty WILL (not “may”) undo it all over the coming years if he prevails.


Why do you think Hillary Clinton promised “comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway to full and equal citizenship”? Why do you think Democrat Rep. Kurt Schrader declared “It will decide who is in charge of this country for the next 20 or 30 years”?


What do they know that Graham pretends not to, as he stands with Dick Durbin, as avowed an enemy of the right to keep and bear arms as ever took an oath he fully intended to betray since Day One?


Yet for its part, NRA calls Graham “committed to defending our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.” And because it will not factor politicians’ related actions that undermine that into their grading and endorsement system, most members will never know how betrayal on immigration equates to taking back today’s “good votes” and ensuring tomorrow’s will only be bad ones.


Sen. Graham and NRA won’t address the challenge presented above because they know they can’t. They also can’t and won’t explain how making citizens out of foreign nationals who are demonstrably hostile to the Second Amendment “secure[s] the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”


That’s really what it all boils down to.


—–


If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please consider making a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.


—–


David Codrea’s opinions are his own. See “Who speaks for Oath Keepers?

Monday, May 22, 2017

GOA Urges Supporters to ‘Stop Schumer’s Gun Control’

It’s not that Schumer is ANTI-gun. He just wants to be on the side that controls them.



“Many Americans have been permanently prevented from purchasing firearms because of a Chuck Schumer amendment — enacted in the early 1990s — that prevents many potential gun buyers from getting their rights restored,” Gun Owners of America notes in a Wednesday action alert. The rights group is urging members and supporters to “contact the House CJS Subcommittee chairman, Rep. John Culberson. Urge him to remove the anti-gun Schumer amendment from the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill — thus, deleting the anti-gun language from federal law.”


Huh? What in the world is that about?


It all starts with the so-called “Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986.” That’s the one that “compromised” and horse-traded on the right to keep and bear arms, the one right where the mandate is that it “shall not be infringed.” It was intended to “correct” abuses by ATF highlighted in a 1982 Senate Subcommittee report, and it did that by assuming powers nowhere delegated in the Constitution.  Among the “concessions” is the general ban on private citizen ownership of post-enactment (May 19, 1986) machine guns (which some, typically those owning guns with artificially hyper-inflated values, seem to like just fine for some reason).


What did “We the People” get in return? Among other things, a supposed registry prohibition, and supposed “safe passage” to transport firearms while traveling through states that banned their own citizens from such firearms (and we’ve seen how well that’s worked in places like New Jersey). And “we” were also supposed to get the ability — for those who have run afoul of the “law” and are designated “prohibited persons” — to apply for restoration of rights.


An undeniable truth (well, the antis can deny it, but they’d be wrong) is that anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian. As far as released felons are concerned, if they’re still truly dangerous, Robert J. Kukla made a brilliant observation in his classic “Gun Control,” equating their release with opening the cage of a man-eating tiger and expecting a different result.


A dangerous character?



Understand this isn’t an “Arm Charlie Manson” effort. There are plenty of hoops—starting with ATF and ending in federal courts – an applicant must jump through to prove he is no danger to himself and others. Does anyone really think Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby are going to engage in drive-bys?


As we’ve seen, a lifetime prohibition can be imposed for something as simple as throwing keys, or tearing a pocket. Or for refusing to comply with citizen disarmament edicts.


“For roughly 25 years, the ‘Schumer amendment’ to the Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations Bill has prohibited any federal funds from being used to restore anyone’s constitutional rights,” GOA explains. “So for much of this time, if a person were a veteran with PTSD, they’re out of luck. If they had a conviction for a federal regulatory offense — fifty years ago — they’re out of luck. They will NEVER get their guns back, thanks to Democrat Chuck Schumer.”


The amendment has been included annually in appropriations as part of the “compromise” with Democrats – the same politicians who want to restore voting rights to their overwhelmingly supportive demographic of felons.  And past appeals to remove it from the bill have been ignored, in large part because most gun owners are unaware of the shenanigans, and too few are committed to turning up the heat and exacting a political cost on Republicans who betray them.


If you’re going to lead, Rep. Culberson, then lead.



“So please, Congressman Culberson, make the right choice and delete the Schumer amendment from this year’s Commerce-Justice-Science ‘chairman’s mark,’” GOA asks in a representative message intended for members to amplify.


I’d go a step further. I’d let Culberson know that with an “A”-rating from GOA and with an “A+” and endorsement from NRA, I shouldn’t have to be sending polite form mailers asking him to “please” do his job. He’s happy to accept gun owners support and to represent himself as a Second Amendment leader and champion.  It’s not too much to expect him to act like one and to vocally lead the charge on this, especially since it’s taking place in his wheelhouse.


He did take an oath, right? And he presumably understands its importance?


I’d also let GOA and NRA know that if they’re going to sell these guys to us, we’re relying on them to make that expectation known as a condition of endorsement.

Thursday, April 27, 2017

California ‘Catch-22’ on ‘Assault Weapons’ Evokes Fundamental Question for Gun Owners

This was put together by some friends of mine back in the Nineties to illustrate the absurdity of what the antis were calling “assault weapons” and trying to ban.



Earlier separate bans on semiautomatic firearms demonized as “assault weapons” weren’t enough for California gun-grabbers. Despite the Roberti-Roos ban on specific firearm models, and the later Perata ban, a new prohibition went into effect early this year, even though the agency tasked with infringement enforcement admits compliance is impossible.


“Assembly Bill 1135 and Senate Bill 880 became effective Jan. 1 of this year and part of the new law requires those who have assault weapons to register them by Jan. 1 2018,” CBS 13 Sacramento reports. “But the website to do so isn’t working.”


We’ll let you know when it’s time to come back and surrender.



That’s a screenshot from the “Department of Justice” website that not only advises the definition of “assault weapon” has been “revised” (yet again – they’ll get it “right” one of these times), but that:



These bills will require that any person who, from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2016, inclusive, lawfully possessed an assault weapon that does not have a fixed magazine, as defined in Penal Code section 30515, including those weapons with an ammunition feeding device that can be readily removed from the firearm with the use of a tool, shall register the firearm before January 1, 2018, but not before the effective date of the regulations adopted by the DOJ.


These bills will also require registrations to be submitted electronically via the Internet utilizing a public-facing application made available by the DOJ.



“Many gun owners are frustrated and say it’s been months that they’ve been trying to register and can’t,” CBS 13 elaborates. They’re concerned that if it’s not resolved soon, there will be a mad dash to meet the deadline, only eight months away.”


If they don’t, and if they don’t then surrender their guns, they’ll become felons, prohibited persons for life, forbidden to so much as touch a gun. That’s after they have their lives destroyed and “serve” prison sentences where they’re at the mercy of a general prison population that includes every kind of violent, threatening and physically imposing sociopath you can imagine.


Most will comply.


After all, most take their lead from the National Rifle Association, which set the tone it expected of its members:



“Bill did what any honest, law-abiding American would do…he turned in his SKS Sporter [a militia rifle] to the police.”



Is that what Captain John Parker would do?


In places like California, the “progressives” have unchallengeable political control. Give them their way with “pathway to citizenship” illegals and “refugees,” and they will culturally terraform the remainder of the Republic to be just like them. The bottom line is, once the “popular vote” has been lost, those clinging to principles will have one of two choices: Abject surrender or defiance.


That’s the new paradigm of “I will not comply,” (not really all that new, but still one disparaged by the rice bowl gun groups, where the major revenue streams come through a lobbying solicitations über alles business model). It’s for when all other peaceable means of redress have been exhausted.


Think of it as an order we will not obey. And remember “the supreme Law of the Land.”


Easy for me to say, from the comfort and safety of my keyboard?


Not always.  I tore up their damn registration form in front of them. At an NRA-arranged meeting of all places. Where a handful of us were accused of making the rest of the group look bad…


You’d have to be willfully blind at this point not to realize the gun-grabbers want our guns – all of them. You’d have to be a coward or a fool not to admit the purpose of gun registration is so those who want them know who has them so that they can get them.


Ultimately, there’s one question I keep coming back to:


What would Captain Parker do?


—–


If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please consider making a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.

Sunday, February 26, 2017

Perez DNC Win Over Ellison Spells Bigger Danger

Ellison takes a back seat to Perez, perhaps symbolic of new Democrat interests to pander to a preferred constituency they’re helping to grow — while continuing to take one deemed more traditionally exploitable for granted. [Democratic Party – Facebook video screen capture]



“Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison fell short Saturday in his campaign to run the Democratic National Committee, losing to former Labor Secretary Tom Perez,” NPR News reported. “[T]he next chairman is sure to have a pivotal role in remaking the party ahead of the 2018 midterm elections and a 2020 presidential contest. Democrats hope to feed off large protests and displays of resistance in the opening month of the Trump presidency.

Interesting, admitting they benefit from all  the “unrest” being ginned up. While both are demonstrable domestic enemies of freedom, Perez represents the bigger danger, and the one more likely to be able to push back politically against “conservative” initiatives. That’s because, at least so far, he’s been less of a lightning rod.


True, both he and Ellison have long histories of oath-breaking and subversion. Both are for cultural terraforming of the Republic through “immigration” and “refugee” actions to bring in and embed or sanction existing unvetted foreign nationals. And both are hostile to the right of the people to keep and bear arms.


But Ellison is more vulnerable to exploitable suspicions over his agenda and motives, not only because of his documented racism and sympathies with radical Islamists, but also because of his affiliation with Democrat Socialists of America, who found it in their political interests to (at least temporarily) retire their songs of solidarity:


Does anyone wonder why Democrat Socialists support what they call “common sense gun safety” (i.e., citizen disarmament) laws?



Those vulnerabilities, I argued, made Ellison the perfect choice to “lead” a party that refuses to accept why Hillary lost, and that continues to double down on alienating flyover America. He would provide constant opportunities to make such inconvenient truths known to the wider public, and thus subject all of his moves to wider scrutiny for unstated motives.


The relatively lesser-known Perez has been more insulated, and will be better able to present his agenda as humanitarian, and as championing of the desperate and downtrodden. And that – being able to appeal to empathy from those who neither understand the underlying issues nor what is at stake – makes his ascendency to Democrat leadership all the more dangerous.


Back before he took on the Labor gig, Perez was an Assistant Attorney General under Eric Holder, heading the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. He’s the guy who warned states like Texas and South Carolina that their duly-enacted voting laws were discriminatory because they required a state-issued photo ID. As I noted at the time:



If Perez is correct, that lack of state-issued photo ID is 20% more likely to disenfranchise minorities from their right to vote, why would we not also believe it would have a similar effect on their right to purchase a firearm, as is specified on ATF’s Form 4473 requiring a driver’s license or “valid government issued photo identification,” and similar forms as proof of eligibility?


The government can’t have it both ways. By their own admission and actions, they consider a requirement to produce official photo identification as discriminatory, with a significant statistical impact on the enfranchisement of minority rights. Heller and McDonald leave no doubt that the Second Amendment articulates an individual right recognized by the federal government and applicable to the states, and it is the duty of the Department of Justice to ensure that denials of rights are prosecuted.


Likewise, state-issued identification is required to obtain concealed carry permits and to apply for registration/transfer of National Firearms Act weapons such as machine guns, short barrel firearms, destructive devices, AOWs, etc. So the question now becomes why is the head of the Justice Department’s civil rights division tolerating, allowing and insisting on discrimination against minorities in general and Hispanics in particular when it comes to exercising their Second Amendment-recognized right to keep and bear arms?



The danger, of course, involves more than the Second Amendment, which, after all, is a leading indicator for the larger Freedom issue. There’s a reason why the Democrat agenda demands bringing in more foreign nationals and putting them on a “pathway to citizenship.” And that’s something establishment Republicans in general and the National Rifle Association in particular have shown deliberate indifference to.


That’s evidenced by the just-concluded Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), and the prominent roles played by both NRA’s Wayne LaPierre and by NRA darling and Bloomberg “immigration” ally Grover Norquist (although this time once more wearing his competing Americans for Tax Reform hat). Neither will address a simple challenge, preferring to ignore it and hoping the information will not escape a relatively isolated echo chamber:



In addition to explaining the California experience, produce credible data – something that can be independently validated – that “amnesty” and a “pathway to citizenship” for MILLIONS of foreign nationals in this country illegally (and even legally, with current culturally suicidal policies) WILL NOT overwhelmingly favor Democrats and anti-gunners.


Show us your sources and methodologies for determining this WILL NOT result in supermajorities in state and federal legislatures that will be able to pass all kinds of anti-gun edicts. Show us how this WILL NOT result in nominations and confirmations of judges to the Supreme and federal courts who will uphold those edicts, and reverse gains made to date.


Notice I didn’t ask for platitudes or for anecdotes about exceptions to the rule, or about who is turning up in increasing numbers at gun stores and ranges – that doesn’t matter if you can’t point to a corresponding overriding shift in voting trends. I didn’t ask for wishful speculation about how education and outreach programs MIGHT help bring more over to the NRA side. I asked you to show how all credible estimates putting the disparity at over 70% Democrat and anti-gun are wrong (and how the needle barely moves in the right direction after 20 years).


If you think that can be changed, you’re going to need to be specific about how (assuming it can be done, which you’ll also need to spell out), and how by then the damage won’t be irreversible, beyond any kind of beltway insider political “solution.” Instead of opinions, how about some verifiable numbers?



This is what Perez represents, and will base much of his DNC leadership on and the media will happily amplify his voice and ensure their “reporting” does all it can to evoke agreement with it, all the while portraying opponents as xenophobes, extremists and haters. What they won’t focus on are negatives that could call his credibility into questions such as:



Perez Dropped Voter Intimidation Charges Against Black Panthers Who Brought Weapons to a Polling Place … Perez Doesn’t Think White People Are Protected Under the Voting Rights Act … Perez Abandoned a Whistleblower Lawsuit That Cost Taxpayers Millions … He Used a Private Email Address to Dodge Accountability … He Continues to Ignore and Mislead Congress



Lacking some of Ellison’s more overt vulnerabilities and, up until now, name recognition, Perez will arguably be in a better position to advance his radical, subversive agenda. So it wouldn’t hurt to learn more about that agenda, and to share such information with others who would otherwise never hear of it.