Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke makes clear the law enforcement perspective… and one shared by most of the nation regardless of color.  The best exchange is above.

The later part, after cutting to commercial to protect Don Lemon from further looking like a biased chump and useful idiot, is what CNN posted.  It’s 30 seconds of Don Lemon saying, in effect – if you want to have a conversation, you need to shut up and agree with me, then Lemon running interference for racist Black Lives Matter while saying “that’s a different conversation” every time the Sheriff brings up a point.

Sheriff Clarke is elected by the people of the county to provide law enforcement for them.  He is as direct a representation of what a community wants in law enforcement as is possible in a representative democratic republic.  And based on that first exchange, it sounds like he’s got the community’s interests at heart – both the citizen community and law enforcement community, as they are one and the same (7).

Normally I’d say it’s a safe bet Sheriff Clarke won’t be invited back… but then again, if it generates ratings, views, and hits, CNN may recognize they should have someone on besides their party loyalist mouthpieces.

While there’s a big story going on in Dallas now (which is going to require more info before there’s much else to say about it), isn’t it odd that the Orlando terrorist’s wife disappeared?  After the jihadi attack in Orlando with 49 people murdered, she was involved, and then suddenly she disappeared, and nobody knew where she was anymore, and nobody knew anything about her. From LittleMissRightie:

Where is Noor Salman? More importantly, where is the media on her overnight disappearance in the wake of her husband’s terrorist attack on the Pulse nightclub?

Three week ago today, the nation woke up to the news about the worst terrorist attack to hit U.S. soil since 9/11. The one woman who may hold answers (and who may also share responsibility for the attacks) is “missing” according to government officials and no one in the media is asking about her whereabouts. It was obvious given the facts of the case the media was going to bury this story as quickly as possible. But there is a woman missing who may be a co-conspirator and not one inquiring journalist asks about her whereabouts? What a sad state of affairs for that dying profession.

The last update on Noor Salman, second wife to Omar Mateen, was that a grand jury convened to deliberate 49 counts of being an accessory to murder, 53 counts of attempted murder, failure to notify law enforcement of a pending terrorist attack, and lying to investigators. A Google search on the update on these proceedings yields no results since June 15th. The Google search results are all the same: “Sources: Grand Jury to Investigate Noor Salman, Orlando Shooter’s Wife”. That information too is fuzzy. A spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney General’s Office for the Southern District of Florida won’t comment on the proceedings or where they are taking place, however, that is not uncommon. Grand jury proceedings, especially at the federal level and for high-profile cases are sealed. At least the contents are sealed. It’s also not uncommon for the location and dates of said proceedings to be sealed. Those caveats aside, it has been three weeks since it was announced a grand jury was convened, therefore, isn’t it peculiar no one in the media thought to ask about the outcome of the grand jury proceedings?

Around the same time, the last update from federal authorities on Salman’s whereabouts was June 20th when Attorney General Loretta Lynch stated, when asked if Salman was still in the state of Florida, “I believe she was going to travel but I do not exactly know her location now”.

Pardon? Federal authorities have “lost” the wife who texted “I love you” to her husband as he was carrying out Jihad at the Pulse Nightclub. This is also the same woman who admitted she bought ammunition with him and drove him to the club to scope out the location and other details as he planned his attack. And authorities have lost track of her? Is anyone buying what they’re selling here?

Yes they have lost track.  And no one is buying it.

LMR suggests that she may be in federal protection somewhere, but that’s a best-case scenario that still relies on trusting that “top men” are on the case.

It would be nice to know WTF happened to a terrorist co-conspirator from the deadliest mass shooting terrorist attack in US history.

In the 1960s sit-ins, the purpose of the sit-in was as a demand for equal rights.

woolworth sit in 1960s

The reason was to sit down and show that you’re as good as anyone else and deserving of the same treatment.

While there’s an argument for property owner rights that a business should be able to reject service to anyone, this was also a cultural argument as well as a legal rights one, such that the property owner would get the idea that he was wrong and that those doing the sit-in were deserving of respect and that their patronage should be appreciated rather than rejected.  Both ways, it was a movement to demand rights.

What the Democrat crybullies are engaging in today is not a movement to demand rights, but to remove rights:

democrat antirights antigun sit in 160624

This is a demand by authorities for more authority.

This is a demand by those in power for more power.

This is a demand by those who control the country that the rights of the citizen be overruled.

They want due process suspended, they want gun rights suspended, they want your rights suspended.  They’ve already managed it in a handful of states – despite the Constitution as written forbidding it – and now they want the rest of the nation to kneel.  And their current method is by throwing a tantrum, mocking the actual sit-ins of the 1960s, and demanding that Congress vote to ignore the Fifth Amendment right to due process of law so they can suspend your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Those guys at the lunch counter weren’t recognized as having a right to eat at the same counter that other folks did.  Those rights weren’t recognized by the Democrats in power in the South.  If they went to buy a gun in the South to protect themselves from the racist Democrat KKK night riders, when they went for a permit the racist Democrat sheriff would deny it and leave them defenseless.

Today, elected Democrat representatives who already have power are now squatting in the halls of power and demanding more powers and authorities to go after the citizenry – all to strip rights from those who now have them.

The guys at the lunch counter were fighting against Jim Crow laws.  They were fighting for rights.

The Democrat representatives are fighting for more Jim Crow laws.  They’re fighting against rights.

Notes on Brexit

Posted: June 24, 2016 by ShortTimer in Europe, International Leftists, Ruling Class
Tags:

First off, congrats to the UK on escaping the EU.  Having heard continental Europeans complain about how “that stupid little island” kept the pound, and knowing their attitude towards Britain* as a wayward nation that needs to be forced into the globalist amalgamation that is the EU, I’m glad for them.  A lot of Britain knows exactly what it was leaving.

The Brexit map vote is kind of indicative of what you’d expect, as well.

DM brexit map 160624It’s all the “middle England” regions that opposed the EU and supported UK independence.  The bigger cities tended to support it (as big city thinking big city dwellers tend to lean more towards collectivism, and the non-British tend to migrate to big cities), and Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own reasons.

The internationalist leftist commentariat has already gone on to blame “uneducated, older, white” Brits for voting the EU out.  Basically the same people they blame in the US.  One political cartoonist drew a derby hat with “Make Britain Great Again” as his “all you need to know about Brexit”, combining the contempt the leftist ruling class has across the pond.

A whiner over at Vanity Fair crying about Brexit scribbled a piece called “how Britain was broken“… as though leaving the EU is a bad thing:

The shocking result of Britain’s decision to leave the European Union was something many had dreaded during the course of the 10-week referendum campaign, which ended abruptly in the early hours of Friday morning. The Brexit campaign, led by two conservative ministers, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, managed to overturn every expectation, while rejecting pleas to remain in the E.U. from everyone from President Obama to the International Monetary Fund. Internationally renowned Britons, from Stephen Hawking to Patrick Stewart, pleaded to stay the course. So did J.K. Rowling, Richard Branson, and even David Beckham. But as the results came in—with Leave triumphing over Remain by a margin of 52 percent to 48 percent—a period of bereavement began for many. There was so much to come to terms with.

So the arguments for joining the EU come from a leftist tyrant from the US, the internationalist cabal at the IMF, and a handful of celebrities who are immune to the effects of being jammed in the EU anyway?  “Won’t someone please think of the celebrities?”

“Bereavement.”  Heh.

Der Spiegel called it “an act of self-mutilation“.

Brexit was a decision based on gut instinct rather than reason. The predominant sentiments in play were nostalgia, fear and a vague hatred of the establishment. On top of this comes a fear of foreigners that was deliberately stoked by Brexit strategists during the campaign — and that’s what makes this decision both sad and depressing.

Hey, Germany, how’s that investigation into the mass rape in Cologne committed by Muslim migrants going?  Have you hushed that all up yet?

The internationalist left doesn’t get that things like Rotherham probably did tie into the vote – not out of some vague “stoking fears of foreigners” – but out of fear the way a fire in your kitchen does.  It’s a problem that needs to be dealt with right now or the whole house will burn down.  It’s not because the native population don’t like the newcomers for superficial reasons, it’s because they don’t like them based on the content of their character.  And they also aren’t too fond of Europe making most of their laws, regardless of the percentage.

The crier from Vanity Fair:

Today, the city feels diminished in a particular way. We have suddenly lost our bloom, our joie de vivre as one of the undisputed capitals of the world. But the real loss is to our country and to Europe. As I explained to my Brexit friends in a blog post this week, I would be a very sore loser if we came out. “I will be in mourning for a project that was as brave and beautiful as anything in European history,” I wrote. And I am.

“Bereavement”, “dreaded”, “feels”, “mourning”.

The city he refers to is London.  And if you want to enjoy your moral preening as a no-borders globalist, it’s probably wonderful to lick the boots of your bureaucrat masters in the EU for the sake of showing how much you’re willing to take it for the team.  Only to that international globalist is rejecting European rule over the British a terrible thing.  To most people in the West, it’d be a terrible thing if the leader of one of the “undisputed capitals of the world” started segregating women because he was a fundamentalist sexist throwback who’s friends with terrorists:

MANCHESTER, United Kingdon – Women were segregated from men at a rally addressed by the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan yesterday. Mr Khan was photographed addressing the crowd with men at the front and women at the back.

The rally took place in the Northern City of Manchester, which is home to a large Pakistani Muslim population. It was part of the ‘Stronger In’ Battlebus tour, currently traveling around the country encouraging voters to support British membership of the EU at next weeks referendum.

That’s the kind of thing that should cue you in to what the “stay in the EU” people are like.

The Mayor is a controversial figure in the UK not least because he is a close friend of Babar Ahmad, a convicted Al-Qaeda terrorist. Mr Ahmad was supported by Khan as he fought an eight-year campaign against extradition to the US to face charges of “conspiracy and providing material to support to terrorism.”

That’s what happens when you bring in people who don’t share your values as a nation.  That’s also where the rejection of the EU comes from.  It comes from people who still do hold British values and aspire to British virtues.  The voters to leave often were older, and more ethnically British – and I would wager that much like in the US, it’s a matter of wanting to protect the successes of Britain and more specifically the behaviors and values and virtues that led to that success.  If everyone arriving into Britain were hard-working, productive and believers in the generally Western virtues of equality and individual rights as well as protection of those rights, there wouldn’t have been a Brexit movement.  Of course, the EU is fundamentally opposed to individual rights, as it’s one huge nation of legislation without representation when some faceless unelected EU bureaucrat decides on a whim how people in different nations divided by geography and history have to live in exactly the same manner… it’s almost as if there are some parallels to that.

The EU isn’t NATO.  It’s not an agreement between unique allied nations to help each other out.  It’s trumpeted as a melding of nations and a blending of cultures into one mass amalgam decided on solely by those who celebrate”multiculturalism” as the solution to all life’s problems – and want to force nations into being internally multicultural as a means of homogenizing and controlling Europe.  Most Europeans have individual cultures, and they have regions in which those individual cultures are centered.  They’re called “nations”.

Final point – last time continental Europe told Britain they had to join the union going on in Europe, they called it Operation Sea Lion.

*And Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and the rest.  With regards to Brexit, I’m mostly using Britain as shorthand for the whole UK, especially as the movement has been called “Brexit”.

Spot on as always.

As we’ve seen in the last week, with the Democrat’s 15-hour not-really-a-filibuster stump speech about how we need to ban the right to due process, there’s a press on for new gun laws and restrictions and regulations that aren’t infringements in much the same way that getting punched in the face isn’t the same as getting struck in the face with a fist because won’t someone think of the children.

Specifically, we’ve even heard the main proponent of these new infringements say they wouldn’t have worked to prevent the Orlando terrorist attack.

What would have worked, you ask?

Enforce existing laws.

Currently, if you want to buy/possess/own/purchase a firearm, there are some prohibitions.  Namely, you can’t be a felon, a drug addict, an illegal alien, and due to the Lautenberg Amendment, you can’t have been convicted of a crime of domestic violence or have a restraining order placed on you by a domestic partner.

This is from the 4473, the background check form that you do every time you buy a gun from a dealer or store and any time you transfer a handgun between states:

4473 lautenberg

The so-called “gun show loophole”, which is not exclusive to gun shows, nor a loophole, is that in most states, if you want to sell a gun to a private citizen from your own state, you can.  You also have to be sure they’re not prohibited from owning a firearm, because otherwise you’re committing the crime of providing a prohibited person with a firearm.

The Orlando terrorist beat his ex-wife.  Had he been charged, he would have been convicted (or plead out, which is the same as a conviction for gun ownership purposes), and he’d have been prohibited.  It’s the same way US citizens every day are denied arms – because they’ve committed a crime in the past that bars them from firearms ownership (like the wife-beating alcoholic Chicago journalist denied a gun recently).

If for whatever reason the ex-wife didn’t go to the police, or no one enforced the law in that instance, there were other potential blocks already set up that no one bothered to utilize.

Namely, 8 USC 1481.

The FBI had investigated the Orlando terrorist numerous times for his suspected terrorism involvement.  He was on and off the terror watch list.  A friend of his went to the Middle East as an American suicide bomber.  The FBI interviewed him numerous times, but couldn’t figure out how to make anything stick.  Yet the Orlando terrorist went off and murdered 49 people and swore his allegiance to the Islamic State.

And that’s where 8 USC 1481 comes in:

8 U.S. Code § 1481 – Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions

(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—

(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or (B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; or

(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.

He joined a terrorist movement.  He said so at the end.  In all probability – especially as more of his past comes to light, he said the same thing beforehand, but no one would address it.

If 8 USC 1481 had been applied, he could’ve been stripped of his citizenship – with due process – as someone swearing allegiance to and/or conspiring to bear arms against the United States as a terrorist by committing terrorist acts.

Once his citizenship is stripped, he couldn’t legally buy a gun.  Once stripped of his citizenship, he could’ve been deported and sent off to the nation he wanted to be a part of.  The US would’ve gotten rid of a terrorist, he would’ve gotten to go join the nation he wants to join.

Problem solved.  Enforce existing laws.

May as well start with the dumbest first.  HuffPo is calling for complete disarmament of the US citizenry.

One may say that the Supreme Court, after 250 years in which the Second Amendment was read as allowing only a well-regulated militia to have guns, recently reinterpreted it to mean that there is an individualized right to own guns. This suggests that we may have to get to domestic disarmament through the back door.

Make the gun manufacturers liable for harm done with their products. Ban the sale of ammunition. And vote for a president that will add to the Supreme Court those who will read the Second Amendment as written.

Above all, domestic disarmament is a true, compelling vision which cannot be said about the small gun control measures that are currently promoted by some of the most enlightened people among us.

That’s a whole new level of smugness right there.  Also, the Second Amendment as written would guarantee access to arms by American citizens, especially weapons used in a military capacity.  It’s very clear what it says, as are the numerous state Constitutions that mirror it.

And the next stupidest, via HotAir, from Democrat Senator Chris Murphy:

Today’s gun vote wouldn’t stop recent mass shootings, admits leading proponent

Asked by guest host Jonathan Karl whether the so-called “gun show loophole” would have done anything to stop Orlando, Murphy stammered and finally responded as though he was Miss Teen Connecticut answering a pretty tough question about what his favorite color is.

MURPHY: So, it may have in the sense that if you partner together with the bill that stops terrorists from getting guns…

KARL: But wait a minute. He didn’t buy those guns at a gun show. And he would have passed the background—he did pass a background check.

MURPHY: He did pass a background check, but if the Feinstein bill was in effect, the FBI could have put him on the list of those who are prohibited from getting guns. And what if he went into the gun store and was denied? He could have just gone online or to a gun show and bought another one. *

KARL:  OK. But what I’m trying to get at is that every time there’s one of these terrible tragedies, there’s these proposals. Your proposal would have done nothing in the case of Orlando. It would have done nothing to stop the killing in San Bernardino, and in fact, was unrelated to the killing in Newtown. So why are we focusing on things that have nothing to do with the massacres that we are responding?

MURPHY: First of all, we can’t get into that trap.  I disagree. I think if this proposal had been into effect, it may have stopped this shooting. But we can’t get into the trap in which we are forced to defend the proposals simply because it didn’t stop the last tragedy. We should be making our gun laws less full of Swiss cheese holes so that future killings don’t happen.**

Couple important takeaways here.

1st, let your lefty, gun-grabbing brother-in-law see this so he can stop telling you that you are an accomplice in the murder of innocent people just because you exercise the right to self protection. And repeat it on your social media as many times as it takes: These laws will not stop bad people from doing bad things with guns. Full stop.

Yeah, that’s pretty much it.

We already know that the Orlando terrorist beat his ex-wife.  He could’ve been denied based on that, but apparently his ex-wife never bothered to call the police.  He wouldn’t have had a security job, nor been able to buy a gun legally.  Wouldn’t have happened.

Speaking of wife-beaters not allowed to own guns, from ThisAin’tHell.  Short version is a reporter went into a gun store to try to buy an evil toddler-killing black rifle and was denied.  He claimed it was because he was a reporter.  Really, it was because he slapped around his wife.

The folks at Maxon Shooter Supplies and Indoor Range, who claim to be TAH fans, send us a link to the story about them in the Chicago Sun Times, wherein the Times sent Neil Steinberg, one of their reporters, to write about his experience buying and firing an evil black, scary gun (known in journalistic circles as an assault rifle). Steinberg does the handwringing thing about guns and journalistic integrity thing during his drive to Des Plaines, Illinois to the Maxon “lemonade stand” as the owner described it to me.

Driving to Maxon Shooter’s Supplies in Des Plaines on Wednesday to purchase my first assault rifle, I admit, I was nervous. I’d never owned a gun before. And with the horror of Sunday’s Orlando massacre still echoing, even the pleasant summer day — the lush green trees, fluffy white clouds, blue sky — took on a grim aspect, the sweetness of fragile life flashing by as I headed into the Valley of Death.

Earlier, in my editor’s office, I had ticked off the reasons for me not to buy a gun: this was a journalistic stunt; done repeatedly; supporting an industry I despise. But as I tell people, I just work here, I don’t own the place. And my qualms melted as I dug into the issue.

At 5:13 Sarah from Maxon called. They were canceling my sale and refunding my money. No gun for you. I called back. Why? “I don’t have to tell you,” she said. …

A few hours later, Maxon sent the newspaper a lengthy statement, the key part being: “it was uncovered that Mr. Steinberg has an admitted history of alcohol abuse, and a charge for domestic battery involving his wife.”

Well, didn’t see that coming.

This would be on the 4473:

4473 lautenberg

From the Maxon Facebook page;

Mr. Steinberg was very aggressive on the phone with Sarah, insisting he was going to write that we denied him because he is a journalist. “Journalist” is not a protected class, BTW. We contacted his editor and said that, while we don’t normally provide a reason for a denial, in this case to correct the record before you publish, here’s why; we pasted a couple links of press accounts of his past behavior and his admission of same. He’s free to believe or disbelieve that’s why he was denied, but that *is* why he was denied. There was no “We’ll see you in court!!!!” type of language from us – we simply want to set the record straight. That it undermined his thesis and rendered the column incoherent isn’t really our problem, is it? Thanks for your support.