Leatherneck Blogger

Posts Tagged ‘Middle Class

Crash Me Ousside, Howbow Da? Tulsa’s Most Wanted RUN DOWN By Cop

leave a comment »

By Bob Owens
Bearing Arms
March 23, 2017

A woman on a multi-day violent crime spree who was firing at Tusla (OK) police officers trying to arrest her was intentionally struck and killed by another officer in a dramatic conclusion to a deadly-force situation.

A woman wanted for a string of gun-related crimes was killed Saturday afternoon when an officer intentionally ran over her in south Tulsa after she exchanged gunfire with police following a vehicular chase.

Madison Sueann Dickson, 21, was pronounced dead at 3:07 p.m., Tulsa homicide Sgt. Dave Walker said.
Officers roped off the scene in the 8900 block of South Harvard Avenue outside of Jenks East Elementary School.

Police had been searching for Dickson because of her alleged involvement in a spree of gun-related crimes over the past week.

Officers found Dickson at an apartment at 81st Street and Sheridan Road on Saturday, police spokesman Leland Ashley said. Dickson then got into a pickup as a passenger and fled from the officers, Ashley said.

Dickson eventually bailed out of the truck and presented a handgun, Ashley said, which was when at least two officers shot at her. She fired gunshots at officers, Ashley said.

During the altercation, she was run over by a patrol cruiser, Ashley said, noting police desperately were trying to stop her because of the threat she represented. He said no one was struck by gunfire.

“She had every opportunity to stop and turn herself in,” he said.

 

Gorsuch Defends Hobby Lobby’s Pro-Life Values: “Sincerely-Held Religious Beliefs Cannot be Abridged by the Government”

with one comment

By Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com
March 22, 2017

Under tough questioning by pro-abortion Democrats during day two of his confirmation hearings, Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch defended the pro-life values of Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor. This was the second time Gorsuch defended Little Sisters and Hobby Lobby.

Pro-abortion Illinois Senator Dick Durbin questioned Gorsuch about his role in a case defending those companies from being forced by the Obama Administration to pay for abortion-causing drugs in their employee health care plans.

In the exchange below, Gorsuch defended them saying that “sincerely held religious beliefs cannot be abridged by the government” without a very very compelling reason and that no such reason existed for the Obama Administration to make them fund abortions.

DURBIN: “I’d like to go, if I can, for just a moment, to this famous case which you and I discussed at length, Hobby Lobby. I still struggle all the way through this, and it was a lengthy decision, with trying to make a corporation into a person. Boy, did the court spent a lot of time twisting and turning and trying to find some way to take RFRA and to say that Congress really meant corporations like Hobby Lobby when they said person. It was dictionary law and so many different aspects of this. What I was troubled by, and I asked you then, I’ll ask you again, when we are setting out as that court did to protect their religious liberties and freedom of the Green family, the corporate owners, and their religious belief about what’s right and wrong when it comes to family planning, and the court says, that’s what we’ll decide it what the Green family decides when it comes to health insurance. You made a decision that thousands of their employees would not have protection of their religious beliefs and their religious choices when it came to family planning. You closed the door to those options in their health insurance, and by taking your position to the next step, to all those who work for closed-in corporations in America, 60 million people had their health insurance and their family planning and their religious beliefs denigrated, downsized to the corporate religious belief, whatever that is. Did you stop and think when you were doing — making this decision about the impact it would have on the thousands and thousands if not millions of employees if you left it up to the owner of the company to say, as you told me, there is some kind of family planning I like and some I don’t like?”

GORSUCH: “Senator, I take every case that comes before me very seriously. I take the responsibility entrusted in me in my current position very grave. I think if you asked the lawyers and judges of the 10th Circuit, am I a serious and careful judge, I think you will hear that I am. I’m delighted to have an opportunity to talk to you about that decision. As you know, in RFRA, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Congress was dissatisfied with the level of protection afforded by the Supreme Court under the First Amendment to religious exercise. The court in a case called Smith v. Maryland written by Justice Scalia said any neutral law of general applicability is fine. That doesn’t offend the First Amendment, so laws banning the use of peyote, Native Americans, tough luck, even though it is essential to their religious exercise, for example. This Congress decided that that was insufficient protection for religion. And in a bill sponsored by Senator Hatch, Senator Kennedy, Senator Schumer when he was in the House, wrote a very, very strict law. And it says that any sincerely held religious beliefs cannot be abridged by the government without a compelling reason, and even then, it has to be narrowly tailored, strict scrutiny, the highest legal standard known in American law, OK?”

 

Amy Schumer Rants About “Gun Nuts” Despite Her Lack of Gun Knowledge

leave a comment »

By Beth Baumann
Bearing Arms
March 20, 2017

Amy Schumer, gun control group’s favorite advocate, decided to go on a gun rant in her latest Netflix special, The Leather Special.

In her rant, Schumer attempts to use sarcasm and “humor” – assuming you find her funny – to go after lawful gun owners. The problem with her rant is his logic is severely flawed. She’s simply spewing the typical gun control talking points.

Schumer explains she got into the gun control debate when two women were shot and killed in a movie theater when they went to see her movie.

“I found out that the guy who did this was mentally ill and a domestic abuser,” she says. “And I was like ‘Oh. Okay. Well, how could he get a gun?’ I didn’t – I wasn’t educated about it. I learned that if you’re severely mentally ill or have been convicted of domestic violence, there are loopholes where it’s not that hard to get a firearm.”

FACT: In order to legally possess a firearm, you have to go through a background check to acquire said firearm. Anyone who is convicted of domestic abuse would not pass a background check.

“I believe in the Right to Bear Arms, the Second Amendment. I’m friends with gun owners but what I learned was no matter what you say as soon as you say the word ‘gun’ with gun nuts here is just, ‘You want to take all our guns!’” Schumer explains, mocking gun owners.

FACT: Just because you have friends who are gun owners does not mean you’re in favor of the Second Amendment. Stop using your friends as your political get out of jail card.

“Then I found – and I’m sure most of you probably know this already – that if you’re on a terrorist watch list, not just the no-fly list but the straight up terrorist watch list, you can easily get a gun,” Schumer claims.

FACT: Again, background checks come into play. If you’re buying a gun legally from a federally licensed dealer, you have to go through a background check. If you’re on the terrorist watch list, you can’t pass a background check and you won’t be sold a gun. These “terrorists” you speak of are getting their guns off the black market because, you know, criminals – and terrorists – don’t follow laws.

Hey, Schumer – It’s insulting that you believe every gun owner in America is a white trash, trailer park hillbilly. The truth is simple, and it’s probably hard for you to understand, but gun owners come in every race, religion, creed, political party and all across America. The Second Amendment protects each and every one of us: even you with your armed bodyguards.

But if you pointed that out you would be called hypocritical, no?

 

Plaintiff behind Trump immigration ban suit runs Muslim Brotherhood mosque

with one comment

By Robert Spencer
Jihad Wacth
March 17, 2017

The Muslim Brotherhood is dedicated in its own words, according to a captured internal document, to “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.” That’s from “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America,” by Mohamed Akram, May 19, 1991.

“Plaintiff behind Trump travel ban runs Muslim Brotherhood mosque,” by Leo Hohmann, WND, March 17, 2017:

Imam Ismail Elshikh, a native of Egypt, leads a Muslim Brotherhood-tied mosque in Honolulu, Hawaii, and claims he is suffering ‘irreparable harm’ by President Trump’s temporary travel ban.

The main plaintiff in the Hawaii case blocking President Trump’s revised temporary travel ban is an imam with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

The irony is hard to miss: Trump has talked about declaring the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, and now it is a Brotherhood-backed imam who is playing a key role in blocking his executive order on immigration.

Imam Ismail Elshikh, 39, leads the largest mosque in Hawaii and claims he is suffering “irreparable harm” from the president’s executive order, which places a 90-day ban on travel to the U.S. from six countries.

One of those six countries is Syria. Elshikh’s mother in law is Syrian and would not be able to visit her family in Hawaii for 90 days if Trump’s ban were allowed to go into effect.

Hawaii’s Obama-appointed federal judge, Derrick Watson, made sure the ban did not go into effect, striking it down Wednesday while buying Hawaii’s claim that it amounts to a “Muslim ban.” The state’s attorney general, along with co-plaintiff Elshikh, claims the ban would irreparably harm the state’s tourism industry and its Muslim families.

According to the lawsuit:

“Plaintiffs allege that the Executive Order subjects portions of the State’s population, including Dr. Elshikh and his family, to discrimination in violation of both the Constitution and the INA, denying them their right, among other things, to associate with family members overseas on the basis of their religion and national origin. The State purports that the Executive Order has injured its institutions, economy, and sovereign interest in maintaining the separation between church and state.”

The vast majority of Hawaii’s roughly 5,000 Muslims attend Elshikh’s mosque, the Muslim Association of Hawaii, which is located in a residential area of Manoa, Honolulu. The mosque, despite its ties to what many believe is an extremist and subversive organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, may now hold the key to whether the Trump travel ban passes muster in the federal court system.

Elshikh was born and raised in Cairo, Egypt, the home base of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose stated goal is to spread Shariah law throughout the world.

Elshikh is living in the U.S. on a green card, which gives him permanent legal status.

The proof that his mosque is affiliated with the Brotherhood is found in the court records for Honolulu County, which lists the deed holder as the North American Islamic Trust.

John Guandolo, a former FBI counter-terrorism specialist and now private consultant to law enforcement at Understanding the Threat, said all mosques under the “Muslim Association of” moniker are typically affiliated with the Brotherhood.

But the clincher in this case is that the mosque property is traced to NAIT, “confirming it is a Muslim Brotherhood organization,” Guandolo told WND in an email….

Scientifically Clueless Pro-Abortion Legislator Wants to Fine Men for Masturbating as “Act Against Unborn Child”

with one comment

By Micaiah Bilger
LifeNews.com
March 13, 2017

A Texas state lawmaker’s new pro-abortion bill is doing what she created it to do – get attention.

The “satirical” Texas House Bill 4260, sponsored by state Rep. Jessica Farrar, would fine men $100 for masturbating and require the state to publish an informed consent booklet for men seeking a vasectomy, Viagra or a colonoscopy, among other things, according to The Hill.

The bill is Farrar’s protest to the abortion regulations passed in Texas in the past few years. She claims it would put the same restrictions on men that Texas abortion laws do on women.

“Although HB 4260 is satirical, there is nothing funny about current health care restrictions for women and the very real legislation that is proposed every legislative session,” Farrar, a Democrat, wrote on Facebook. “Women are not laughing at state-imposed regulations and obstacles that interfere with their ability to legally access safe healthcare, and subject them to fake science and medically unnecessary procedures.”

Her bill, which has no chance of passing, would prohibit ejaculation outside either a vagina or medical facility, in what it describes as an “act against an unborn child, and failing to preserve the sanctity of life,” according to the Independent. It also would provide conscience protections for doctors who do not want to perform a vasectomy or prescribe Viagra because of “personal, moralistic or religious beliefs.”

“What I would like to see is this make people stop and think,” Farrar told The Texas Tribune. “Maybe my colleagues aren’t capable of that, but the people who voted for them, or the people that didn’t vote at all, I hope that it changes their mind and helps them to decide what the priorities are.”

But pro-lifers say Farrar is the one who is isn’t thinking. Her bill ignores basic biological facts about human life and abortion.

As Daily Wire contributor Harry Khachatrian commented on Twitter:

View image on TwitterView image on Twitter

 

Democrats’ argument for abortion: “stabbing an unborn baby in the head & sucking out its brains is the same thing as masturbating.” Smart!

 

9:24 AM – 13 Mar 2017 · Toronto, Ontario

 

It is disingenuous for Farrar to equate male masturbation and ejaculation to the intentional killing of a human life through abortion. A man’s sperm and a woman’s eggs are not separate, individual new life. Only when they are put together do they become a human being – a separate, living human entity with his or her own unique DNA. This is well established science.

“A sperm has twenty-three chromosomes; even though it is alive and can fertilize an egg, it can never make another sperm,” former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop wrote in 1979. “An egg also has twenty-three chromosomes, and it can never make another egg. Thus, we have sperm that cannot reproduce and eggs that cannot reproduce unless they get together.

“All that makes up the adult is present as the ovum and the sperm are united – the whole genetic code,” Koop continued.

Pro-lifers do not want to end abortion because we want to control women’s bodies, as Farrar implies. Pro-lifers want to end abortion because it destroys the life of an innocent human being inside the woman’s body. Ending abortion is not about regulating something that has the potential to become a life. It’s about protecting an actual, unique, irreplaceable human life from being destroyed.

10 Points You Won’t Hear About Trump’s Revised Travel Restrictions

with one comment

By Ryan Mauro
The Clarion Project
March 7, 2017

President Trump has issued an executive order modifying his controversial travel restrictions which have been incorrectly derided as a “Muslim ban.”

Of course, despite major changes, groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) are still calling it a “Muslim ban” and are committed to retaining the issue’s divisiveness so they can endlessly bash Trump as a bigot and raise their own profile in the process.

“This executive order, like the last order, is at its core a Muslim ban, which is discriminatory and unconstitutional,” said the executive-director of CAIR, Nihad Awad, who nonetheless touted the revisions as a “partial victory.”

Below are 10 points about the revised executive order that you’re unlikely to hear from media outlets and politically-driven organizations who have are dependent upon continued controversy:

  1.  As previously, it is not a “Muslim ban.”
    As explained by Clarion Project advisory board member and leader of the Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow in this video (see below), the restrictions are based on an intersection of geography and security risks. They are limited to 6 of 50 Muslim-majority countries and impact non-Muslims as well. And, just as before, the restrictions are a pause rather than a ban.The order is for between 90 to 120 days, depending on whether the person is a visitor or a refugee. As we’ll discuss, the exceptions are so wide that even describing this order as a “pause” is a bit of an overstatement.
  2. Iraq is removed from the list, bringing the list of impacted countries down to 6.
    Including Iraq (and especially the autonomous Iraqi Kurdistan) was a mistake from the beginning. That is now fixed. The executive order implies that this change is due to the fact that the Iraqi government agreed to improved intelligence-gathering and security measures.Those conversations with the Iraqis obviously took place after the initial executive order, which shows the Trump Administration can be influenced by constructive criticism.
  3. The executive order justifies the inclusion of the other six countries.
    The order explains why the president chose these six countries, which is a scaling back of Trump’s campaign pledge to ban immigration from all terror-prone countries (which in itself is a scaling back of his initial pledge to ban all Muslim immigration).Iran, Syria and Sudan are designated as State Sponsors of Terrorism and  the former two are explicit enemies of the U.S. Libya and Yemen are failed states with inadequate counter-terrorism abilities and so much chaos that the U.S. doesn’t even have operating embassies in these locations. Somalia is similarly unstable and contains a major al-Qaeda foothold. In addition, the Somali community in the U.S. is known for its high rate of radicalism.
  4. The six countries were chosen based on the Obama Administration’s determination.
    The executive order explains that these six countries were selected based on the Obama Administration considering them to be “countries of particular concern” that could not participate in the visa waiver program.It was the Obama Administration that stated that persons coming to the U.S. from these countries pose a greater security risk than those from other countries. Everyone who argues that there’s no reason to treat these countries as unique risks is arguing with Trump and Obama. Where were the condemnations of President Obama’s “Islamophobia” for identifying these Muslim-majority countries as posing a special danger?
  5. Three hundred refugees are currently under FBI investigation.
    It is true that refugees undergo a lengthy screening process, unlike typical visa applicants. Opponents of the travel restrictions point to how only a small percentage of refugees have been convicted of terrorism-related offenses. The Senate Judiciary Committee said only about 40 had been convicted, representing about 7 percent of the total of 580 since the 9/11 attacks.The executive order points out that 300 people who were admitted into the U.S. as refugees are now under FBI counter-terrorism investigations; a much higher number than the previous figures used for gauging the risk.However, in fairness, a Department of Homeland Security report says most refugees who become terrorists are radicalized years after arriving in the U.S., so we don’t know if this figure necessarily proves there’s a major gap in the refugee vetting process. We also don’t know how many of the 300 refugees are from the six affected countries.
  6. There is a 10-day advance notice.
    The previous executive order went into effect immediately, catching airlines and governments off-guard. This one goes into effect in 10 days, giving time for preparation.
  7. The new executive order explicitly does not apply to current visa and green card holders.
    Permanent residents and current visa-holders are not affected this time. The original executive order’s unclear language has been fixed.
  8. Syrian refugees are no longer singled out.
    The original executive order suspended refugee admission for 120 days but singled out Syrian refugees for indefinite exclusion “until such time” that the government determines that they can be safely admitted. The singling out was unnecessary, as that’s the same standard for allowing refugees from other places, but the original language emphasized that Trump was delivering on a campaign promise to reject Syrian refugees.That language is no longer. A refugee of Syrian nationality is not viewed as inherently more objectionable than a refugee of another nationality.
  9. There are very wide exceptions.
    This executive order uses clearer language to allow for major exceptions even within the 120-day refugee pause and the 90-day pause on visitors from the six countries.Far from a wholesale treatment, it emphasizes that each applicant will be handled on a “case-by-case basis” in case they qualify for a waiver. There are waivers for when the applicant’s entry into the U.S. is in our “national interest” or rejection of the person would cause them “undue hardship.”The order gives various examples of what qualifies as “undue hardship,” for example people who have worked in the U.S. and are seeking re-entry; those coming to reside with a family member; those with a significant network of contacts in the U.S.; those with business or professional obligations here; children; those in need of medical attention; those previously or currently employed by the U.S. government, and other situations where rejection would cause an “undue hardship.”These are the reasons most people from these countries are coming to the U.S. How many other situations are left where a waiver isn’t suitable?Of course, some biased critics aren’t paying attention to these very important facts. Right after the executive order was released, Grace Meng of Human Rights Watch was uncritically quoted in an article on Politico as saying that the new executive order is “going to harm people fleeing gender-based violence” like women trying to escape rapists.Actually, such women would obviously qualify for the “undue hardship” exception. But readers of that article wouldn’t know that because Politico unquestionably posted her quote.
  10. The type of vetting that is being proposed is in alignment with the Founding Fathers’ opinions on immigration.
    Joshua Charles, an expert on the Founding Fathers, collected some of the founders’ most insightful quotes on immigration in an article he wrote in January. They explained the U.S. is more than a piece of land with opportunities for wealth. Rather, it is a country held together by foundational beliefs that are unique and not inherently understood and embraced by all persons upon birth.The executive orders emphasize improving the overall vetting process to screen for hostile ideologies. It’s not just about discovering covert terrorists and criminals; it’s about separating those who support the U.S.’ secular-democratic values from those views are incompatible with that, such as (but not limited to) Islamist extremists.Opponents of Trump and this policy have a choice to make: They can emphasize (or lie about) the parts they continue to disagree with, elongating a cycle of divisiveness, or they pair their criticism with positive reinforcement that acknowledges the improvements that have been made.Decreasing the sound of the alarm is not in the best interest of hyper-partisan commentators or Islamist activists like CAIR who are enjoying the limelight and seeking increased donations, but it is in the best interest of the country.


Ryan Mauro is
ClarionProject.org’s national security analyst, a fellow with Clarion Project and an adjunct professor of homeland security. Mauro is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio.

 

Gabby Giffords Dishonors Slain Police Officer, Gets Slammed By Widow

with one comment

By Bob Owens
Bearing Arms
March 7, 2017

Gun-grabbing grifter Gabby Giffords recently attempted to use the killing of Albuquerque Police Department officer Daniel Webster to argue for more infringement on the rights of American citizens.

Webster’s widow Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Detective Michelle Carlino-Webster, is outraged at Gifford’s attempt to exploit her husband’s death to go against everything he stood for in life.

Former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords’ recent visit to New Mexico to call for restrictive firearms legislation is further evidence that House Bill 50 and Senate Bill 48 are products of a national gun control agenda. Her organization, Americans for Responsible Solutions, joins the chorus of outside groups led by billionaire New Yorker Michael Bloomberg pushing for burdensome regulations on the sale and temporary loaning of your personal firearms, even to people close to you, such as friends, neighbors, co-workers and even some family members.

I am offended by the tactics that some of the sponsors, advocates and organizations backing these bills are using to push their unpopular proposals. It is bad enough that they have poured more than a quarter of a million dollars into our state over the past few months in an attempt to influence elections and legislation. Then, at the public hearing on HB50 before the New Mexico House Consumer and Public Affairs Committee, it became more personal for me. The bill’s author, as well as her lead witness, both invoked the name of my late husband, Albuquerque Police Department officer Daniel Webster, to promote the measure. Along with the media, they continue to imply that had these proposed laws been in place, my husband’s death would have been prevented; in doing so, they actually remove accountability from the criminal who caused it. Focus must be placed on the individual who committed the horrific crimes. We, as a nation, have gotten too far removed from self-accountability and responsibility for one’s actions.

I am not okay with this, and I know Dan would not have wanted his name associated with this bill either. He was against expanded background checks of any kind and stood behind our Second Amendment rights with honor and appreciation. The idea of him having to go to a licensed firearms dealer, complete federal paperwork and pay a fee for a records check on his buddy at work or on my dad if he wanted to sell or loan a gun to either of them is not only ridiculous, but intrusive. He certainly did not believe this type of gun control would solve the larger problems in our communities.

Dan believed that tough-on-crime legislation, such as increased penalties and stiffer sentencing, would have the most positive effect on violence in our state.

Abortionist Sifted Through Dismembered Aborted Baby: “Now Where’s Your Little Arm?”

with one comment

Liveaction
LifeNews.com
March 7, 2017

A new video provides a shocking look inside the abortion industry. Featuring interviews with former Planned Parenthood staffers, the video presents a look at how abortion clinic staff view unborn children.

Compiled by LiveAction, the video includes testimonials from a former Planned Parenthood manager and nurse describing in detail what happens immediately following abortions in the “products of conception” lab where abortionists sift through the dismembered body parts of the babies they just killed.

The gruesome process these women describe exposes not only the barbarism of abortion, but also that Planned Parenthood isn’t aborting “clumps of cells” or “products of conception” – euphemisms the abortion industry often uses to mislead women about how developed their babies are – but rather children with beating hearts at just three and a half weeks old.

Nurse Marianne Anderson describes how one abortionist sifted through dismembered body parts and talked to them as if they were live children. “Now, where’s your little arm?” he asked.

Former Storm Lake, IA, Planned Parenthood manager Sue Thayer witnessed the abortion process and the aftermath numerous times:

  • “I remember standing there looking at that, and I said, ‘Why are there three arms?’ You know, and we’re looking, and the gal training me said, ‘Twins – it was twins.’ And I said, you know, ‘Do you tell the mom that she had twins?’ And she says, ‘No, it usually just upsets them.’”

Former Indianapolis, IN, Planned Parenthood nurse Marianne Anderson describes the callous disrespect abortionists showed the deceased children in the lab:

  • “He would sometimes talk to [the aborted child], saying – I’ll never forget him saying, ‘Now, where’s your little arm? I didn’t see – I’m missing this arm.’ And he would sift through it, trying to find the pieces, make sure he had everything. And then he’d say – I remember him saying, ‘Oh, there you are! Now, where’s the head and where’s this?’… There was another doctor who also visited… He really seemed to kind of get into it. He – I’ll never forget the first day he was there – and he goes, ‘Look at this – this is so cool!’”

 

CNN cuts feed on guest after he cites jihad terror cases involving “refugees”

with one comment

By Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch
March 7, 2017

The establishment propaganda media is desperate, and doing all it can to prevent people from knowing the truth about the national security aspects of the “refugee” issue.

“CNN cuts feed right after guest cites refugee crime stats,” by Kyle Olson, American Mirror, March 6, 2017:

There CNN goes again.

During a segment on Donald Trump’s travel ban from terror-prone countries, the news network mysteriously lost its guest as he made a point about refugees.

During an interview with Dana Bash, Congressman Scott Taylor cited a sobering statistic about refugees — and seconds later, his feed from Miami disappeared.

“Just today, the FBI comes out and says 30% — 30% — of their domestic terrorism cases that they’re investigating are folks who are refugees,” Taylor said.

“It’s important not to label all refugees bad people — that’s not why I’m here, but…”

Just as he uttered those words, he wasn’t there.

Multi-colored test bars were in his place.

Bash blamed the “TV gremlins” for the incident.

It wasn’t the first time CNN mysteriously lost its feed as someone was running counter to the network’s editorial narrative.

After playing a clip of the president in February saying he was unaware of discussions his National Security Advisor reportedly had with the adversary, Sanders was asked if it was a problem and he said, “Well, I don’t know. Maybe he was watching CNN fake news. What do you think?” he said with the smirk, apparently attempting to crack a joke.

After an awkward silence, and Burnett smiling and saying, “You don’t buy it…” Sanders replied, “That was a joke.”

But the mystery gremlins apparently didn’t find it funny.

Instantaneously, Sanders earpiece stopped working.

“You don’t buy what he said, obviously,” Burnett continued.

Sanders sat staring, mouth agape.

“Erin?” he said.

“Yes,” she responded. “I’m sorry, senator, you obviously don’t buy what he said.”

“Are we on?” Sanders said, looking off camera.

“Looks like we lost connection with Sen. Sanders so let’s try to get that back up,” Burnett concluded before going to a commercial break.

Two days later, President Trump weighed in on the strange occurrence.

“While on FAKE NEWS CNN, Bernie Sanders was cut off for using the term fake news to describe the network. They said technical difficulties!” Trump tweeted….

The Truth About a Court Decision ‘Banning’ AR-15s

with one comment

By Todd Woodard
US Law Shield
March 5, 2017

You might have read some articles or seen headlines about a court upholding a ban on “assault rifles,” including the AR-15. Independent Program Attorneys at the law firm of Walker & Byington, PLLC have received many questions from Members concerned that this ruling has made the AR-15 (and similar semi-automatic firearms) illegal “assault weapons” everywhere in the country. Is this the truth of the matter, or a case of media misinformation?

It is true that a federal appellate court did uphold an “assault weapon” ban; the Maryland federal appeals court, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, upheld a Maryland law as being constitutional that banned certain semi-automatic weapons, including AR-15s. While the decision is disappointing to gun owners everywhere, the good news is that the only people affected by the ruling will be individuals living in the Fourth Circuit. To give North Carolina and Virginia Members peace of mind, this decision upheld a Maryland law that was on the books; it does not apply the law to North Carolina or Virginia.

The bad news, though, is that Marylanders just lost a little more of their Second Amendment rights. Chances are that the case will go to the U.S. Supreme Court in the next few years, so that the Court can decide whether these types of bans are unconstitutional. Until then, the people living in Maryland will not be able to own, protect themselves, or protect their families with so-called “assault rifles.”

Thankfully, Members in most other states can continue to exercise their 2nd Amendment right and own AR-15s and other semi-auto firearms. And as always, this ban is just a reminder that you visit certain states at your own risk! — by Walker & Byington, PLLC

 

%d bloggers like this: