Do You Suffer from Islamist Denial Syndrome?

From Doug Ross, at Director Blue:

RT @BiffSpackle "Do you suffer from Islamist Denial Syndrome?" https://t.co/MQjAqD9LcC pic.twitter.com/ILkQp8YOqV

— Adam Baldwin (@AdamBaldwin) January 9, 2016

Illegal Immigration Anti-Enforcement Protesters in New York City (VIDEO)

At Gothamist, "Eight Protesters Arrested at Pro-Immigration Demonstration In Manhattan."

That's a real inclusive message: "Fuck I.C.E."

Handgun Sales Surge as Women Step-Up Purchases (VIDEO)

At Fox Business, "Handgun sales surging thanks to women."

And once again, here's Dana Loesch's book, Hands Off My Gun: Defeating the Plot to Disarm America.

Texas Senator Ted Cruz on Faith, Family, and Donald Trump (VIDEO)

Following-up from earlier, "Donald Trumps Says Ted Cruz's Citizenship Could 'Be a Big Problem' (VIDEO)."

This is a great interview. You'll fall in love with his family.

Via ABC News Nightline:

Donald Trumps Says Ted Cruz's Citizenship Could 'Be a Big Problem' (VIDEO)

At USA Today, "Donald Trump: Ted Cruz's citizenship could 'be a big problem'."

Nancy Cordes reports, for CBS Evening News:

Another Leftist Pushes the Example of 'Gun Control' in Australia, Which is the Go-To Model for Mass Confiscation of Citizens' Firearms

USA Today reporter Trevor Hughes made the case for buying a gun a couple of weeks back, "Voices: Why I decided to buy a handgun."

Well, it turns out that Susan Miller, a colleague at USA Today, wasn't pleased that Mr. Hughes deigned to escape from the Democrat-leftist gun control plantation.

Here's Ms. Miller's piece, and I quote the de rigueur reference to the Australian gun "buy-back." See, "Voices: More guns are simply not the answer":

Australia instituted stricter gun laws in 1996, including a major buyback that reduced firearms in the country by 20%, and since then the nation has had no mass shootings, Lankford notes. “No country in the world seems to have figured out a way to have a large number of firearms and not have public mass shootings happen,” he says.

Nancy Lanza, the mother of Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza, was an enthusiastic gun owner who took her unbalanced son to shooting ranges. Did the fact that Nancy Lanza had an arsenal in her house save her from her gun-wielding son? No. Perhaps if she didn’t have that arsenal, and she hadn’t taken him to shooting ranges, the result would have been very much different...

That's it. That's it right there. Leftists simply do not believe citizens should be able to own firearms. If they didn't own firearms, the thinking goes, we wouldn't have mass shootings.

The sheer stupidity in this boggles the mind. Remember, there are too many variables in the gun debate to make any kind of predictions on what will stop massacres. All of this rests on "perhaps." Perhaps if Ms. Lanza hadn't taken her son to a shooting range? Hell, perhaps if Ms. Lanza never had Adam in the first place! Yes, that's it, just abort everyone and we'll certainly prevent more mass shootings. Pregnancy will become criminal, abortions mandatory, and eventually the remainder of the human race will be wiped out through death by attrition. People are a cancer on the planet, so that's obviously the plan. Yay progs!

Obama Tightens Rules for Gun Dealers — Which Will Do Little Other Than Allow Him to Duck the Real Questions

From Fordham Law Professor Nicholas Johnson, at the Wall Street Journal, "A Glittery Gun-Control Distraction":

On Tuesday President Obama announced that he would take executive action to expand the definition of a “firearms dealer.” The intent is to require more people who sell guns to first obtain a federal license—which obliges them to perform background checks on buyers. Unnoticed is that this action, taken under the banner of “common sense” gun control to make Americans safer, reverses a Clinton administration gun-control policy that also was supposed to make us safer.

The story begins with the 1968 Gun Control Act, which is the foundation of the current federal gun regulation. It requires, among other things, that commercial sellers of firearms obtain a federal firearms license or “FFL.” Regulators in the early 1970s, like the Obama administration today, pressed the gun-control agenda through aggressive interpretations of the 1968 law.

Those prosecutions targeted hobbyists and collectors who sold a few guns at gun shows. One collector who sold three firearms over a period of two years had his gun collection seized and was prosecuted in 1972 for dealing without license. Many prudent and fearful gun owners responded by obtaining federal firearm licenses, even though they did not have storefronts or retail operations.

