Leatherneck Blogger

Archive for April 2016

Police Say Fatal Street Shooting Was in Self Defense

leave a comment »

By 
Bearing Arms
April 16, 2016

When two men followed and taunted a Muncie, IN man Thursday night, tensions came to a head near the intersection of Kirby Avenue and Elbright Street, leaving one man dead and another man hospitalized.

From WISH:

21-year-old Vincent Wolfe died after being shot, and his cousin, 25-year-old Rondell Wolfe, was also shot and is now in stable condition, according to police.

Barnell Vance, who said the shooter is his cousin, told 24-Hour News 8 the man is emotionally rattled but he wasn’t physically hurt.

“He knew he didn’t do anything wrong, so he called the police,” Vance said.

Police said they believe the Wolfes had an ongoing dispute with another person. Detectives said the Wolfes followed the person through parts of Muncie.

Vance said that person is his cousin, and the Wolfes have been picking on him for months.

“He tried to talk to them while they were here,” Vance said. “My understanding was they had the weapons on him and he protected himself.”

Muncie police said they believe Vincent Wolfe made an aggressive movement toward a handgun seconds before he was shot.

“When it turns to gun violence when somebody can’t get along, I don’t know,” Vance said. “I don’t understand that.”

Delaware County Chief Deputy Prosecutor Eric Hoffman said for a shooting to be self-defense, the shooter must have a reasonable fear of death or bodily harm, he or she must not be trespassing and the shooter cannot provoke or instigate the situation.

Hoffman said all self-defense cases are different and fact-sensitive.

Police questioned and released the shooter, no charges have been filed and officers say they see this as a clear case of self defense.

[Continue reading on Bearing Arms …]

Written by Leatherneck Blogger

April 30, 2016 at 06:00

Activist Judge Sets Trial Date For Frivolous AR-15 Lawsuit In Connecticut

with one comment

By 
Bearing Arms
April 20, 2016

Connecticut Judge Barbara Bellis refused to comply with federal law last week, which compels her to toss out a frivolous lawsuit filed by a small group of Sandy Hook families who are seeking to make selling the most popular rifle sold in the United States illegal.

She’s now set a trial date for this lie-filed suit.

Yesterday a Connecticut judge set a trial date of April 3, 2018, for a lawsuit against the manufacturer, distributor, and dealer who supplied the Bushmaster XM15-E2S used in the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown. In the meantime, the plaintiffs—who include the families of nine people murdered at the school, plus a survivor of the attack—can proceed with discovery. It’s not exactly clear what they hope to find, since the case hinges not on facts but on the way they’re spun. The plaintiffs argue that selling the Bushmaster XM15-E2S and other AR-15-style rifles to the general public qualifies as “negligent entrustment,” because such “assault weapons” have “no legitimate civilian purpose.”

“No legitimate civilian purpose?”

Reality disagrees.

Citizen demand in particular for AR-15 pattern rifles is especially high in recent years, for the most practical of reasons.

AR-15 rifles are very modular in nature. Depending on the needs and desires of the owner, an AR-15 can be set up in a wide range of configurations.

AR-15-style rifles are common among competition shooters, using iron sights or optics depending upon the kind of competition.

[Continue reading on Bearing Arms …]

Written by Leatherneck Blogger

April 29, 2016 at 06:00

New study from China helps to prove the Abortion-Breast Cancer Link

leave a comment »

By Mary L. Davenport, MD
American Thinker
December 2, 2013

In the US we are used to abortion advocates claiming that the risk of elective abortion is relatively trivial, and major medical organizations denying any link between abortion and breast cancer. Now a powerful new study from China published last week by Yubei Huang and colleagues suggests otherwise.  The article, a meta-analysis pooling 36 studies from 14 provinces in China, showed that abortion increased the risk of breast cancer by 44% with one abortion, and 76% and 89% with two and three abortions.

This new article is another example of the recent excellent scholarship on abortion in peer-reviewed journals coming out of the People’s Republic. There is no bigger data base than China, where there are an average of 8.2 million pregnancy terminations every year, and 40 abortions for every 100 live births. Chinese researchers and physicians are unencumbered by abortion politics, and do not cover up data showing long term effects of induced abortion, as do their US counterparts in governmental, professional and consumer organizations.

Huang’s study shows an even stronger increase than the 30% higher risk found in the 1996 meta-analysis by Joel Brind and colleagues on abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer. The Brind meta-analysis, combining the results of 23 studies, gave a more complete view than any single study. But even though it was the most comprehensive study on the topic at the time, it was disregarded by establishment medical groups.

Brind, a professor of biology and endocrinology at Baruch College, is not unique in having experienced censorship of his findings for the past two decades, including at the notorious National Cancer Institute (NCI) workshop on “Early reproductive events and breast cancer” in 2003.  This important workshop was manipulated by its chairperson NCI epidemiologist Louise Brinton to suppress critical information on the abortion-breast cancer (ABC) link. The main speaker on abortion and breast cancer, Leslie Bernstein, who  had never published on this topic, openly said “I would never be a proponent of going around and telling them (women) that having babies is the way to reduce your risk,” even though it has been an established fact, conceded by abortion proponents that this is true.

This workshop was designed to influence subsequent governmental policy, academic scholarship, physicians, and popular perception of the topic, and succeeded in doing so.  It also influenced the individual life trajectories of many women who were led to believe, falsely, that an abortion decision would not have an impact on their future breast cancer risk.  Because there is a lag time between abortion and the appearance of breast cancer, the effect of an abortion is not immediate for an individual.  And abortion is only one of a number of factors influencing breast cancer risk, such as family history, use of hormones, and age at first childbirth.  The majority of women who have breast cancer have never had an abortion. Nonetheless, there will be some women who develop breast cancer and die from it, impacted by the failure to inform them of the ABC link, or its dismissal by establishment medical and consumer groups such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Susan Komen Foundation.  This is an ethical breach of huge proportions.

[Continue reading on American Thinker …]

Written by Leatherneck Blogger

April 28, 2016 at 06:00

Are liberal women really proud to have abortions?

with one comment

By Ed Straker
American Thinker
April 2, 2015

Taking a nod from the gay pride movement, abortionists are calling on women to celebrate their abortion experiences on Twitter with the hashtag #ShoutYourAbortion.  Really.

The goal, according to Amelia Bonow, 30, who posted on Facebook on Sept. 19 that she had had an abortion at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Seattle last year, was to encourage women who had kept their abortions secret to speak up. “A shout is not a celebration or a value judgment; it’s the opposite of a whisper, of silence,” Ms. Bonow said in an interview. “Even women who support abortion rights have been silent, and told they were supposed to feel bad about having an abortion.”

For good reason.  An abortion is the ending of a life.

{Continue reading on American Thinker …]

Written by Leatherneck Blogger

April 27, 2016 at 06:00

Hillary commits major abortion gaffe

with one comment

By Thomas Lifson
American Thinker
April 4, 2016

A gaffe, as Michael Kinsley famously explained it, is when a politician accidentally tells the truth.  And Hillary Clinton did exactly that on Meet the Press yesterday, violating the rulebook of Planned Parenthood to use language that obscures the nature of abortion, substituting words like “choice” and “fetal tissue mass” to mask the taking of a human a life.

Hillary’s sin?  Stating her view that “an unborn person does not have constitutional rights.”  Acknowledging that an “unborn person” is what is being killed, or terminated, as the abortion industry prefers to euphemize it, creates legal conceptual difficulties.  Bradford Richardson explains in the Washington Times:

Describing the fetus as a “person” or “child” has long been anathema to the pro-choice movement, which argues the terms misleadingly imply a sense of humanity.

In addition, the specific term “person” is a legal concept that includes rights and statuses that the law protects, including protection of a person’s life under the laws against homicide. Pro-choice intellectuals have long said that even if an unborn child is a “life,” it is not yet a “person.”

Guidelines issued by the International Planned Parenthood Federation discourage pro-choice advocates from using terms such as “abort a child,” instead recommending “more accurate/appropriate” alternatives such as “end a pregnancy” or “have an abortion.”

“‘Abort a child’ is medically inaccurate, as the fetus is not yet a child,” the guide reads. “‘Terminate’ a pregnancy is commonly used, however some people prefer to avoid this as terminate may have negative connotations (e.g., ‘terminator or assassinate’) for some people.”

The guidebook also advises against the terms “baby,” “dead fetus,” “unborn baby” or “unborn child” when discussing what it is that’s being aborted. Instead, it recommends the terms “embryo,” “fetus” and “the pregnancy.”

Here is a video of the exchange, followed by a transcript. Is it just me, or does Hillary look puffy in the face and depressed? The lighting is also just terrible. It is shocking to see a campaign that spends vast amounts of money on wardrobe, makeup, hair, and other elements of appearance letting her go on a major TV show looking this bad. Or maybe that’s the best that can be done?

[Continue reading on American Thinker …]

Written by Leatherneck Blogger

April 26, 2016 at 06:00

Good Girl with Gun Lives, Bad Guy with Knife Dies

with 2 comments

By Doug Giles
Townhall
January 8, 2012

In my world, if a violent altercation occurs between two humans, the innocent assaulted party should live, and if anybody has to die or get critically wounded, it should be the sadistic perpetrator. Call me freaky.

To make certain this occurs, the innocent party has to be able to do one or two things when the crap hits the fan:

1. Open up a can of whup ass and immobilize the foul weed, thus sending him to the hospital.

2. Double-lung the loser with a hot dose of lead, thus sending him to hell.

Yes, the one being preyed upon has to be able to do the abovementioned because the quickest cop on the planet cannot respond fast enough to save your backside should things go violently south. You dig? Oh, I know … it will never happen to you.

Of the aforementioned, an 18-year-old Oklahoma teen mom, Sarah McKinley, selected option #2 this past week. McKinley, who had just lost her husband to lung cancer on Christmas Day, was home with her 3-month-old baby boy on New Year’s Eve when two dillweeds decided they were going to break into her casa. Good Sarah was having none of it. Are you paying attention, ladies? You are? Excellent.

McKinley, upon hearing and spotting one of the Darwinian holdovers wielding a 12-inch hunting knife, cordoned off her door with a couch, put a bottle in her kid’s mouth to keep him calm and then proceeded to the sweet place where her 12-gauge shotgun and handgun reside. Smart chick. I bet Jesus really likes her.

Upon arming herself, she called 911 to get a green light from dispatch to dispatch the two dipsticks of bad intent. Sarah is both polite and deadly—a two-fer, boys. Upon getting the nod from Nine One One, McKinley then dusted the knife wielder, and the other bandit fled the scene and was later arrested when Goofy called emergency to report his dead buddy.

This is the kind of story that we should read about more often; namely, the evil SOB is dead, and the innocent girl and her baby are alive, and all of this occurred because the femme fatale had the wherewithal and the knowledge to defend herself with a lethal weapon—also known as my friend, the gun.

Check it out, mamas: I guarantee that as she was sitting there alone with her tiny bambino on New Year’s Eve, Sarah probably thought that things couldn’t get any worse after losing her husband on Christmas Day. And yet things did get worse. But, thankfully, she was trained and had a gun. This dire situation ended well for her and hers all because of her wood and metal amigo … the gun.

How would you fare, my dear reader, if you were tossed in that same situation? Would the headline read the same as dear Sarah’s does, or would the perpetrator gain the upper hand because you can’t or won’t protect yourself, your brood and your castle?

[Continue reading on Townhall …]

Written by Leatherneck Blogger

April 25, 2016 at 06:00

What Does the Second Amendment Mean?

with one comment

By David Deming
American Thinker
April 9, 2016

It’s one of the most controversial passages of the Constitution. Allegedly, it’s also one of the most obscure and unintelligible sections. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads, “a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), we were told for decades that the Second Amendment did not guarantee or even refer to an individual right. Based on the wording of United States v. Miller(1939), the theory was promulgated that the Second Amendment protected only State’s rights to maintain organized militia. One problem with this curious interpretation is that States don’t have rights, they have powers. But there’s nothing new about twisting the truth into a pretzel so that it conforms to a dogmatic ideology. Some people still doggedly maintain that the Second Amendment does not refer to an individual right. Among these persons are some judges on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In clear defiance of the Supreme Court, the Seventh Circuit recently announced that “states, which are in charge of militias, should be allowed to decide when civilians can possess military-grade firearms.”

Contrary to what some confused and unlettered judges think, the Second Amendment does indeed protect an individual right. Neither is it opaque or difficult to understand. A militia is “a citizen army,” an entity that is most definitely distinct from a professional military. The Second Amendment becomes perfectly lucid when we understand that the “well regulated” militia spoken of in the Amendment is to be composed of a people who have right to keep and bear arms. The two clauses of the Second Amendment, the first which refers to a “militia,” and the second which refers to “the people,” cannot be separated and interpreted independently. For the Second Amendment to be intelligible the two clauses must be reconciled. Indeed, it is very difficult to assemble a militia from a people who have been disarmed.

[Continue reading on American Thinker …]

Written by Leatherneck Blogger

April 24, 2016 at 06:00

Appropriate This!

leave a comment »

By Bill Whittle
BillWhittle.Com

Hi everybody. I’m Bill Whittle and this is the Firewall.

Well, “Cultural Appropriation” is the latest form of combat used by Social Justice Warriors: a term used by crybullies to describe themselves as fighters against prejudice and privilege. They are the first warriors in history to burst into tears and require weeks of therapy at the mere sight of an actual weapon.

There is only one area where these progressive millennials are not only allowed but encouraged to compete, and that is the struggle to see who can be the biggest victim and win the Virtue Signaling Silver Cup by being most sensitive to racial and gender injustice.

Cultural Appropriation is the idea that White Males have stolen various elements of minority and female culture and used them for their own benefit without acknowledging or appreciating the suffering of the offended party.

It’s everywhere, but the best example – so far – is a video shot at San Francisco State University, where a black student confronts a white student who is culturally appropriating African-American dreadlocks. Let’s watch, shall we?

[CLIP]

Listen, I get it: I’m on her side.

As a Straight White Male, I see these feminists and students of color appropriating my White Male culture every day. When I think of them walking around in blue jeans, using electricity to light their dorm rooms, or to run their microwave ovens so they can eat non-Anglo-Saxon food… well, frankly, it makes me sick. They sit there using their smart phones to write about Social Injustice and then use the internet to post it on Facebook and Twitter, and as a white male I find this incredibly offensive.

Do these racists ever give a thought to fact that they are not dying in their twenties and thirties because of immunization, pasteurization, antiseptics andantibiotics? When they go to the hospital, do they think about the suffering and back-breaking work by White Males in order to bring them laser surgery, MRI scans, artificial ventilators and all the rest? Do they give an instant’s thought to why none of them developed polio, or scores of other infectious diseases? Nope. They just culturally appropriate these things and use them inauthentically.

But what really, really makes me lose my mind is when I look down the aisle of an airplane: Oh yeah, they’re reading articles about Beyonce, and they’re listening to Drake and Kanye West, but how many of these feminists and  Social Justice Warriors of Color know the name of the man that invented the jet engine that is carrying them from their parents house to their hissy fits at the University of Ottawa, or Oberlin, or Yale, Harvard, Missouri and all the rest at 550 miles per hour? Not one of them, I’ll bet. Not one.

His name was Whittle, you ignorant, insensitive, racist pigs.  I just want to get up and slap every one of them.

It’s a white thing. You wouldn’t understand.

And of all the things that Social Justice Warriors have culturally appropriated from White Men, the one thing I demand full recognition of is Rap.

 

Merry Margaret,

        As midsummer flower,

    Gentle as falcon

    Or hawk of the tower:

With solace and gladness,

Much mirth and no madness,

All good and no badness;

            So joyously,

            So maidenly,

            So womanly

            Her demeaning

            In every thing,

            Far, far passing

            That I can indite,

            Or suffice to write

 

Hip-Hop rhyming is called Skeltonic verse, and it was invented by the man who wrote those lines: White Male John Skelton, who was born in England in1463.

Now if all of this sounds petty, and ridiculous, and racist, and utterly barking mad to you… well, it sounds that way to me too.  But that is who these progressive crybully tribalists are: insecure fascists who want to tell other people how to wear their hair.

They become apoplectic about things like the Washington Redskins, but they may want to take a lesson from another despised and marginalized group of American immigrants: the Irish. The two great slurs leveled against the immigrant Irish concerned their drunkenness and their violence. Here’s the mascot they chose for themselvesa drunken fighting Leprechaun — and here’s the parade they have annually and here’s the green beer we all drink on St. Patrick’s day, and once a yeareveryone in America is Irish including this left wing, divisive, Alinskyite agitator [Obama]. That’s because unlike the Social Justice Weenies, the Irish have a sense of humor, which they no doubt culturally appropriated from our common African ancestors.

[Continue reading on billwhittle.com …}

Written by Leatherneck Blogger

April 23, 2016 at 06:00

Persecuted Christians Support Brotherhood Terror Act

with 3 comments

The Clarion Project
April 13, 2016

The proposed law has bipartisan support in Congress. You can use the Clarion Project’s form to contact your rep in less than one minute.

Groups representing the persecuted Christians of the Middle East are urging support for the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act. The legislation is now supported by over 50 members of Congress and you can use the Clarion Project‘s form to contact your representatives in less than one minute.

Three Assyrian Christian organizations—the American Mesopotamian Organization, the Middle East Christian Committee and the Assyrian Genocide and Research Center are calling it a “historic opportunity to strike a blow against one of the Middle East’s oldest and most vicious organizations—the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Coptic Solidarity is also rallying its supporters behind the bill. Its president, Alex Shalaby, said, “Coptic Solidarity calls on all who support civil rights, democracy, and religious freedom to take action on this campaign. A terrorist designation against the Muslim Brotherhood is not just a Coptic issue, but one that affects the welfare of all Egyptians.”

The group’s statement also said that the Muslim Brotherhood “is the head of several subsidiary terrorist organizations in the Middle East, Europe and North America.”

As the Clarion Project has repeatedly documented, the Brotherhood and its supporters have instigated, allowed and participated in the persecution of Egyptian Coptic Christians.

[Continue reading on The Clarion Project …]

Islamic State publishes hit list of Muslim Brotherhood-linked Muslim leaders

with one comment

By Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch
April 14, 2016

The fact that the Islamic State published this list is being trumpeted as a sign that these people are genuinely moderate. That is not the case. In reality, many of the people on this list are tied to the Muslim Brotherhood, which is a chief rival of the Islamic State in attempting to reestablish the caliphate. This isn’t a hit list of “moderates,” but of Muslim Brotherhood rivals.

Take, for example, Keith Ellison. In 2008 Ellison accepted $13,350 from the Muslim American Society (MAS) to go on a pilgrimage to Mecca. The Muslim American Society is a Muslim Brotherhood organization: “In recent years, the U.S. Brotherhood operated under the name Muslim American Society, according to documents and interviews. One of the nation’s major Islamic groups, it was incorporated in Illinois in 1993 after a contentious debate among Brotherhood members.” That’s from the Chicago Tribune in 2004, in an article that is now carried on the Muslim Brotherhood’s English-language website, Ikhwanweb.

Pictured but not mentioned in Dabiq is Nihad Awad of Hamas-linked CAIR, another Muslim Brotherhood-linked entity. In a May 1991 internal Muslim Brotherhood document that was later discovered by law enforcement officials. Entitled An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America, the document lists ICNA as an allied group and states that Brotherhood operatives in the U.S. “must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

Listed in this document among the “organizations of our friends” is the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), the parent group of CAIR. FBI officials ended ties with CAIR in 2008 afterevidence in the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial – the largest terror financing trial in U.S. history – revealing links between the HLF’s founders including CAIR co-founder and Executive Director Nihad Awad and the terrorist group Hamas, which describes itself in its charter as “one of the wings of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine.”

Then there is Huma Abedin, whose Muslim Brotherhood connections have been fully exposed by Andrew McCarthy and bruited about for years. The facts are quite public, albeit largely ignored: Abedin’s parents are both members of the Muslim Brotherhood, but her links to the organization are not just familial. Abedin was for twelve years the assistant editor of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs (JMMA), which was founded by Abdullah Omar Naseef, a Muslim Brotherhood operative and al-Qaeda financier. Naseef and Abedin both appeared on the JMMA’s masthead from 1996 to 2003.

You get the idea. This is a hit list of rivals, not “moderates.”

Continue reading on Jihad Watch …]

Written by Leatherneck Blogger

April 21, 2016 at 10:00

%d bloggers like this: