What gun-control advocates fail to explain are two things: How their proposed laws would stop rampages? Why there are more guns but less gun crime? Despite the proliferation of guns, firearm crime has fallen precipitously over the past few decades—49 percent, according to Pew. And though permits for concealed-carry handguns have risen by 178 percent in the last eight years, murder rates have dropped, according to Crime Prevention Research Center.
Yet, every time there is a shooting, we act like gun violence is soaring, rather than focusing on the problem of mental illness, or domestic terrorism, or whatever it is that drives these people to murder. Instead, we have pundits who have an aversion to the Second Amendment plunge us into a pointless political squabble over ideas that would do nothing more than restrict access to guns for law-abiding c
Category Archives: “Intelligence”
For some Muslims, it can be hard to buy a house, and Mayor Ed Murray plans to do something about it.
On Monday, Murray’s housing committee released its recommendations for ways the city can increase housing in the city. Most ideas were what you’d expect, including increasing the city’s housing levy and implementing new rules and regulations to foster development of market-rate and lower-income housing.
One suggestion would help followers of Sharia law buy houses. That’s virtually impossible now because Sharia law prohibits payment of interest on loans. The 28-member committee recommended the city convene lenders and community leaders to explore options for increasing access to Sharia-compliant loan products.
It’s unclear how many Muslims in Seattle would benefit from Murray’s plan. The Washington state chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) estimates more than 30,000 Muslims live in the greater Seattle area, and Chapter Executive Director Arsalan Bukhari on Tuesday said it’s “fairly common” for some not to seek loans.
It’s hard for EVERYONE to buy a house…
In a stunning display of moral cowardice, President Obama struck a nuclear deal with Iran that leaves four U.S. citizens, including American Pastor Saeed Abedini, imprisoned in Iran.
They’ve been abandoned. And for what?
The “historic” deal with Iran grants it billions of dollars in sanctions relief and new trade, a pathway to a nuclear weapon, and the privilege of being one of the only nuclear powers in the Middle East. What does it give up? Nothing. It merely agrees to do, for a time, what it is already not allowed to do.
In exchange for that epic disaster, President Obama is leaving behind four Americans. It’s diplomatic malpractice.
Pastor Saeed, whose family we at the ACLJ represent, has been wrongfully imprisoned for nearly three years because he is a Christian. He has endured beatings, torment, malnourishment, psychological abuse, and intense pain (injuries sustained from prison beatings).
Just one single hour of his more than 1,000 days in prison looks like this:
2:00 PM As prisoners, we are responsible for maintaining the ward and are each assigned chores and tasks. But even with these tasks the sheer number of us and lack of overall care for the facilities has created inhumane and unsanitary conditions. Our bathroom, which I am tasked with cleaning today, is no more than a hole in the ground. Every attempt to clean the bathroom is futile as the ceiling above leaks feces and urine from the bathroom directly above. As I clean I try to maintain perspective by humming worship songs. In this filth, I am reminded of the depth of my own filth that Jesus took for me by dying on the cross.
That’s what he endures each and every day. Yet, President Obama abandoned him.
The reason Europe is having such a hard time letting Greece go is because they’re loathe to admit the obvious — that socialist policies are crazy and destroy people’s lives. In Oregon, the legacy media would also rather look away, because it, too, highlights what you get when you let liberals do the thinking.
Oregon wasn’t as adept at bamboozling people. Plagued with incompetence and dysfunction, spending $300 million in taxpayer dollars wasn’t enough to even make it appear as though they had a working marketplace. Oregon finally pulled the plug on the marketplace in 2014 and defaulted to the federal exchange.
The liberal agenda isn’t just about having no clue and wasting your money. There’s nothing more exciting for a liberal than using slogans about “equality” and “free speech” and “love” in order to destroy someone’s business with whom they disagree.
Two years ago it became apparent that the fascist gay left weren’t really excited about gay marriage. No, they were excited that they had a new cudgel with which to go after Christians. Let me tell you, as a gay woman who supports gay marriage, the conversations I’ve heard from liberal gay leadership for the past decade involved not the civil rights victory for gays, it was about the “new weapon” it would provide against Christians.When Oregon isn’t working hard to obliterate religious liberty in the name of “fairness,” they’re scrambling to find “volunteers” for their “Tax You Into Oblivion by the Mile” scheme. As The Washington Times reports, “Oregon is using an experimental program to become the first state to tax drivers based on the miles they travel on state roads rather than the gas they purchase.
Regardless of what you think about the issue of transsexualism, a state allowing minor children, whom that same state doesn’t think are mature enough to make the most basic of personal choices, to engage in a life-altering, irreversible surgical procedure, without notifying parents or guardians, is dangerous and obscene.
As you can look to Greece for an example of the despair and destruction liberal economics get you, just look to Oregon for another example of what happens when liberals do as they please, and you’ll get financial incompetence, the hounding of people of faith, the end of privacy, the stalking of the individual, and even the physical destruction of children.
The U.S. military is weighing whether it will conduct or fund gender transition surgery and treatment once the ban on open service by transgender people is rescinded.
On Monday, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter issued two directives, bringing the Pentagon closer to lifting the Department of Defense (DoD) policy barring transgender persons from wearing the uniform.
An unnamed senior defense official told the Associated Press (AP) that the ultimate goal is to lift the ban.
“Some of the key concerns involved in the repeal of the ban on transgender individuals include whether the military would conduct or pay for the medical costs, surgeries and other treatment associated with any gender transition, as well as which physical training or testing standards transgender individuals would be required to meet during different stages of their transition,” notes AP.
Unnamed defense officials told AP that “the military also wants time to tackle questions about where transgender troops would be housed, what uniforms they would wear, what berthing they would have on ships, which bathrooms they would use and whether their presence would affect the ability of small units to work well together.”
Carter announced that the DoD will create a working group to study, over the next six months, the implications that allowing transgenders to serve openly in the military will have on policy and readiness.
“The Defense Department’s current regulations regarding transgender service members are outdated and are causing uncertainty that distracts commanders from our core missions,” said Carter in a statement issued Monday.
Now that the P5+1 and Iran have inked a deal that will unleash Tehran from decades of international sanctions, the agreement has to go before the legislatures in Iran and the US. The former is a mere formality; if Supreme Leader Ali Khameini likes the deal — and there’s zero reason to believe that Iranian negotiators would have acted without his express permission — then the Iranian parliament will rubber-stamp it. That leaves Congress as the last remaining stage on which this deal must play before full implementation. Bloomberg’s Billy House sees a rocky path ahead for the deal, but will it be rocky enough to halt it?
The U.S. Congress will begin its scrutiny of the international nuclear agreement with Iran amid heavy skepticism among Republicans, many of whom said in advance that they’re prepared to reject a deal that’s weak and gives too much leeway to Tehran.
Under legislation passed in May, Congress will have 60 days for public debate and hearings by as many as eight Senate and House committees. Lawmakers then could vote on a joint resolution to approve or reject the nuclear deal, though they also may not act at all.
The Iran deal is “going to be a hard sell” in Congress, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said on “Fox News Sunday.” He said President Barack Obama “knows that the resolution of disapproval is likely to be introduced, is very likely to pass and very likely to get over 60 votes.”
Of course he does. In his statement earlier today, Obama already announced that he would veto any measure of disapproval:
So I welcome a robust debate in Congress on this issue and I welcome scrutiny of the details of this agreement. But I will remind Congress that you don’t make deals like this with your friends. We negotiated arms control agreements with the Soviet Union when that nation was committed to our destruction and those agreements ultimately made us safer.
I am confident that this deal will meet the national security interests of the United States and our allies. So I will veto any legislation that prevents the successful implementation of this deal.
Ahem. It’s not quite consistent to declare oneself welcoming of “a robust debate” while at the same time pledging to ignore everyone else’s advice on the subject of it. Obama isn’t welcoming a debate or scrutiny at all; he’s telling Congress to sit down and shut up. We’re used to Obama being inconsistent and hardline at home, though. We just wish he’d toughen up abroad.
The Senate rejection of the deal under Bob Corker’s bill takes 60 votes, and is almost a certainty. So is Obama’s veto, which everyone understood well enough without the reminder today. Under the Corker bill, that veto becomes subject to an override, which will take 2/3rds of both the House and the Senate. Can the Senate get 67 votes to override Obama’s attempt at legacy-building at the expense of our allies in the Middle East?
Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, a senior member of the Saudi monarchy, says he’ll pledge his $32 billion to advance the islamization of America. This is a MOAB (mother of all bombs) in the information battle-space. Looks as if I will be keeping busy for quite some time.
The Saudis have spent billions already. 80% of the mosques build in America are Saudi funded. Islamic groups working to impose the sharia are largely funded by the Saudis.
We can look forward to 32 billion more of the “kingdom’s brand of Islam, while censoring criticism of Islam.”
And it’s not just the media that is on the receiving end of this blood money, but also Muslim Brotherhood fronts like CAIR, which spend millions whining about how lucrative the “islamophobia” business is. As if …
The Saudis have been wildly successful so far.
Wikileaks has begun releasing a trove of documents — half a million cables and other documents from the Saudi Foreign Ministry. Wikileaks declares, “Media is not ‘controlled by Jews’ but by Saudi Arabia: media loyalties purchased around the world.”
Notice how this wikileaks release has garnered little press.
The American media is already in the tank for Islam.
Now we know what hope and change really meant.
Somewhere Frank Marshall Davis must be smiling. Barack Obama toasted what he always wanted, the decline of the West, as our president finally rolled over and made a big nuclear deal with Iran, giving the ayatollah virtually everything he could have dreamed of, let alone needed — including control over nuclear inspections, making them meaningless — and getting nothing in return.
Among the first to respond, Senator Marco Rubio:
Washington, D.C.– U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, today commented on the Obama Administration’s announcement of a nuclear deal with Iran:
“I have said from the beginning of this process that I would not support a deal with Iran that allows the mullahs to retain the ability to develop nuclear weapons, threaten Israel, and continue their regional expansionism and support for terrorism. Based on what we know thus far, I believe that this deal undermines our national security. President Obama has consistently negotiated from a position of weakness, giving concession after concession to a regime that has American blood on its hands, holds Americans hostage, and has consistently violated every agreement it ever signed. I expect that a significant majority in Congress will share my skepticism of this agreement and vote it down. Failure by the President to obtain congressional support will tell the Iranians and the world that this is Barack Obama’s deal, not an agreement with lasting support from the United States. It will then be left to the next President to return us to a position of American strength and re-impose sanctions on this despicable regime until it is truly willing to abandon its nuclear ambitions and is no longer a threat to international security
More from Rep. DeSantis, chairman of the Subcommittee for National Security :
This Iran deal gives Ayatollah Khamenei exactly what he wants: billions of dollars in sanctions relief, validation of the Iranian nuclear program, and the ability to stymie inspections. It even lifts sanctions against Quds Force Commander Qasem Soleimani, who is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American soldiers during the campaign in Iraq. The deal will further destabilize the Middle East, allow Iran to foment more terrorism, and aid Iran’s rise as the dominant power in the region. By paving Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon, the deal harms American national security and effectively stabs our close ally Israel, which Iran has threatened to wipe off the map, in the back. Congress needs to move swiftly to block this dangerous deal.
Good words all around, but not enough. Words by themselves are not going to cut it, only action and serious organizing of the apathetic American people. This is not courtly congressional business as usual. This is nothing less than the sabotage of Western civilization by itself, covered by weasel-like spin and outright prevarication. The time has come for the all the candidates, indeed the entire country, to speak out as one. This monstrosity cannot pass.
Indeed, the Iowa Civil Rights Commission has declared that prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity “sometimes” apply to churches and has stated that a “church service open to the public” is not a “bona fide religious purpose” that would limit application of the law. In 2012 a New Jersey administrative-law judge ruled that a religious organization “closely associated with the United Methodist Church” wrongly denied access to its facilities for a same-sex wedding.
Churches, like virtually every functioning corporation, protect against liability risks and the potentially ruinous costs of litigation through liability insurance. With same-sex marriage now recognized as a constitutional right — and with news of Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries awarding a lesbian couple $135,000 in damages for “emotional, mental and physical suffering” after a Christian bakery refused to bake their wedding cake — pastors are reaching out to insurance companies to make sure they’re covered. And at least one insurer has responded with a preemptory denial: no coverage if a church is sued for refusing to perform a same-sex wedding.
On July 1, David Karns, vice president of underwriting at Southern Mutual Church Insurance Company (which “serve[s] more than 8,400 churches”), wrote an “all states” agents’ bulletin addressing same-sex marriage. It begins: “We have received numerous calls and emails regarding the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriages. The main concern is whether or not liability coverage applies in the event a church gets sued for declining to perform a same-sex marriage.” Karns continues:
The general liability form does not provide any coverage for this type of situation, since there is no bodily injury, property damage, personal injury, or advertising injury. If a church is concerned about the possibility of a suit, we do offer Miscellaneous Legal Defense Coverage. This is not liability coverage, but rather expense reimbursement for defense costs. There is no coverage for any judgments against an insured.
In other words: Churches, you’re on your own. (National Review has tried to reach Mr. Karns and Southern Mutual’s corporate office, and they have not yet returned our calls.)