By the 1990s, the gun control mantra had changed. The claim became that it was a problem to have so many federally licensed gun dealers around, and that “kitchen table gun dealers” constituted a hazard. A claim often heard was that the U.S. had more gun dealers than gas stations. No one explained why the laws and penalties against illegal trading might work differently for “kitchen table dealers,” and there was no empirical support for the idea that these individuals were less trustworthy than the people who ran gun stores. But that did not get in the way.

As a plum to gun-control groups, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms under Bill Clinton responded in 1994. The ATF changed the requirements for who could obtain a federal license for the retail sale of firearms (by, for instance, mandating actual storefront operations). The antigun Violence Policy Center celebrated the results in a 2007 policy paper that said the number of licensed dealers “has dropped 79 percent—from 245,628 in 1994 to 50,630.”

Now President Obama proposes moving the furniture around again. The ATF’s new guidance on the matter says that storefronts are irrelevant: “it does not matter if sales are conducted out of your home, at gun shows, flea markets, through the internet, or by other means.” The agency also emphasizes that “courts have upheld convictions for dealing without a license when as few as two firearms were sold.”

We’re coming full circle, back around to the policies of 1972. Prudent hobbyists and collectors, fearing that they might face prosecution under the new, broader definition of a gun dealer, will apply for federal firearms licenses. The impact on gun crime, which is already dramatically down since the 1970s, will be negligible...

Well, of course. None of this is about reducing crime rates and saving lives. If it were we'd be keeping prisoners behind bars and making it easier for everyday citizens to keep and bear arms. It's about pushing the collectivist agenda, which is mired in sick left-wing hypocrisy.

But keep reading.

And don't forget to pick up Dana Loesch's book, Hands Off My Gun: Defeating the Plot to Disarm America.

Here's Nightline's Report on Obama's Controversial Gun-Grabbing Executive Orders (VIDEO)

All the left can do is play on emotion.

It's really kind of pathetic. We're stuck with the Crybaby-in-Chief for another year.

Watch, via ABC News:

Obama Wipes Away Crocodile Tears During Call for New Gun Confiscation Measures (VIDEO)

At this point, it's all for show.

Even CNN's Kate Bolduan asked panelists if it wasn't all optics by now.

At the Los Angeles Times, "Obama announces crackdown on gun purchases, but it illustrates limits of his office."



More, at Twitchy, "'Enough to make you physically sick': Media lapdogs swoon over weepy gun grabber Obama," and "'Straw men shortage'? Tears of a clown prince: So, what REALLY makes Obama cry?"

Dana Loesch, Defeating the Plot to Disarm America

She really is.

And she was back on CNN a little while ago, on Anderson Cooper's show. I was surprised. I had CNN on because I was too lazy to turn the channel over to Fox while I was blogging, heh.

Here's her book, Hands Off My Gun: Defeating the Plot to Disarm America.

Americans Divided on Obama's Executive Power Grab for Gun Control (VIDEO)

From the latest Quinnipiac University National Poll:

Americans are divided on gun laws, as 47 percent support stricter gun laws, with 50 percent opposed.

But voters support 89 - 9 percent, including 84 - 14 percent among voters in households where there are guns, requiring background checks on gun purchases at gun shows or online.

Voters also support 58 - 38 percent a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons. Voters in gun households oppose such a ban 53 - 45 percent.

It is "too easy" to buy a gun in the U.S., 55 percent of voters say, including 40 percent in gun households. Another 4 percent, including 6 percent in gun households, say it is "too difficult," and 36 percent, including 49 percent in gun households, say it is "about right."

"American voters say it is too easy to buy a gun in the United States. And in a loud voice they say - as they've said in three years of Quinnipiac University polls - let's do background checks," Malloy said...

More at the poll.

Americans have really gotten soused on the climate-change Kool Aid, sheesh. Thank goodness we've got a GOP Congress (to block Democrat legislation), if for nothing else.

Families Are Taken Into Custody as Push to Deport Immigrants Denied Refuge Begins

Postcards from Obama's America, at the Los Angeles Times.

Leftists are up in arms, comparing the U.S. to fascist regimes.

At the letters to the editor, "The Obama administration's inhumane, indefensible deportation of Central Americans":

To the editor: History will not remember kindly The Times' stance in support of deporting families back to extreme danger and death in Central America just because a judge ordered them out of the country. When we prioritize enforcing a broken bureaucracy over embracing the basic humanity of people who are suffering, we open the door to unspeakable tragedies. ("Why the Obama administration is right to deport migrants ordered to leave," editorial, Dec. 29)

Yet, despite acknowledging the injustices deeply embedded in the deportation system, the editorial board insists we must “follow through on legal processes that have been completed.”

No matter the great inadequacy of those processes? The Japanese internment was also found to be legal, after all.

No matter the human cost? We're talking about sending traumatized mothers and children back to countries that have the world's highest murder rates.

The Times seems to think its position is distinct from Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's drive for mass deportation, but it's really just paving the way.

Jon Rodney, Oakland

The writer is communications manager for the California Immigrant Policy Center.

The fact is, far-left fanatics like this don't want any limits on immigration. They want open borders to flood the country with unwashed, uneducated migrants to feed the collectivist revolution.

Must Obama Reach Out to 'Angry White Voters'?

Actually, Obama hates "angry white voters."

I doubt he'd ever deign to "reach out" to them. Frankly, he's constantly demonizing them.

In any case, at Politico, "Why Obama Must Reach Out to Angry Whites:

For all the bad feelings that Donald Trump’s naked religious bigotry and race baiting are conjuring up, it is also providing our nation with an opportunity. The ugly rhetoric just might force the country to finally contend with a problem many don’t even want to acknowledge exists: that we are fast becoming a nation in which minorities make up a majority of the population. As a result, tens of millions of white Americans, accustomed for so long to having all the benefits of being the majority, are scared out of their minds—and it is this fear that Trump is exploiting so effectively. These feelings are emerging not because whites are all racists, but because they don’t know what that might mean for them and their children.

As long as angry, scared white Americans follow Trump and his ugly rhetoric, the racial divide in America will only deepen, and it will become increasingly difficult to solve the nation’s most pressing problems. So the question becomes: Who can counter Donald Trump?

Actually, there's no "naked religious bigotry" nor "ugly rhetoric." Trump's just speaking plainly. We've become a nation where minorities are exempt from criticism, to the point on national suicide.

Still more at that top link, FWIW.

Transitioning to the Post-Obama Era

From VDH, at PJ Media:

How will the country wake up from its coma in 2016 to reality in 2017?

Next year the lame-duck, legacy-starved Obama administration will double down on its executive orders, bureaucratic fiats, and circumvention of the law. Obama will seek to fundamentally transform America, contrary to law, effecting change in ways he was not able to by adhering to the law.The media, as it has the past seven years, will not only ignore the illegality, but also rationalize and commend it.

Then comes 2017.

If a Republican is elected president, what will the media and its liberal sympathizers do should the next chief executive decide to follow the Obama modus operandi?

Consider a number of issues, starting with immigration...

Keep reading.

No Political Guardrails

From Kim Strassel, at WSJ, "President Obama broke all the boundaries—and now Clinton and Trump are following suit":

Twenty-two years ago, my esteemed colleague Dan Henninger wrote a blockbuster Journal editorial titled “No Guardrails.” Its subject was people “who don’t think that rules of personal or civil conduct apply to them,” as well as the elites who excuse this lack of self-control and the birth of a less-civilized culture.

We are today witnessing the political version of this phenomenon. That’s how to make sense of a presidential race that grows more disconnected from normality by the day.

Barack Obama has done plenty of damage to the country, but perhaps the worst is his determined destruction of Washington’s guardrails. Mr. Obama wants what he wants. If ObamaCare is problematic, he unilaterally alters the law. If Congress won’t change the immigration system, he refuses to enforce it. If the nation won’t support laws to fight climate change, he creates one with regulation. If the Senate won’t confirm his nominees, he declares it in recess and installs them anyway. “As to limits, you set your own,” observed Dan in that editorial. This is our president’s motto.

Mr. Obama doesn’t need anyone to justify his actions, because he’s realized no one can stop him. He gets criticized, but at the same time his approach has seeped into the national conscience. It has set new norms. You see this in the ever-more-outrageous proposals from the presidential field, in particular front-runners Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

Mrs. Clinton routinely vows to govern by diktat. On Wednesday she unveiled a raft of proposals to punish companies that flee the punitive U.S. tax system. Mrs. Clinton will ask Congress to implement her plan, but no matter if it doesn’t. “If Congress won’t act,” she promises, “then I will ask the Treasury Department, when I’m there, to use its regulatory authority.”

Mrs. Clinton and fellow liberals don’t like guns and are frustrated that the duly elected members of Congress (including those from their own party) won’t strengthen background checks. So she has promised to write regulations that will unilaterally impose such a system.

On immigration, Mr. Obama ignored statute with executive actions to shield illegals from deportation. Mrs. Clinton brags that she will go much, much further with sweeping exemptions to immigration law.

For his part, Mr. Trump sent the nation into an uproar this week with his call to outright ban Muslims from entering the country. Is this legally or morally sound? Who cares! Mr. Trump specializes in disdain for the law, the Constitution, and any code of civilized conduct. Guardrails are for losers. He’d set up a database to track Muslims or force them to carry special IDs. He’d close mosques. He’d deport kids born on American soil. He’d seize Iraq’s oil fields. He’d seize remittance payments sent back to Mexico. He’d grab personal property for government use.

Mr. Obama’s dismantling of boundaries isn’t restrained to questions of law; he blew up certain political ethics, too. And yes there are—or used to be—such things. Think what you may about George W. Bush’s policies, but he respected the office of the presidency. He believed he represented all Americans. He didn’t demonize.

Today’s divisive president never misses an opportunity to deride Republicans or the tea party. He is more scornful toward fellow Americans than toward Islamic State. This too sets new norms. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid now uses the chamber to accuse individual citizens of being “un-American.” Asked recently what “enemy” she was most proud of making, Mrs. Clinton lumped “Republicans” in with “the Iranians.” Ted Cruz rose to prominence by mocking his Republican colleagues as “squishes.” Mr. Trump has disparaged women, the other GOP contenders, Iowans, wives, the disabled, Jews. (Granted, he might have done this even without Mr. Obama’s example.)

Can such leaders be trusted to administer Washington fairly? Of course not. That guardrail is also gone...

Sobering.

And there's still more.

The Right to Bear Arms Isn't Up for Debate

From Charles C.W. Cooke, at the Washington Post:

It is from this understanding that all conversations must proceed. The Second Amendment is not “old”; it is timeless. It is not “unclear”; it is obvious. It is not “embarrassing”; it is fundamental. And, as much as anything else, it is a vital indicator of the correct relationship between the citizen and the state and a reminder of the unbreakable sovereignty of the individual. Unless those calling for greater restrictions learn to acknowledge this at the outset of any public discussion, they will continue to get nowhere in their deliberations.

RTWT.

Larry Flynt, Founder of Hustler Magazine, Calls Out Mainstream Media Cowards

This is amazing!

Bill Whittle interviewed Larry Flint:



The full interview is here, "Larry Flynt's Unfiltered Thoughts on Politics, the Press and Free Speech!"

Question & Answer with Molly Nocheck

She's one of the organizer's of FIRE's Student Network Conference.

This is interesting.

Watch, "Fighting 'Bodily and Mental Harm' Speech Restrictions."

Illegal Immigration: More Identity Theft, More Murder, More Rape, and More Drug Dealing

All brought to you by the Obama-Dems.

At End of the American Dream:

Do we want to encourage drug dealers, violent gang members and serial rapists to come into this country? If not, why is that exactly what the Obama administration is doing? Thanks to very foolish U.S. government policies, it is incredibly difficult to immigrate to this country legally, but it is incredibly easy to immigrate to this country illegally. So we are keeping out large numbers of good, honest, hard working people at the same time that we have given a giant green light to criminals and lawbreakers. Does that make any sense at all?  We need an immigration system that forces everyone to come in through the front door.

Instead, we have made the process of getting in through the front door a complete and total nightmare and yet we have left the back door totally wide open.  And if the millions upon millions of lawbreakers that are coming in to this country illegally just took our jobs and drained our welfare system, perhaps it wouldn’t be that bad.  Unfortunately, that is not the case. In fact, illegal immigration has greatly contributed to rising violent crime rates all over the nation. Gang membership is exploding, Mexican drug cartels are operating in more of our communities than ever before, and identity theft by illegal immigrants is at epidemic levels. Something desperately needs to be done.

But instead, the Obama administration is trying to ram amnesty for illegal immigrants through Congress as quickly as possible. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this bill will cause unemployment to go up and wages to go down for many years. And by rewarding illegal immigration, the federal government will just encourage much more of it. But our politicians don’t really seem concerned with the consequences. In fact, the Senate is going to vote on the immigration bill without even reading it.

Instead of focusing on what we “owe” to those that have broken our laws by entering this country illegally, perhaps we should be talking about some of the horrible crimes that they have been committing while they have been living here...

Keep reading.

Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points Memo: Donald Trump Appeals to Americans Fed Up with Broken and Dishonest Political System (VIDEO)

An excellent segment from Monday night.

O'Reilly cuts through the baloney to nail down exactly what's bugging folks out there, and why Trump's still ahead in the polls.