Leatherneck Blogger

Posts Tagged ‘Income Tax

ATF Considers ‘Repealing and Replacing’ Firearm Regulations

with one comment

By Beth Baumann
Bearing Arms
July 11, 2017

Over the last few months, the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) met with numerous groups – gun rights groups, gun control groups and law enforcement officials – to determine what firearm regulations the department could do away with.

The meetings were a direct result of the Trump Administration’s Executive Order, which focused on regulatory reform in order to“alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens placed on the American people.”

According to The Trace, a leftist news site, each organization was asked to consider the following questions:

  • What impact current regulations have on gun-violence prevention.
  • What regulations need to be ‘repealed, replaced, or modified.’
  • What regulations are outdated.

Although many are wondering what the discussions entailed, a spokesperson for the ATF declined to provide any additional details.

“Engaging in open dialogue with these professionals allows us to better understand the industries we regulate and clarify our processes and programs,” the spokesperson told The Trace.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) welcomes the discussion with the ATF.

“It is a unique opportunity to work with an administration that wants to advance the contributions of the firearms and ammunition industries to our national, state and local economies. These are discussions that would allow industry members to continue to grow their businesses and create new jobs,” Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel, said in a statement. “It is refreshing to have an administration that looks at government relations from the point of view of business and not from the point of view of a government bureaucrat.”

House rejects proposal identifying “Islamic religious doctrines” that could be used by terrorist groups

with one comment

By Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch
July 14, 2017

Choosing denial and willful ignorance instead of knowledge of the motivating ideology of the jihadis who have vowed to destroy us. That’s just asking to be defeated.

“If you have an amendment that says we’re going to study one religion and only one, we’re going to look at their leaders and put them on a list — only them — and you are going to talk about what’s orthodox practice and what’s unorthodox, then you are putting extra scrutiny on that religion,” said Muslim Brotherhood-linked Rep. Keith Ellison.

Yes, you are. And there is a reason for that: 30,000 jihad attacks committed in the name of Islam and in accord with its teachings since September 11, 2001. No one religion has anything approaching that kind of record of death and destruction. So why shouldn’t we put extra scrutiny on that religion?

Ellison added: “You are abridging the free exercise of that religion.”

No. The free exercise of any religion is not a license to break existing laws. The free exercise of religion is not a free pass to commit treason or subversion or sedition.

The amendment would have required the Defense Department to conduct “strategic assessments of the use of violent or unorthodox Islamic religious doctrine to support extremist or terrorist messaging and justification.”

There is nothing “unorthodox” about jihad violence in Islamic law and doctrine. But even this tepid recommendation was too much for the short-sighted 217 cowards of the House, who have passed up an opportunity to strengthen our defense against the global jihad.

“House rejects controversial study of Islam,” by Rachael Bade and John Bresnahan, Politico, July 13, 2017:

The House on Friday rejected a controversial GOP proposal identifying “Islamic religious doctrines, concepts or schools of thought” that could be used by terrorist groups — something opponents say is unconstitutional and will lead to the targeting of Muslims.

More than 20 centrist Republicans joined with Democrats to defeated [sic] the amendment, 208 to 217. Drafted by conservative Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), the proposal called for the Pentagon to identify Islamic leaders who preach peaceful beliefs versus those who espouse extremist views.

The proposal has drawn heavy criticism from Muslim lawmakers serving in Congress, Muslim interest groups and the American Civil Liberties Union, who say the proposal would unfairly target Muslims. They don’t trust the Trump administration to conduct the analysis.

“If you have an amendment that says we’re going to study one religion and only one, we’re going to look at their leaders and put them on a list — only them — and you are going to talk about what’s orthodox practice and what’s unorthodox, then you are putting extra scrutiny on that religion,” said Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), who is Muslim.

Ellison, who met with Franks to try to persuade him to withdraw the proposal, added: “You are abridging the free exercise of that religion. This is the wrong way to do what he’s trying to do.”…

“Right now, there is a certain spectrum within the Islamist world that is at the root of the ideological impulse for terrorism,” Franks said. “Ironically, Muslims are the prime targets of these groups. To suggest that this is anti-Muslim is a fallacy, and I think that anyone who really understands it knows that.”

Franks also took issue with Ellison’s suggestion that the amendment infringes on the First Amendment’s protection of religious freedom, pointing out that he is the chairman of the International Religious Freedom Caucus.

“We’ve worked very hard to protect the religious freedom for everybody,” he said. “But it is important that we empower America to identify those heroic Muslims within the world that will help us begin to delegitimize this ideology of global jihad.”

The amendment would require the Defense Department to conduct “strategic assessments of the use of violent or unorthodox Islamic religious doctrine to support extremist or terrorist messaging and justification.”

The proposal requires the assessment to identify religious doctrines and concepts that extremists use to recruit potential terrorists, radicalize them and ultimately justify their heinous acts.

It also asks Pentagon officials for “recommendations for identifying key thought leaders or proponents.”

The proposal also requires the Pentagon to identify Islamic schools of though that could be used to counter jihadist views, as well as leaders who are preaching these sorts of doctrines….

 

Martin Luther King Jr’s Niece Alveda King: “Let’s Pray for America to End Abortion”

with one comment

By Alveda King
LifeNews.com
July 14, 2017

Celebrities — you either have to love them, hate them, or don’t care one way or the other. One interesting truth about “celebrity” men and women is that abortions have affected many of them.

I could also include cases of men celebrities, because some of them have post-abortion testimonies as well. We’ll save that one for part two.

I include myself in the mix because I became post-abortive in 1970 and was still hiding my pain in deep denial back then.

Yes, even celebrities and civil rights activists like me have had abortions. Thank goodness people are talking more about abortions these days.

At Civil Rights for the Unborn we uncover the injustice of abortion. Abortion isn’t a civil right; it’s a crime against humanity. At Priests for Life we work hard to end abortion. See Silent No More Awareness and Rachel’s Vineyard and find out why men and women truly regret our abortions.

Also, please read this compelling account about celebrity abortions by Kevin Burke, co-founder of Rachel’s Vineyard. Also read Recall Abortion by Priests for Life Executive Director Janet Morana. After reading one or both please ask yourself these questions:

1. Why must a woman choose between health, safety, and security or abortion?

2. How can taking an innocent life save a life?

3. Does the truth really matter?

“Have I now become your enemy because I am telling you the truth?” — Galatians 4:16 NLT

Let’s pray for America to end abortion and return to God.

LifeNews.com Note: Alveda King is the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. King is a leading pro-life voice who formerly had two abortions before having a faith conversion and she now is a speaker for and representative of the educational outreach of Priests for Life and the Silent No More network.

New York Times Op-Ed on Charlie Gard Backs Infanticide

with one comment

By Michael Cook
LifeNews.com
July 14, 2017

The case of dying English baby Charlie Gard shows how much public opinion about life and death issues is swayed by emotion rather than thoughtful deliberation.

Charlie was born with mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome. This condition is so rare that there are probably only a dozen children in the world who are affected. The child cannot breathe on his own, cannot move and is probably profoundly intellectually disabled.

His parents, Connie Yates and Chris Gard, understand that their son will probably only live a short time, but want to give him every chance. They have found a professor of neurology in United States, identified only as “Dr I” in court documents, who is offering an experimental treatment which has given them a smidgen of hope. Even Dr I agrees that the probability is very low. The UK’s National Health Service will not consider paying for this, so the parents have resorted to crowd-funding. With donations from tens of thousands of people, they have raised £1.3 million.

But Great Ormond Hospital, where Charlie is being cared for, backed by the UK government, will not let the baby go to the United States. The doctors argue that it is Charlie’s best interests to die soon and in the hospital.

There are several issues in this case which make it impossible for the public, journalists and bioethicists to reach an easy conclusion. Is Charlie suffering? Should his expected quality of life determine whether he is kept alive? What are his “best interests”? Who makes the decision on whether to seek experimental treatment, the parents or the doctors? Can doctors in the NHS be trusted?

By and large, the media, especially in the United States, are giving very sympathetic coverage to the parents’ case. This is expressed very touchingly on their GoFundMe page:

We just CAN’T let our baby die when there is something that might help him! We won’t give up on him because he has a rare disease. He deserves a chance and he deserves a life as much as anyone else.

It’s not just a conservative/progressive, right/left issue. On the side of Charlie’s parents are Pope Francis and President Trump, but also – amazingly — the world’s leading utilitarian philosopher, Peter Singer, and a like-mind colleague, Oxford’s Julian Savulescu. The latter argue from a cost-benefit perspective:

It is a value judgement (not a scientific judgement) whether the pain of three months of intensive care (minimised by sedation and analgesia) [in the US] is worth taking to gather more information about the prospect of improvement with experimental therapy.

This is an issue on which there is reasonable disagreement. Many doctors and ethicists believe it is not, some doctors (such as Dr I, and now six other experts) and some ethicists believe it is worth taking this chance, even if it is a slim one.

In the face of such reasonable disagreement, we believe that we should accede to the wishes of the parents and err on the side of a chance of life. The alternative is certain death.

Now let’s take a look at a controversy at the other end of life. Noel Conway, a 67-year-old former university lecturer with motor neurone disease fears being entombed in his own body and is requesting permission for assisted suicide or euthanasia, both of which are illegal in the English legal system. His condition is incurable and he will probably die within the year. Yet coverage of his case in the British media has been very sympathetic.

How can the media support an infant fighting to live and also support an adult with considerably better “quality of life” who wants to die? Charlie Gard should be allowed to live as long as possible even though he has terrible “quality of life”, but Noel Conway should be allowed to die as soon as possible even though he has relatively good “quality of life”. “Support life at all costs” and “support death at all costs!” are contradictory theories.

The media just doesn’t have the patience or the intellectual wherewithal to puzzle their way through complex cases like these. Instead it reacts according to gut feel. And then, to heap contradiction upon contradiction, they criticise opponents of same-sex marriage and transgender rights for irrational arguments based on “repugnance”.

Just to demonstrate how impoverished is the elite media’s reasoning about life and death issues, consider an op-ed published in the New York Times this week. Without mentioning the Charlie Gard controversy, it was obviously an oblique commentary on it. In it a father remembered cradling his newly born son as he died painfully from the effects of Trisomy 18, another rare genetic condition. To heighten the emotional impact, it was written in the second person. The author argues “Shouldn’t we be allowed the swift humane option afforded the owners of dogs, a lethal dose of a painkiller?” And in his shocking conclusion, he tells himself, “You should have killed your baby.”

In other words, at the same time as the Pope and Peter Singer were united in arguing for Charlie’s right to live, the New York Times was supporting infanticide.

In any case the op-ed’s relevance to the debate is questionable. The incident may have taken place as long as 30 years ago, not last week. Palliative care has improved astronomically since then. And despite the father’s obvious anguish, he is not your average Joe. He is a professional philosopher whose main interest is showing that humans are not morally superior to non-human life forms, and possibly not to robots either.

But none of that seemed relevant to the New York Times editorial team. The op-ed was powerfully emotional and that was all that mattered.

Quality journalism helps people to think. Yellow journalism ignores the facts and puts a blowtorch to their emotions. And that, at least in the right-to-die debate, is where the New York Times has sunk to.

LifeNews Note: Michael Cook is editor of MercatorNet where this story appeared.

“Feminist” Co-Founders of The Women’s March Are Farrakhan’s Anarchist Angels

with one comment

By Jenn Jacques
Bearing Arms
July 13, 2017

The men behind the Women’s March organizers have a dangerous and radical agenda, and they’re being led by none other than Louis Farrakhan, the “father of the modern violent left.”

In her latest NRA video, Dana Loesch urges Women’s March Co-Founders Tamika Mallory, Linda Sarsour, and Carmen Perez to become real feminists and stand up to the violence of men like Farrakhan with their own clenched fists of truth.

 

Linda Sarsour: The Enemy of the State

with one comment

By Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch
July 8, 2017

 

Anni Cyrus exposes Linda Sarsour’s hatred for America and for free society in general.

Muslim Travel Ban? Hardly

with one comment

By Raheel Raza
Clarion Project
June 29, 2017

 

 

 

Muslim Brotherhood-linked Rep. Keith Ellison falsely claims 35 mosques attacked under Trump

with one comment

By Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch
June 23, 2017

Many of these “hate crimes” were just crimes: “The ACLU listed several burglaries in Alabama that targeted mosque donation boxes. But according to a police statement, authorities found ‘no evidence that these crimes are hate crime related.’ Another example involves a 16-year-old boy who set fire to a mosque, but authorities do not believe the arson was a hate crime. The ACLU also lists the murder of a young Muslim woman outside a mosque that occurred Sunday. Police currently believe the crime was a ‘road rage incident’ and not a hate crime….Ellison mischaracterizes some of the incidents CAIR reported by calling them ‘attacks,’ exaggerating instances like hate mail by including them in the 35-number from his tweet.”

This is all familiar. For years, Islamic advocacy groups such as the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) have wildly exaggerated the incidence of anti-Muslim hate crime, often misrepresenting crimes committed by Muslims themselves as anti-Muslim hate crimes, in order to portray Muslims in the U.S. as victims of widespread persecution. In reality, FBI statistics show that Jews are twice as likely to be victims of hate crimes as Muslims.

The objective is clearly to deflect counter-terror efforts, claiming that Muslims are more victimized than victimizer, and that counter-terror efforts are part of that victimization.

Ellison has multiple links to the Muslim Brotherhood, so this is no surprise coming from him.

“FACT CHECK: Have There Been 35 Mosque Attacks Under Trump?,” by David Sivak, Daily Caller, June 21, 2017:

Democratic Congressman Keith Ellison tweeted Sunday that there have been 35 “mosque attacks” in the Trump era.

 

Verdict: Unsubstantiated

Ellison exaggerates an outdated and imprecise statistic. However, there have been a number of hate crime incidents directed at mosques in recent months. It remains to be seen whether these incidents are part of a growing trend.

Fact Check:

In his tweet, Ellison links to a Buzzfeed article that claims there have been around 35 “incidents of threats, vandalism and arson at U.S. mosques since January.” The figure is roughly based on an outdated statistic mentioned in a March press release from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

To establish a more current estimate, The Daily Caller News Foundation analyzed an ongoing list of incidents compiled by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The analysis found alleged incidents at about 60 mosques across the country to date. Many of the incidents noted by CAIR are included in the ACLU listing.

The ACLU’s list relies on local news reports, so the number of incidents could be higher if news outlets did not cover an incident or if the ACLU could not find all instances reported by local media.

The number of “anti-mosque incidents” the ACLU compiled may also be overstated because not all incidents were investigated by police as hate crimes. In addition, the list includes more subjective “incidents” like zoning disputes over the construction of new mosques.

The ACLU listed several burglaries in Alabama that targeted mosque donation boxes. But according to a police statement, authorities found “no evidence that these crimes are hate crime related.”

Another example involves a 16-year-old boy who set fire to a mosque, but authorities do not believe the arson was a hate crime.

The ACLU also lists the murder of a young Muslim woman outside a mosque that occurred Sunday. Police currently believe the crime was a “road rage incident” and not a hate crime.

Police reports and investigations are not infallible, but “anti-mosque” statistics issued by groups like the ACLU should be taken with a grain of salt. According to the FBI, “only when a law enforcement investigation reveals sufficient evidence to lead a reasonable and prudent person to conclude that the offender’s actions were motivated, in whole or in part, by his or her bias, should an agency report an incident as a hate crime.”

Ellison mischaracterizes some of the incidents CAIR reported by calling them “attacks,” exaggerating instances like hate mail by including them in the 35-number from his tweet….

 

Both Ellison’s tweet and the Buzzfeed article frame recent mosque incidents in the context of the Trump era. The article looks at incidents since January, the month President Donald Trump was inaugurated. However, evidence of a link between Trump’s presidency and attacks on mosques is unsubstantiated….

The Left has one more argument: kill them!

with one comment

By Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch
June 24, 2017

The Left, and its Muslim allies, have never been open to rational discussion or debate. And now they’re growing increasingly thuggish and violent.

“Ann Coulter: The Left Has One More Argument: Kill Them!,” by Ann Coulter, Breitbart, June 21, 2017:

After a Bernie Sanders supporter tried to commit mass murder last week – the second homicidal Bernie supporter so far this year — the media blamed President Trump for lowering the bar on heated political rhetoric by calling his campaign opponents cruel names like “Crooked Hillary” and “Lyin’ Ted.”

As soon as any conservative responds to Trump’s belittling names for his rivals by erupting in a murderous rage, that will be a fantastically good point. But until then, it’s idiotic. Unlike liberals, conservatives aren’t easily incited to violence by words.

What we’re seeing is the following: Prominent liberals repeatedly tell us, with deadly seriousness, that Trump and his supporters are: “Hitler,” “fascists,” “bigots,” “haters,” “racists,” “terrorists,” “criminals,” and “white supremacists,” which is then followed by liberals physically attacking conservatives.

To talk about “both sides” being guilty of provocative rhetoric is like talking about “both genders” being guilty of rape.

Nearly every op-ed writer at The New York Times has compared Trump to Hitler. (The conservative on the op-ed page merely called him a “proto-fascist.”) If Trump is Hitler and his supporters Nazis, then the rational course of action for any civilized person is to kill them.

That’s not just a theory, it’s the result.

A few months ago, 38-year-old Justin Barkley shot and killed a UPS driver in a Walmart parking lot in Ithaca, New York, then ran over his body, because he thought he was killing Donald Trump. During his arraignment, Barkley told the judge: “I shot and killed Donald Trump purposely, intentionally, and very proudly.”

In the past year, there have been at least a hundred physical attacks on Trump supporters or presumed Trump supporters. The mainstream media have ignored them all.

Schoolchildren across the country are being hospitalized from beatings for the crime of liking Trump. In Pasco, Oregon, a 29-year-old Trump supporter was stabbed in the throat by a Hispanic man, Alvaro Campos-Hernandez, after a political argument.

Last month, the anti-jihad scholar Robert Spencer was poisoned in Iceland by a Social Justice Warrior pretending to be a fan, sending Spencer to the hospital.

It’s become so normal for leftist thugs to assault anyone who likes Trump that, in Meriden, Connecticut, Wilson Echevarria and Anthony Hobdy leapt out of their car and started punching and hitting a man holding a Trump sign, rolling him into traffic right in front of a policeman.

If any one of these bloody attacks had been committed by a Trump supporter against a Muslim, a gay, a Mexican, a woman, or a Democrat, the media would have had to drop its Russia conspiracy theory to give us 24-7 coverage of the epidemic of right-wing violence.

The liberal response to this ceaseless mayhem toward conservatives is to produce a single nut, who fired a gun in the Comet Ping Pong pizzeria in Washington, D.C., last December (hurting no one) to “rescue children,” after reading on obscure right-wing blogs that the restaurant hid a Democratic pedophilia ring. (They’ve also hyped a long list of “hate crimes” that were utter hoaxes.)

Congratulations, liberals! You got one. And some tiny number of girls raped men last year. QED: Both sexes have a rape problem.

Liberal aggression has ratcheted up dramatically since the dawn of Trump, as has the dehumanizing rhetoric, but epic violence from the left is nothing new.

We don’t have to go back more than century to note that every presidential assassin and attempted presidential assassin who had a political motive was a leftist, a socialist, a communist, or a member of a hippie commune. (Charles J. Guiteau, Leon Czolgosz, Giuseppe Zangara, Lee Harvey Oswald, Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme, and Sara Jane Moore.)…

Liberals know damn well that their audience includes a not-insignificant portion of foaming-at-the-mouth lunatics, prepared, at the slightest provocation, to smash windows, burn down neighborhoods, physically attack, and even murder conservatives. But instead of toning down the rhetoric, the respectable left keeps throwing matches on the bone-dry tinder, and then indignantly asks, “Are you saying conservatives don’t do it, too?”

We Can’t Afford to Wait on the Attack

with 2 comments

Brevard Sheriff

 

%d bloggers like this: