<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>FrontPage Magazine &#187; Guns</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/tag/guns/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 16:20:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>Open Carry Restaurants Cash In on the Gun Control Debate</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/ronn-torossian/open-carry-restaurants-cash-in-on-the-gun-control-debate/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=open-carry-restaurants-cash-in-on-the-gun-control-debate</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/ronn-torossian/open-carry-restaurants-cash-in-on-the-gun-control-debate/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2014 04:25:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ronn Torossian]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gun Control]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guns]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lauren Boebert]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[open carry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shooters]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=242592</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A lesson for businesses that stand up for conservative values. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/dt.common.streams.StreamServer.cls_.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-242620" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/dt.common.streams.StreamServer.cls_-450x299.jpg" alt="dt.common.streams.StreamServer.cls" width="352" height="234" /></a>Given the tenor of the <a href="http://www.newsmax.com/RonnTorossian/Gun-Rights/2014/09/09/id/593489/">gun control debate</a> in the United States, it had to happen sooner or later. As more retailers are doing what has been deemed more acceptable –usually by left-leaning advocates &#8212; and asking customers not to carry guns into their stores, the inevitable opposite reaction has now occurred.  This “man bites dog” scenario will be interesting to watch as it unfolds.  So often, it is the politically correct anti-gun activist who posts policies – yet here someone took advantage of the obvious gap and is using it rather cleverly.</p>
<p>Lauren Boebert, who owns Shooters Grill in Rifle, Colorado (and no, the location is not made up; it is real and open) told CNN she had no plans to become the “poster girl” for open-carry gun laws.  Yet, she has… and, so far, business is booming. Boebert said her choice had nothing to do with <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Ronn-Torossian/e/B005DOQIPO">public relations</a> for her eatery or for the gun control debate in the United States, but that it stemmed from a violent crime that occurred in an alley right behind her shop. After a man was killed, Boebert started carrying a pistol to protect herself. Today, she carries her subcompact semi-automatic on her hip as she waits tables and greets customers. No one bats an eyelash. After all, many of the other wait staff and customers also openly carry. Shooters is far from the only place this is happening.  The news of the open-gun policy, however, has put it on the map.</p>
<p>Now, while Boebert said this was all for personal protection, some restaurants are even offering discounts and specials for diners who come in armed. Taking what works for Shooters Grill, the Shiloh Brew and Chew in Tennessee, All Around Pizza in Virginia, Cajun Meats in Louisiana, The Cajun Experience in Virginia and many others all advertise openly as gun-friendly establishments. (Michael Bloomberg was clearly not the mayor of these places.)</p>
<p>If you <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/5WPRSpeakers">noticed a trend</a> in the locations and menu styles of the restaurants in question, you should not be surprised. This move is far more than a clever marketing gimmick; it is geared toward a wanting demographic and business owners are doing what they can to shore up their base, and give those folks a reason to come in and then spread the word.  Energizing word of mouth is a time-tested and primary PR protocol for any business that depends on repeat business. Most businesses do not need 51 percent of the population to patronize in order to make money. Politicians need 51 percent, yet a very successful business may need anywhere from 1 to 25 percent of a given population to make a lot of money.</p>
<p>Not being all things to all people works fine if your audience is big enough and loyal. In the case of the guns, too often <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/author/ronn-torossian/">conservative issues are ignored</a> because business owners may be concerned with a liberal media backlash. There seems to be a sizable portion of people who think and vote conservatively, but are not as comfortable being as outspoken as their liberal colleagues for fear of financial reprisal.</p>
<p>There’s nothing quite like giving them a reason to cheer and onlookers a reason to come inside and try. These gun-happy diners are doing both … at least for the short term. There are indeed businesses not afraid to stand up for conservative issues.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank"><strong>Click here</strong></a><strong>.   </strong></p>
<p><a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><strong>Subscribe</strong></a><strong> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <em>The Glazov Gang</em>, and </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>LIKE</strong></a><strong> it on </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>Facebook.</strong></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/ronn-torossian/open-carry-restaurants-cash-in-on-the-gun-control-debate/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>26</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Super-Amnesty Will Turn Every City into Detroit</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/super-amnesty-will-turn-every-city-into-detroit/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=super-amnesty-will-turn-every-city-into-detroit</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/super-amnesty-will-turn-every-city-into-detroit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2014 04:58:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alien amnesty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chicago]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Detroit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guns]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[illegals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[murder rates]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=235851</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Imagine Chicago and Detroit’s murder rates in every American city.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/chicago.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-235853" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/chicago-450x347.jpg" alt="chicago" width="301" height="232" /></a>After another bloody weekend in Chicago, Mayor Rahm Emanuel branded the shootings unacceptable and the city’s top cop demanded more gun control laws. Chicago’s murder rate has actually dropped since concealed carry became legal. Emanuel’s lawsuits over his illegal gun control laws have left the already struggling city deep in the hole and forced to cover the NRA’s million dollars in legal bills.</p>
<p>Concealed carry paid off over the bloody weekend when a vet carrying a gun returned fire stopping a massacre before it happened. The original shooter ended up in the hospital, but nobody ended up in the morgue, which kept the death toll for the weekend down to fourteen.</p>
<p>Fourteen isn’t pretty, but it’s better than twenty or thirty.</p>
<p>Chicago’s murder rate in 1992 was double what it is today. The death rate was at 33.7 out of 100,000 which meant that you had a pretty good chance of being shot in Chicago. Today it’s down to 15 out of 100,000, which is small comfort to those ending up in the morgue, but it gives everyone else much better odds of surviving to see what ingenious ways the next corrupt mayoral administration will use to rip off the city.</p>
<p>Back in 1992, the cops also blamed guns for the murder rate. But it wasn’t the guns that were killing people. It was the gangs.</p>
<p>Now the murder rate is down, but the number of shootings is up. To Chicago’s police boss, that’s a problem, as if it makes a difference to the deceased whether he’s shot, stabbed or dropped in the water wearing cement overshoes. But fighting guns is easier than fighting crime.</p>
<p>The gun obsession is one of the few things that cops and leftists have in common. It’s the last politically acceptable form of prohibitionism in a society that enthusiastically legalizes drugs, even if possessing crack cocaine is statistically much more likely to lead you to kill a man, than possessing a gun will.</p>
<p>Every shooting spree bypasses the obvious problem with calls for more gun laws and something for the youth to do over the weekend that doesn’t involve shooting up the local housing project. This weekend, Rahm Emanuel took on the problem of funding more teen centers while Chicago’s top cop blustered about more gun laws. And then having successfully talked around the issue, they all went home.</p>
<p>The left loves root causes more than it loves red shirts and black bandanas, a fashion choice that it shares with some of the gangs responsible for most of the shootings.</p>
<p>America’s gun violence problem is urban. It’s localized in Democratic enclaves. And it overlaps neatly with its corrupt political machines. It has nothing to do with the NRA and a great deal to do with the party of social engineering, the welfare state and gun bans.</p>
<p>And illegal immigration.</p>
<p>Homicide rates overlap with unemployment rates, especially when accounting for the demographic populations of young minority men who are statistically more likely to kill or be killed.</p>
<p>92% of black male teens in Chicago don’t have a job. In Detroit, 50% of black men are unemployed. It’s not that there aren’t any jobs, but the entry level jobs have been mostly going to immigrants.</p>
<p>The Center for Immigration Studies <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/31/two-thirds-of-jobs-go-to-immigrants/?page=all">found that under Obama</a> two-thirds of jobs went to immigrants, both legal and illegal. Throw in a massive illegal alien amnesty and the rush of illegal aliens into the country will turn the employment figures of every city into Detroit and Chicago.</p>
<p>The black male unemployment rate in New York was at 33%. And the murder rate in New York is significantly lower than in Detroit or Chicago. But how long will that last if the unemployment rate in New York rises above 50%? Before long the marginal gangs will swell to monstrous sizes controlling entire neighborhoods. Anyone who can will flee and the city will once again become what it was.</p>
<p>The same process will take place in most major American cities.</p>
<p>The United States of America does not have a shortage of workers. It has a shortage of jobs. The irresponsible immigration policy has created a surplus of workers. Illegal alien amnesty will make that surplus much worse. Legalize twelve million illegal aliens and another twelve million will come. Those who can’t find jobs, will find gangs. Those who lose jobs to them will also find gangs.</p>
<p>The gangs will fight each other for control of entire neighborhoods and the crime wave will set America back decades.</p>
<p>After the 1986 amnesty, the number of murders, which had begun to fall in the early eighties, rose again. They did not return to a pre-amnesty level until 1997. Rapes have only recently returned to a pre-amnesty level. Now the progress we’ve made is about to be undone all over again.</p>
<p>In 1986, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1987/01/15/us/urban-homicide-rates-in-us-up-sharply-in-1986.html">murder rates suddenly</a> rose mysteriously in major cities. The <em>New York Times</em> described the crime rates as being the highest since the 1970s.</p>
<p>In Chicago, murders increased by 20%. In New York they increased by 20%. The cities rushed to crack down on guns while insisting that they were mystified by the drastic increase.</p>
<p>The guns weren’t the problem. The illegal alien amnesty which had created a magnet was. Illegal aliens with fake documents headed in hoping to take advantage of amnesty. Later newly legalized immigrants invited their family members to join them. Even before the amnesty took effect, crime rates spiked.</p>
<p>Amnesty advocates claim that immigrants aren’t taking jobs from Americans because they are more likely to be employed at the lower and higher ends of the marketplace. And that’s half true. What it really means is that they displace trained technical workers at the high end of the marketplace. That leads to a further erosion of the native middle class, but it doesn’t directly lead to gang violence.</p>
<p>At the lower end of the marketplace, they not only displace workers, but they displace the workers that might have been. Teenagers who would have started working regular jobs instead roam around aimlessly. The lost entry level jobs are substituted with crime. Neighborhoods fall apart and gang violence increases as gang members compete for turf in the new drug marketplace.</p>
<p>And the rest is crime statistics and children taken to morgues in cities that can barely keep the lights on.</p>
<p>If we want to repeat the same cycle again, Super-Amnesty, an amnesty several times bigger than the one in 1986, will make it happen. Entire cities will fall into gang violence. Their economies will collapse and that will have a ripple effect on their suburbs and on entire states.</p>
<p>America will be a more dangerous and poorer place. And the politicians will talk some more about banning guns and about building more teen centers for the youth to hang out in between shootings.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank"><strong>Click here</strong></a><strong>.   </strong></p>
<p><a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><strong>Subscribe</strong></a><strong> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <em>The Glazov Gang</em>, and </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>LIKE</strong></a><strong> it on </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>Facebook.</strong></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/super-amnesty-will-turn-every-city-into-detroit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>164</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Times Puts &#8216;Guns &amp; Ammo&#8217; Magazine in Crosshairs</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-paulin/ny-timess-war-on-guns-ammo-magazine/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=ny-timess-war-on-guns-ammo-magazine</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-paulin/ny-timess-war-on-guns-ammo-magazine/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jan 2014 05:05:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David Paulin]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guns]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[guns and ammo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York Times]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Second Amendment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214913</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The gun-hating paper vilifies Guns &#038; Ammo for doing what every other specialty magazine does.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/guns_and_ammo-620x412.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-215293" alt="guns_and_ammo-620x412" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/guns_and_ammo-620x412.jpg" width="278" height="210" /></a>Guns &amp; Ammo magazine has fallen into the liberal cross-hairs of The New York Times – the target of a bogus scandal the Gray Lady dished up as part of its anti-gun crusade.</p>
<p>“Banished for Questioning the Gospel of Guns.” So read the front-page headline calculated to shock the naïve and gullible. The <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/business/media/banished-for-questioning-the-gospel-of-guns.html?hpw&amp;rref=business&amp;_r=1&amp;pagewanted=all&amp;">article&#8217;s</a> shocking revelation: Guns &amp; Ammo has chummy relationships with advertisers and panders to its readers. That, of course, is how things work at all those specialty magazines that are chock-full of ads. Yet as the newspaper that helped elect Barack Obama sees things, there&#8217;s a nefarious conspiracy going on involving Guns &amp; Ammo parent company InterMedia Outdoors and malevolent gun manufacturers &#8212; all of whom supposedly abhor free speech and will go to appalling lengths to advance an absolutist pro-gun agenda.</p>
<p>What sent The Times into its hand-waving frenzy was Guns &amp; Ammo&#8217;s recent firing of long-time columnist Dick Metcalf, who had outraged advertisers and readers with a column titled “Let’s Talk Limits.” It argued that Second Amendment rights were not absolute. “The fact is, all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be,” Metcalf wrote. “Freedom of speech is regulated. You cannot falsely and deliberately shout, &#8220;Fire!&#8221; in a crowded theater.”</p>
<p>Personally, I find nothing over the top about this statement, and many readers here would probably agree. But that&#8217;s not how Guns &amp; Ammo&#8217;s advertisers saw things. They wanted Metcalf out, as did many of Guns &amp; Ammo&#8217;s 400,000 readers who “threatened to cancel their subscriptions” and even sent the magazine death threats, according to The Times&#8217; article by reporter Ravi Somaiya. Political fallout over the controversy also caused Guns &amp; Ammo&#8217;s editor, Jim Bequette, to announce that he&#8217;d speed up his retirement plans and bring his successor on board ahead of schedule.</p>
<p>Yes, it&#8217;s all very sad when talented and well-intentioned people lose their jobs due to politics – and one silly mistake. But there&#8217;s also nothing to prevent Metcalf and Bequette from going to work for another magazine, one that would perhaps be a better fit for them. Perhaps they could start up their own publication.</p>
<p>Yet as The Times sees things, the shake-up at Guns &amp; Ammo suggests dark forces are thwarting reasonable discussions at gun magazines about Second Amendment issues and, more specifically, that Metcalf&#8217;s departure “sheds light on the close-knit world of gun journalism, where editors and reporters say there is little room for nuance in the debate over gun laws. Moderate voices that might broaden the discussion from within are silenced.” But wait a minute: Couldn&#8217;t you say something similar about the dearth of people with conservative political opinions in The Times&#8217; newsroom? How many of its reporters and editors are Republicans? Inquiring minds want to know.</p>
<p>Guns &amp; Ammo, of course, operates just like other specialty magazines that depend on advertising dollars. “We take care of those who take care of us,” a publisher at one of the country&#8217;s most widely read aviation magazines used to tell his staff, according to a former boss of mine who, earlier in his career, had been one of that magazine&#8217;s senior editors. He recalled how the editor-in-chief at the time, a well-known aviation journalist and author, used to write scathing inter-office memos about new airplanes he&#8217;d flown, and hated &#8212; yet none of those negative critiques ever made it into his published articles, because this would risk losing advertising dollars. I heard these revelations while working as an associate editor at a “Consumer Reports”-type aviation for light-plane pilots: No ads allowed! And without ads, we were free to say whatever passed muster with the magazine&#8217;s libel lawyer. The Times, incidentally, described Metcalf, a former history teacher at Yale and Cornell, as &#8220;one of the country’s pre-eminent gun journalists.&#8221; Yet<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jl-ZIo-Wztc&amp;list=FLhcRY22v3s3rJFFMeVY3Qrw&amp;feature=mh_lolz"> one example </a>of a gun review by Metcalf on InterMedia Outdoors&#8217; television show has the feel of an <i>informercial;</i> certainly not the type of journalism that would past muster at The Times; and yet The Times essentially puts a halo over Metcalf&#8217;s head to support its anti-gun agenda.</p>
<p>None of this is to suggest, to be sure, that magazines like Guns &amp; Ammo write dishonest product reviews; but those reviews will definitely not read quite the same way as they would if done by gun magazines with a no-advertising policy; and nor would Guns &amp; Ammo and other well-managed publications do anything to antagonize readers. By the same token, The Times would be a far different newspaper, and perhaps a more profitable one, if it wasn&#8217;t an echo chamber for liberal reporters and editors.</p>
<p>That the agenda-driven Times singles out and vilifies Guns &amp; Ammo for doing what other specialty magazine do is no surprise. Perhaps the Gray Lady&#8217;s editors need to ponder their own biases &#8212; and to recall a truism from A. J. Liebling, the legendary writer at The New Yorker who observed: “Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.”</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>.  </b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-paulin/ny-timess-war-on-guns-ammo-magazine/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>23</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Perfect Home for Liberals</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/frontpagemag-com/the-perfect-home-for-liberals/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-perfect-home-for-liberals</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/frontpagemag-com/the-perfect-home-for-liberals/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Dec 2013 05:38:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Frontpagemag.com]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Equality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gated community]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guns]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Liberals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prison]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=212254</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Their own "Gated Community."

]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Their own &#8220;Gated Community&#8221;:</p>
<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/PerfectHome1.jpg"><img class="size-full wp-image-212262 aligncenter" alt="PerfectHome" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/PerfectHome1.jpg" width="500" height="468" /></a></p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>.   </b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/frontpagemag-com/the-perfect-home-for-liberals/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>16</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Are Guns the Problem?</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/walter-williams/are-guns-the-problem-2/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=are-guns-the-problem-2</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/walter-williams/are-guns-the-problem-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Oct 2013 04:05:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Walter Williams]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[access]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[background checks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guns]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Police]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regulations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[waiting periods]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=205870</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why were there fewer shootings at a time of lower regulations than there are today? ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/gun-store.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-205871" alt="gun-store" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/gun-store-450x328.jpg" width="270" height="197" /></a>Every time there&#8217;s a shooting tragedy, there are more calls for gun control. Let&#8217;s examine a few historical facts. By 1910, the National Rifle Association had succeeded in establishing 73 NRA-affiliated high-school rifle clubs. The 1911 second edition of the Boy Scout Handbook made qualification in NRA&#8217;s junior marksmanship program a prerequisite for obtaining a BSA merit badge in marksmanship. In 1918, the Winchester Repeating Arms Co. established its own Winchester Junior Rifle Corps. The program grew to 135,000 members by 1925. In New York City, gun clubs were started at Boys, Curtis, Commercial, Manual Training and Stuyvesant high schools. With so many guns in the hands of youngsters, did we see today&#8217;s level of youth violence?</p>
<p>What about gun availability? Catalogs and magazines from the 1940s, &#8217;50s and &#8217;60s were full of gun advertisements directed to children and parents. For example, &#8220;What Every Parent Should Know When a Boy or Girl Wants a Gun&#8221; was published by the National Shooting Sports Foundation. The 1902 Sears mail-order catalog had 35 pages of firearm advertisements. People just sent in their money, and a firearm was shipped. For most of our history, a person could simply walk into a hardware store, virtually anywhere in our country, and buy a gun. Few states bothered to have even age restrictions on buying guns.</p>
<p>Those and other historical facts should force us to ask ourselves: Why — at a time in our history when guns were readily available, when a person could just walk into a store or order a gun through the mail, when there were no FBI background checks, no waiting periods, no licensing requirements — was there not the frequency and kind of gun violence that we sometimes see today, when access to guns is more restricted? Guns are guns. If they were capable of behavior, as some people seem to suggest, they should have been doing then what they&#8217;re doing now.</p>
<p>Customs, traditions, moral values and rules of etiquette, not just laws and government regulations, are what make for a civilized society, not restraints on inanimate objects.</p>
<p>These behavioral norms — transmitted by example, word of mouth and religious teachings — represent a body of wisdom distilled through ages of experience, trial and error, and looking at what works. The benefit of having customs, traditions and moral values as a means of regulating behavior is that people behave themselves even if nobody&#8217;s watching. In other words, it&#8217;s morality that is society&#8217;s first line of defense against uncivilized behavior.</p>
<p>Moral standards of conduct, as well as strict and swift punishment for criminal behaviors, have been under siege in our country for more than a half-century. Moral absolutes have been abandoned as a guiding principle. We&#8217;ve been taught not to be judgmental, that one lifestyle or value is just as good as another. More often than not, the attack on moral standards has been orchestrated by the education establishment and progressives. Police and laws can never replace these restraints on personal conduct so as to produce a civilized society. At best, the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of defense for a civilized society. The more uncivilized we become the more laws are needed to regulate behavior.</p>
<p>What&#8217;s worse is that instead of trying to return to what worked, progressives want to replace what worked with what sounds good or what seems plausible, such as more gun locks, longer waiting periods and stricter gun possession laws. Then there&#8217;s progressive mindlessness &#8220;cures,&#8221; such as &#8220;zero tolerance&#8221; for schoolyard recess games such as cops and robbers and cowboys and Indians, shouting &#8220;bang bang,&#8221; drawing a picture of a pistol, making a gun out of Lego pieces, and biting the shape of a gun out of a Pop-Tart. This kind of unadulterated lunacy — which focuses on an inanimate object such as a gun instead of on morality, self-discipline and character — will continue to produce disappointing results.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/walter-williams/are-guns-the-problem-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>25</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Jim Carrey Repents His Gun Violence</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ben-shapiro/jim-carrey-repents-his-gun-violence/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=jim-carrey-repents-his-gun-violence</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ben-shapiro/jim-carrey-repents-his-gun-violence/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Jun 2013 04:36:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ben Shapiro]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[colonel stars]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guns]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hollywood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jim Carrey]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[kick ass 2]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=194525</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[But he doesn’t return the cash.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/kick_ass_2.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-194528" alt="kick_ass_2" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/kick_ass_2.jpg" width="300" height="225" /></a><i>Kick-Ass 2</i> is a uniquely violent film. The original <i>Kick-Ass</i>, starring Nicolas Cage, Mark Strong, Aaron Johnson and Lyndsy Fonseca, focused on a teenage boy without super powers, who decides to take on the mantle of superhero and battle crime. This ends with predictably brutal results, including one character being burned alive, several being shredded by a pre-teen girl, and another discovering the business end of a bazooka.</p>
<p><i>Kick-Ass 2</i> will likely surpass that. One of the new heroes is Colonel Stars and Stripes (Jim Carrey.)  Carrey’s salary for <i>Kick-Ass 2</i> remains unknown, but he is one of the highest-paid stars in Hollywood, and has a net worth well in excess of $100 million. He’s also a gun control advocate – a few months back, he put together an incredibly unfunny parody for <i>Funny or Die!</i> in which he played Charlton Heston and mocked Heston’s genital size as payback for Heston’s support of the Second Amendment. “His immortal soul may lay forever in the sand, the angels wouldn&#8217;t take him up to heaven as he planned, cuz they couldn&#8217;t pry his gun from his cold, dead hand,” Carrey sang in that classic piece of pop culture.</p>
<p>But that wasn’t enough. After completing filming for <i>Kick-Ass 2</i>, Carrey has now decided that he will not involve himself in the marketing for the film. He tweeted, “I did Kickass a month b4 Sandy Hook and now in all good conscience I cannot support that level of violence.” He added another tweet moments later: “I meant to say my apologies to others involved with the film. I am not ashamed of it but recent events have caused a change in my heart.”</p>
<p>The creator of the <i>Kick-Ass</i> comic books, Mark Millar, fired back at Carrey, writing, “As you may know, Jim is a passionate advocate of gun-control and I respect both his politics and his opinion, but I’m baffled by this sudden announcement as nothing seen in this picture wasn’t in the screenplay eighteen months ago. Yes, the body-count is very high, but a movie called <i>Kick-Ass 2 </i>really has to do what it says.” He added, “Ultimately, this is his decision, but I’ve never quite bought the notion that violence in fiction leads to violence in real-life any more than Harry Potter casting a spell creates more Boy Wizards in real life.”</p>
<p>This is the conflict that Hollywood currently experiences on the issue of violence. Hollywood likes to believe it has outsized impact on the world around it. That’s why Hollywood rewards films with “something to say” – films that push the environmentalist agenda, no matter how ridiculous (<i>The Day After Tomorrow</i>), films that forward the gay agenda, no matter how boring (<i>Brokeback Mountain</i>, <i>Boys Don’t Cry</i>), films that push corporations as evil (virtually every film from Hollywood). Hollywood thinks it makes a difference.</p>
<p>On the other hand, Hollywood wants to pretend it doesn’t make a difference in the social sphere when it comes time to pick up the check. That’s how Hollywood lives with itself for churning out pornographic nonsense, degrading misogyny, and glorification of demented behavior.</p>
<p>This psychological schism results in the bizarre bipolar nature of those in Hollywood. They’ll do anything for pay – or virtually anything – but they feel the necessity to excuse their riches by then pushing a social message. Carrey isn’t willing to sink tens of millions of dollars into producing a movie against gun violence, but he’s sure willing to take a check for shooting folks, then condemn the movie in which he stars.</p>
<p>In truth, Hollywood material does have an impact on the culture. Studies tend to show a greater linkage between sexual material in film and popular behavior than with violent material in film, although Hollywood would prefer to think the opposite (or simply doesn’t care about damping  down sexuality to change the behavior of younger and younger teenagers). In any case, Hollywood <i>is </i>a business. Those in Hollywood should either put their money where their mouths are, or they should take their checks and stop complaining about the evils of the very films in which they star.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank">Click here</a>.  </strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ben-shapiro/jim-carrey-repents-his-gun-violence/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>19</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Et Tu, Spartacus?</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/mark-tapson/et-tu-spartacus/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=et-tu-spartacus</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/mark-tapson/et-tu-spartacus/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Jun 2013 04:25:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mark Tapson]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gun Control]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guns]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hollywood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Huffington Post]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kirk Douglas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Second Amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Spartacus]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=192774</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Kirk Douglas's anti-Second Amendment lecture to the "cowboy nation." ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/img-kirk-douglas-spartacus_154844167961.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-192805" alt="img-kirk-douglas-spartacus_154844167961" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/img-kirk-douglas-spartacus_154844167961.jpg" width="262" height="195" /></a>Last week legendary actor Kirk Douglas posted a short plea for – something, it’s unclear exactly what – at the <i>Huffington Post</i>, a vague call for the elimination of guns in America, because, as he put it solemnly, “<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kirk-douglas/americas-cowboy-days-are-_b_3392413.html">America’s Cowboy Days Are Over</a>.”</p>
<p>In case you’ve been in a coma for the last century, Douglas, now at the almost Biblical age of 96, is the steely-eyed, cleft-chinned international superstar of such films as <i>Paths of Glory</i>, <i>Lust for Life</i>, <i>Gunfight at the OK Corral</i>, <i>Seven Days in May</i>, and perhaps most memorably, <i>Spartacus</i>. The talented, ridiculously handsome actor has played everything from tortured artist Vincent Van Gogh to a Viking warrior, military officers, cowboys, and, well, Spartacus.</p>
<p>In his <i>HuffPost</i> piece, Douglas says that “under the flooring of my dressing room is a safe. In it are two guns that I used to shoot the bad guys in movies and a silver plated revolver with my name engraved on it which was given to me by some crazy fan.” He writes that “I often played the good cowboy on screen, riding in to save the day. Now, everybody thinks he is a cowboy too. That frightens me. We have become a cowboy country with too many guns.”</p>
<p>How many is too many, Mr. Douglas, and who gets to decide that figure? The Hollywood left generally marches in unthinking lockstep to the progressive call to get rid of guns altogether in America – a simplistic, utopian fantasy that does not and cannot possibly address the complicated reality that millions of guns are already in circulation in this country. The left pontificates about “getting them off the streets” and seems to believe that this is best accomplished through the bureaucratic hassling and demonization of law-abiding gun owners, if not by actually forcing them to turn in their guns to the government – you know, for the sake of the children. Of course, despite a brainless video plea from a gaggle of Hollywood actors to “<a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;frm=1&amp;source=web&amp;cd=4&amp;cad=rja&amp;ved=0CEQQtwIwAw&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D64G5FfG2Xpg&amp;ei=kSW0UdnoJePkiAKTu4GwCw&amp;usg=AFQjCNEnaU23zMJu098teXGsAFRRkl8mRg&amp;sig2=qdkxMui5culAPozZ4AwFyg&amp;bvm=bv.47534661,d.cGE">demand a plan</a>,” the left doesn’t seem to have a plan for disarming criminals, gangs, and the violent mentally ill, who came by their firearm possession illegally.</p>
<p>“I put my guns in the floor safe very long ago so that my children would not be able to find them.” When he was a little boy, Douglas continues, “I was climbing around in the house and I found a revolver on top of a cabinet. I took the gun, ran into the kitchen waving my find. My father grabbed the gun from me and gave me a spanking&#8230; I guess he thought he had placed it in a safe spot. There is no safe spot for kids.”</p>
<p>Actually, there are any number of safe spots, although atop a cabinet isn’t one. It’s very simple to ensure that your young children cannot have access to guns at home, and responsible gun owners do exactly that. Keeping your firearms inside a safe underneath the floor may be overkill, however, especially if you find yourself in sudden need to defend yourself and those same children.</p>
<p>“I cannot understand the people who are against some form of gun control,” Douglas muses. “They should be the first to welcome a message on making it more difficult to get a gun.” People aren’t against “some form of gun control” – they are against restrictions that do nothing to make people safer from gun violence, that only punish law-abiding, responsible gun owners, and that are a thinly-veiled gun grab by a totalitarian government that seeks to disarm its citizens supposedly for their own good.</p>
<p>“Many of them,” Douglas went on, “seem to propose more guns being available to everybody.” Do they? Who are these “many” who “seem” to propose that everybody have guns? I don’t know any gun owner who thinks everybody should have guns. I’m fairly sure no one wants gangbangers to have access to guns, or the mentally ill, or Mexican drug cartels, although our own government has no problem arming the latter.</p>
<p>“I have many grandchildren,” says Douglas. “I would hate to leave them a world where guns are easily accessible.” We all would. No one wants guns to be easily accessible to unsupervised, untrained, or very young children. That’s why responsible gun owners take measures to prevent that.</p>
<p>Then he intones the kneejerk anti-gun mantra of the left: “It&#8217;s time to do something to make our children safer.” Who can argue with that? Who doesn’t want to make children safer? It’s typical leftist, feel-good blather that everyone agrees with but which ignores the reality of an issue and offers no real-world solution.</p>
<p>Douglas closes with his pronouncement that “America&#8217;s cowboy days are over,” seemingly unaware of his own moral contradiction. He began his article pointing out how he used to ride to the rescue as a movie cowboy – back in the day when Hollywood still celebrated good guys rather than anti-heroes – and closed by complaining that he is frightened that now “everybody thinks he is a cowboy too.” What does he have to be frightened of from the good guys?</p>
<p>Apparently he would like to leave to his grandchildren a world in which there are no cowboys riding to save the day; instead, we surrender our 2<sup>nd</sup> Amendment rights and trust the government to ride to our rescue.</p>
<p>Under President Barack Obama, America’s cowboy days are indeed waning, a prospect which sends the pacifist totalitarians of the left into giddy spasms of joy. But we live in a world in which people still need Americans infused with the cowboy spirit to come to the rescue, both at home and abroad. Kirk Douglas, acting legend and honorary cowboy though he may be, has joined the ranks of Hollywood dreamers who don’t seem to grasp that it’s not only in movies that good men with guns must stop bad ones; that holds true for the real world too. Disarming the white hats only leaves us all at the mercy of the black hats.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank">Click here</a>.  </strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/mark-tapson/et-tu-spartacus/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>19</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Oprah Gets a Degree From Harvard</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ben-shapiro/oprah-gets-a-degree-from-harvard/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=oprah-gets-a-degree-from-harvard</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ben-shapiro/oprah-gets-a-degree-from-harvard/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Jun 2013 04:13:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ben Shapiro]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[doctorate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guns]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Harvard]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oprah]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=191874</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How Oprah’s sob stories became America’s politics.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/oprah-harvard.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-191876" alt="Oprah Winfrey commencement speech at Harvard" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/oprah-harvard.jpg" width="269" height="323" /></a>This week, Oprah Winfrey became just the latest celeb to grab an honorary degree from a prestigious university. Speaking at Harvard, Oprah lectured the graduates about immigration and gun control. She stated, “In our political system and the media, we often see the reflection of a country that is polarized, that is paralyzed, that is self-interested. And yet I know you know the truth. We all know that we are better than the cynicism and the pessimism that is regurgitating throughout Washington and the 24 hour cable news cycle.”</p>
<p>There’s a reason this rhetoric sounds familiar. It’s straight from Barack Obama’s playbook. But that’s what’s so astonishing about today’s politics: if you took the quote out of context, you wouldn’t know whether it came from the Queen of Daytime Television or the President of the United States.</p>
<p>And Oprah’s politics are the same as Obama’s, too. “The vast majority of people in this country believe in stronger background checks,” she said, “because they realize that we can uphold the Second Amendment and also reduce that violence that is robbing us of our children.” She then went on to immigration, where again President Obama’s teleprompter clearly spoke through her: “it’s possible to both enforce our laws and, at the same time, embrace the words on the Statue of Liberty that have welcomed generations of huddled masses to our shores.”</p>
<p>Finally, she ended with welfare. “People from both parties and no party,” she said, “believe that indigent mothers and families should have access to healthy food and a roof over the heads and a strong public education. Because here in the richest nation on earth, we can afford a basic level of security and opportunity.”</p>
<p>Why does Oprah sound so similar to President Obama? And is she cribbing from him, or vice versa?</p>
<p>In all likelihood, Obama’s America got its start in Oprah’s audience. Oprah described her mission on television this way to the Harvard audience: to show Americans “that what unites us is ultimately far more redeeming and compelling than anything that separates [us].” That’s just the sort of bromidic nonsense that President Obama speaks, before pretending that a false consensus for liberalism exists. This phraseology means nothing. What unites Americans and al-Qaeda terrorists &#8212; our biology as <i>homo sapiens</i> &#8212; is larger than what divides us. But that doesn’t mean that there are philosophical battles worth fighting and values worth defending.</p>
<p>But Oprah’s entire mission in life is to enfeeble those values. Her entire show was geared for years toward driving sympathy for poor decision making. Emotion was the name of the game. A typical hour of Oprah often included a weepy sob story from someone – either deserving or undeserving – followed by a giveaway to her audience.</p>
<p>Oprah Winfrey, for all her charitable work, has pushed the feelings-first America that drives us to immediate band-aids for long-term problems. While American values bleed out, both Oprah and Obama tell us to take a nice, comfortable anesthetic without correcting the underlying problem.</p>
<p>She deserves her Harvard degree just as much as Barack Obama deserves his Harvard Law degree. After all, her master class in feelings has helped bring us the Harvard value system that now dominates the White House.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank">Click here</a>.  </strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ben-shapiro/oprah-gets-a-degree-from-harvard/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>24</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Left&#8217;s Top 6 Boston Bombing Lies</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/mark-tapson/excusing-jihad/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=excusing-jihad</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/mark-tapson/excusing-jihad/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2013 04:50:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mark Tapson]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bombing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Boston]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guns]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jihad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marathon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NRA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[right]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tea Party]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=186884</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What progressives want you to think about the Islamic terror in Boston. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/boston-marathon-bombing-suspects-2013.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-187028" alt="boston-marathon-bombing-suspects-2013" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/boston-marathon-bombing-suspects-2013-450x298.jpg" width="270" height="179" /></a>You have to admire how, when it comes to pushing their agendas, the American left stays relentlessly on point. Nothing stalls, much less derails, their locomotive, not even a terrorist act on our own shores. As <i>Mad Men</i>’s adman extraordinaire Don Draper tells his clients, “If you don’t like the conversation, change it.” The left doesn’t like the current Boston bombing conversation because it’s about Islam, their partner in an <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Unholy-Alliance-Radical-Islam-American/dp/0895260263/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1366735635&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=unholy+alliance+-+david+horowitz">unholy alliance</a>; so they quite simply do everything in their power to change it. How? Let us count the ways.</p>
<p><b>Blaming the right.</b> Immediately after last week’s Boston Marathon terrorism, the mainstream news media began <a href="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/15/boston-marathon-explosions-already-being-blamed-on-the-right/">speculating</a> that right-wingers were behind the blasts. And by speculating, I mean demonizing, because that was the left-leaning media’s fervent intent – to not let the crisis go to waste, to cast suspicion upon the overlapping segments of society they are hell-bent on “otherizing,” to use their own terminology: law-abiding Tea Partiers, patriots, veterans, Republicans, the NRA, white people, Christians. A CNN analyst, to name only one example, <a href="http://www.mrc.org/biasalerts/cnn-analyst-suggests-right-wing-extremists-could-be-behind-boston-bombing">focused</a> the discussion on “right-wing extremists.” More blatantly, <i>Salon</i> put its hateful bigotry on display in an <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/04/16/lets_hope_the_boston_marathon_bomber_is_a_white_american/">article</a> entitled, incredibly, “Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American.”</p>
<p><b>Blame the NRA</b>. Once the ongoing investigation revealed it to be beyond dispute that the terrorists weren’t Tea Partiers, the left didn’t miss a beat. Even while the remaining fugitive was still at large, MSNBC’s attack dog Lawrence O’Donnell shamelessly <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/04/msnbcs-lawrence-odonnell-faults-nra-for-boston-marathon-161979.html">blamed</a> the National Rifle Association for hindering the investigation by having lobbied to block a taggant “that would enable tracing of the purchase of gunpowder”:</p>
<blockquote><p>The NRA’s effort to guarantee that America&#8217;s mass murderers are the best equipped mass murderers in the world is not limited to those who use automatic weapons and high capacity magazines. The NRA is also in the business of helping bombers get away with their crimes.</p></blockquote>
<p>O’Donnell conveniently neglected to mention that an independent scientific ruling years ago had <a href="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeffrey-meyer/2013/04/18/msnbc-s-lawrence-o-donnell-blames-nra-slowing-down-investigation-bost">recommended</a>, for various reasons, against the use of taggants.</p>
<p><b>Blame Guns</b>. Along that same line, the left kept the conversation focused on their current obsession, gun control, since the terrorists used firearms in their shootout with police. Turns out – surprise! – they weren’t licensed firearm owners. This would seem to be strong evidence that gun control laws do little if anything to hinder criminals and terrorists; but the left isn’t the party of logic, so even though the terrorists used bombs to wreak their havoc, the left made it about guns: “Why does America lose its head over ‘terror’ but ignore its daily gun deaths?” the left-wing <i>Guardian</i> asks (note the scare quotes around “terror”). “US gun law bigger threat than terrorists,” claimed <a href="http://beforeitsnews.com/terrorism/2013/04/us-gun-law-bigger-threat-than-terrorists-2445880.html">another editorial</a>. “Terror in Boston: It&#8217;s About Guns, Not Bombs,” <a href="http://hnn.us/articles/terror-boston-its-about-guns-not-bombs">blathered</a> a leftist professor at University of North Carolina.</p>
<p><b>Islam is Innocent</b>. Another tack the left used is to claim simply that Islam is an irrelevant factor. <i>The Atlantic</i> posed this defiantly moronic question: “<a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/the-boston-bombers-were-muslim-so/275154/">The Boston Bombers Were Muslim: So?</a>” Chris Matthews, MSNBC’s longest-running embarrassment, actually <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/04/23/chris_matthews_on_bombers_what_difference_does_it_make_why_they_did_it.html">said</a> “What difference does it make why they did it, if they did it?” Imagine the spit-flecked accusations this hypocrite would be hurling if the perpetrators had been Christian. Imagine the broad brush the multiculturalist left, in their all their non-judgmental tolerance, would be using to smear everyone on the right.</p>
<p>Melissa Harris-Perry, the <a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2012/06/25/msnbc-host-on-the-war-on-terror-america-needed-a-racial-enemy/">race-obsessed</a> MSNBC host who <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;frm=1&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;cad=rja&amp;ved=0CDQQFjAA&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedailybeast.com%2Farticles%2F2013%2F04%2F11%2Fmelissa-harris-perry-and-the-firestorm-over-collective-parenting.html&amp;ei=de92UbnSAtTXiALGroCgDw&amp;usg=AFQjCNE67dNYVsfCGnzkgFIt29OOosRfuw&amp;sig2=S5CEHfR81rkdZBC4VYyhag&amp;bvm=bv.45580626,d.cGE">says</a> your children don’t belong to you, took the “Islam is irrelevant” argument a step further by claiming that any attempt to point toward the terrorists’ Muslim nature is “otherizing” them: “Given that they&#8217;re Chechen, given that they are literally Caucasian, our very sense of connection to them is  this framed up notion of, like, Islam making them into something that is non-white,” she said inarticulately. What she’s getting at is that white Americans want to distance themselves from the terrorists by labeling them – <i>framing</i> them, as she puts it – as “something that is non-white,” hence Islam. First of all, Islam is not a race. Second, the only Americans who give a damn what color terrorists are are the left, because they <i>want</i> them to be white. Third, denial that the terrorists were carrying out violent jihad is simply a lie.</p>
<p><b>The terrorists are the victims.</b> These kids weren’t radicalized by Islam and al Qaeda, this theory goes. They placed bombs that killed women and children because they couldn’t fit in, because they felt alienated from our racist, Islamophobic society. “To understand the Boston bombers,” <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/roiphe/2013/04/what_the_reluctant_fundamentalist_can_teach_us_about_the_boston_bombers.html">mused</a> a self-hating coward at <i>Slate</i>, “we need also to understand and be honest about ourselves, the ways in which we both take in and don’t take in people from other countries, the trickier side of the American dream.” “Expecting hospitality,” <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130422-boston-marathon-bombings-terrorism-islam-muslims-chechnya-opinion/">sympathized</a> an American University professor, “they felt alienated and disillusioned, even with all of the opportunities and privileges available to them as citizens of this country.” Those poor terrorists. If only eight-year-old <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;frm=1&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;cad=rja&amp;ved=0CDcQqQIwAA&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2FUS%2Fmartin-richard-year-boston-bombing-victim-laid-rest%2Fstory%3Fid%3D19024425&amp;ei=J_d2UYOlCKiXiQLIwYEo&amp;usg=AFQjCNEtWAefRPeIN7uEPN51lC2iakZv7w&amp;sig2=APsSrPfu4jamgFkTZyc43g&amp;bvm=bv.45580626,d.cGE">Martin Richard</a> had made these privileged immigrants from war-torn Chechnya feel more welcome, perhaps they wouldn’t have blown him and others to smithereens.</p>
<p><b>We are the real terrorists</b>. The reprehensible filmmaker Michael Moore <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2013/04/19/Michael-moore-Boston-bombers">tweeted</a> that, because the terrorists turned out to be American citizens, “the rest of the world is safe now,” steering the conversation away from jihad’s central responsibility in worldwide terrorism and <i>toward</i> the suggestion that <i>America</i> is the world’s true terrorist. This echoes the very accusation leveled at us by our most hateful enemies, so Moore has once again proudly shown where his allegiance lies.</p>
<p>Like 9/11, the Beltway Snipers, the Ft. Hood massacre, the Little Rock recruiting center murder, and the dozens and dozens of failed or thwarted plots on American soil, the Boston bombing (and subsequent murder of a police officer) is about Islam. It’s about two radicalized Muslim-Americans, <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/04/23/marathon-attack-suspect-communicating-by-writing-sources-say-with-faith-seen-as/">instructed by al Qaeda online</a>, and probably assisted by co-conspirators. But the left is making it about gun control, about NRA obstructionism, about America herself alienating immigrants, about whites “otherizing” Muslim innocents, about any message that furthers their nihilistic agendas, because the left knows how to never lose control of the narrative – a lesson the right would do well to absorb and emulate.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank">Click here</a>.  </strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/mark-tapson/excusing-jihad/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>81</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Liberals Go Crazy for the Mentally Ill</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ann-coulter/liberals-go-crazy-for-the-mentally-ill/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=liberals-go-crazy-for-the-mentally-ill</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ann-coulter/liberals-go-crazy-for-the-mentally-ill/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Apr 2013 04:45:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ann Coulter]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ACLU]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Crazy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guns]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[insanity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shootings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[violence]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=185257</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Dems' solution to gun violence: let the insane roam the streets while impairing our right to self-defense. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/ann-coulter/liberals-go-crazy-for-the-mentally-ill/1355722466804-cached-2/" rel="attachment wp-att-185259"><img class=" wp-image-185259 alignleft" title="1355722466804.cached" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/1355722466804.cached.jpg" alt="" width="251" height="184" /></a>Obama has been draping himself in families of the children murdered in Newtown.</p>
<p>MSNBC&#8217;s Martin Bashir suggested that Republican senators need to have a member of their families killed for them to support the Democrats&#8217; gun proposals. (Let&#8217;s start with Meghan McCain!)</p>
<p>In a bizarre version of &#8220;A Christmas Carol,&#8221; CNN&#8217;s Carol Costello fantasized about &#8220;a mother who lost her child,&#8221; showing up and knocking on Sen. Rand Paul&#8217;s door, saying, &#8220;Please don&#8217;t do this!&#8221;</p>
<p>The victims of gun violence are the left&#8217;s latest &#8220;human shields&#8221; &#8212; a term coined by me in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0085SI81W/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=9325&amp;creativeASIN=B0085SI81W&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;tag=anncoulter-20">Godless: The Church of Liberalism</a> &#8211; for their idiotic ideas. At least it&#8217;s not the godawful Jersey Girls this time.</p>
<p>The one clear thread that unites all the mass murders currently being exploited by the Democrats is that they were committed by visibly crazy people who were unaccountably not institutionalized. But Democrats refuse to do anything about crazy people. Apparently, the views of families with relatives murdered by severely disturbed individuals are no longer relevant when it comes to institutionalizing the mentally ill.</p>
<p>If liberals had a decent argument for taking guns away from the law-abiding while doing nothing to prevent schizophrenics from getting guns, they&#8217;d make it. Manifestly, they don&#8217;t, so they send out victims to make the argument for them, knowing no one will argue with a person whose child has just been murdered.</p>
<p>This allows liberals to act as if Republicans&#8217; only counter-argument to their idiotic gun control proposals is: We don&#8217;t mind dead children.</p>
<p>The truth is the opposite. Republicans are pushing policies that will reduce gun violence; Democrats are pushing policies that will increase gun violence.</p>
<p>All the actual evidence &#8212; mountains of it, in peer-reviewed studies by highly respected economists and criminologists and endlessly retested &#8212; shows that limits on magazine capacity, background checks and assault weapons bans will accomplish nothing. Only one policy has been shown to dramatically reduce multiple public shootings: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226493660/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=9325&amp;creativeASIN=0226493660&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;tag=anncoulter-20">concealed-carry laws</a>.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, there are no similar studies on the effect of involuntary commitment laws for the mentally deranged because no such laws exist anymore and therefore can&#8217;t be tested. But we do know that the number of mass public shootings has ballooned since crazy people were thrown out of mental institutions in the 1970s.</p>
<p>For most of the 20th century, from 1900 to 1970, there was an average of four mass public shootings per decade. Throughout the &#8217;70s, as the loony bins were being emptied, the average number of mass shootings suddenly shot up to 13. In the 3.3 decades since 1980, after all the mental institutions had been turned into condos, mass shootings skyrocketed to 36 on average per decade.</p>
<p>Mass shootings don&#8217;t correlate with gun ownership; they correlate with not locking up schizophrenics.</p>
<p>Mental illness was blindingly clear in the case of Seung-Hui Cho, who committed mass murder at Virginia Tech. Jared Loughner showed signs of schizophrenia for at least five years before he shot up the Tucson shopping mall. James Holmes was being treated for mental illness long before his massacre at the Aurora movie theater. It was clear to Adam Lanza&#8217;s mother &#8212; nearly the only person who had contact with him &#8212; that he was mentally disturbed and had violent fantasies. (Three-quarters of matricides are committed by the mentally ill.)</p>
<p>We can add paranoid schizophrenic One L. Goh, who committed a mass murder at a Christian college in California last year, and the Muslim Army major, Nidal Hasan, known to be crazier than an MSNBC host, who killed 13 and injured 30 in a &#8220;gun-free&#8221; area of the Fort Hood Army base a couple years ago. For hundreds more examples of the mentally ill committing murder, read E. Fuller Torrey&#8217;s book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393341372/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=9325&amp;creativeASIN=0393341372&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;tag=anncoulter-20">The Insanity Offense: How America&#8217;s Failure to Treat the Seriously Mentally Ill Endangers Its Citizens</a>.</p>
<p>But Democrats simply will not address the one thing that is screaming out from all of these mass murders, which is that they were committed by crazy people.</p>
<p>As soon as the issue of mental illness came up at a Senate hearing on gun violence in January, Sen. Al Franken leapt in to say: &#8220;I want to be careful here &#8212; that we don&#8217;t stigmatize mental illness. The vast majority of people with mental illness are no more violent than the rest of the population.&#8221;</p>
<p>Liberals at ThinkProgress.org and The Huffington Post hailed Franken for his sensitivity. Can we check with the families of the children murdered by crazy people on the danger of &#8220;stigmatizing&#8221; the mentally ill?</p>
<p>Contrary to Franken&#8217;s claim, some of the mentally ill are far more likely to be violent. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, schizophrenics and similarly disturbed individuals are three times more likely to commit a violent crime than others.</p>
<p>The mentally ill are also more likely to be the victims of violence. Ask the sisters of the crazy homeless woman &#8220;Billie Boggs&#8221; how grateful they were to the ACLU for keeping Boggs out on the street.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, the only target of Democrats&#8217; gun proposals &#8212; legal gun owners &#8212; are less likely to commit violent crimes than others. To the contrary, armed civilians justifiably kill about 1,500-2,800 felons a year, compared to 300-600 legal killings by the police. Responsible armed citizens protecting us from violent criminals should be subsidized rather than taxed and harassed.</p>
<p>After five mass shootings by deranged lunatics, even liberals know that the only policy &#8212; apart from concealed-carry laws &#8212; that might have stopped these shootings are laws permitting the institutionalization of the mentally ill.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s why they keep claiming their gun bills address mental illness. Warning: Read the bill. You will find nothing in any of the Democrats&#8217; &#8220;gun safety&#8221; proposals that will make it easier to commit a crazy person or to prevent him from buying a gun.</p>
<p>The Democrats&#8217; argument for doing absolutely nothing about the dangerously mentally ill, while disarming crime-preventing armed citizens is: Tell it to this weeping mother. If the Democrats&#8217; &#8220;gun safety&#8221; bill passes, there&#8217;ll be plenty more weeping mothers to tell it to.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ann-coulter/liberals-go-crazy-for-the-mentally-ill/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>53</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Anti-Gun U.N. Arms Treaty Ready for Vote</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/joseph-klein/anti-gun-u-n-arms-treaty-ready-for-vote/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=anti-gun-u-n-arms-treaty-ready-for-vote</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/joseph-klein/anti-gun-u-n-arms-treaty-ready-for-vote/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Apr 2013 04:20:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Joseph Klein]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ammunition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arms Trade Treaty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guns]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[handguns]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rifles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United Nations]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=183818</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How Obama could try to force the will of the "international community" on the American people. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/joseph-klein/anti-gun-u-n-arms-treaty-ready-for-vote/afp-518385969-4_3_r536_c534/" rel="attachment wp-att-183856"><img class=" wp-image-183856 alignleft" title="afp-518385969-4_3_r536_c534" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/afp-518385969-4_3_r536_c534-450x338.jpg" alt="" width="270" height="203" /></a>The United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, which hit a temporary snag last week, is intended to regulate international trade in seven listed categories of conventional weapons, which include small arms and light weapons &#8211; for example, handguns and rifles. The international trade in these arms, which would be subject to global regulation under the treaty, includes all manner of &#8220;transfers,&#8221; which are defined loosely as comprising &#8220;export, import, transit, trans-shipment and brokering.&#8221; The objective is to prevent arms transfers that would enable the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, serious breaches of the Geneva Conventions, &#8220;attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians,&#8221; and other war crimes, as well as the export of arms where there is an &#8220;overriding risk&#8221; that they could be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of &#8220;international humanitarian law&#8221; or &#8220;international human rights law.&#8221;</p>
<p>The treaty has a specific article dealing with the regulation of &#8220;exports&#8221; of ammunition/munitions. Non-governmental gun control advocacy organizations and some member states were not satisfied with the separate more limited regulation of ammunition, but the inclusion of ammunition in the treaty at all provides a foot in the door for more expansive regulation to come.</p>
<p>Under the rules of the specially assembled Final Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, which ended on March 28th, approval by consensus was required. This means that if any member state &#8211; even one &#8211; raised a formal objection, the treaty was deemed blocked. That is what ultimately happened, causing a hiccup on the road to final adoption of the treaty by one means or another.</p>
<p>On March 28th, the President of the United Nations&#8217; Final Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, Australian Ambassador Peter Woolcott, ruled that there was no consensus of the member states to adopt the final draft text of the treaty because of formal objections raised by Iran, North Korea and Syria. These three countries gave various reasons for their decision to block the treaty from moving forward with consensus approval in the conference, including that it unfairly favored exporting states over importing states and did not allow the Palestinians facing &#8220;occupation&#8221; by Israel to acquire arms to fight for &#8220;self-determination.&#8221; No UN conference would be complete without some Israel-bashing, after all.</p>
<p>However, the treaty is not dead. Far from it. The treaty will now go to the UN General Assembly as part of a resolution that can be adopted in that chamber by a super majority vote &#8211; mostly likely, a two-thirds affirmative vote. The consensus rules will no longer apply in that forum.</p>
<p>The treaty most likely will be submitted to the General Assembly and voted upon in early April. The Obama administration supports the treaty and is expected to vote for it when it comes up before the General Assembly, joining most other member states. Once so approved by the General Assembly, each member state will be free to sign the treaty and have it ratified if required by that state&#8217;s domestic laws. Fifty member states must submit their official instruments manifesting their intent to become a party to the treaty before it can go into effect.</p>
<p>Secretary of State John Kerry himself may well sign the treaty on behalf of the United States after the General Assembly vote, but ratification by the United States Senate is unlikely in the foreseeable future. However, that will not stop President Obama from using his executive powers to implement key parts of the treaty, aggressively asserting that as commander-in-chief he is authorized by the Constitution to act on his own to stem the flow of lethal conventional weapons, including handguns and rifles, to the wrong hands.</p>
<p>If President Obama proceeds to implement the treaty&#8217;s provisions through executive orders without Senate consent, his action would raise serious constitutional concerns of executive branch overreach. Moreover, the treaty that he would be implementing &#8211; while not as bad as it could have been &#8211; remains deeply flawed. It is full of ambiguities and broadly drafted provisions that are subject to manipulation. Here are just a few examples.</p>
<p>In an attempt to answer those critics concerned about the potential overreach of the treaty into matters reserved for the internal decisions of each member state, the treaty preamble reaffirms &#8220;the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms <em>exclusively</em> within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional system&#8221; (emphasis added).  However, the use of the word &#8220;exclusively&#8221; implies that the treaty would apply to the global regulation of the covered conventional arms that could possibly end up beyond a member state&#8217;s borders at some point in the future. Moreover, the proponents of the treaty have not explained why another clause in the treaty preamble limits the recognition of the individual right of ownership to &#8220;legitimate trade and lawful ownership, and use of certain conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities,&#8221; while excluding any explicit recognition of other traditional individual uses such as self-defense.  The only mention in the treaty text of an &#8220;inherent right&#8221; to self-defense applies to the member states themselves either in their separate state or collective capacities.</p>
<p>As mentioned above, the treaty covers the &#8220;transfer&#8221; of handguns and rifles, which are part of the category of conventional arms listed as &#8220;small arms and light weapons.&#8221; Transfers include not only exports and imports, but also &#8220;transit,&#8221; &#8220;trans-shipment&#8221; and &#8220;brokering&#8221; (all undefined terms) within a member party state&#8217;s territory.  Ammunition is also regulated under the treaty, but to a slightly lesser degree that can be expanded by treaty amendment in the future.</p>
<p>One of the treaty principles following the preamble, and the entire Article 11 of the treaty, are devoted to preventing &#8220;diversion&#8221; of conventional arms. &#8220;Diversion&#8221; is undefined but, as an analysis posted by the Heritage Foundation noted, Mexico wanted the diversion language included in the treaty as a means &#8220;to require tighter domestic controls on firearms in the U.S. in order to prevent what it argues is their diversion to Mexico.&#8221;  Fast and Furious comes to mind, but the language can be interpreted as applying the treaty to the transfer of guns from a private seller to a private purchaser within a member party state&#8217;s territory that could potentially be diverted to unauthorized end users or illicit markets outside the member party state&#8217;s territory. A delegate to the Arms Trade Treaty Conference, who was involved in the drafting of the &#8220;diversion&#8221; Article, confirmed to me that such a very broad interpretation is quite plausible.</p>
<p>Moreover, the UN’s own Coordinating Action on Small Arms (CASA) program, entitled “The Impact of Poorly Regulated Arms Transfers on the Work of the UN,” issued a paper last year in support of such a broad approach to regulation of arms trade, saying: “United Nations agencies have come across many situations in which various types of conventional weapons have been…misused by lawful owners” and that the “arms trade must therefore be regulated in ways that would…minimize the risk of misuse of legally owned weapons.”</p>
<p>Consider also the treaty&#8217;s requirements for state parties to maintain broad scope &#8220;national control lists&#8221; to be shared with the UN Secretariat, coupled with the treaty&#8217;s encouragement of member party states to maintain detailed records relating to transferred conventional arms including &#8220;the quantity, value, model/type and end users, as appropriate.&#8221; These provisions may well serve as a precursor for national registration of all handguns and rifles sold and purchased within a member party state&#8217;s territory, on the pretext that they may possibly be &#8220;diverted&#8221; into international trade at some point.</p>
<p>In addition to these concerns, Article 26 (1) of the treaty would place legitimate agreements between member states in jeopardy if the obligations in those agreements are deemed to be inconsistent with the treaty.  The fact that the second part of Article 26 says that the treaty itself cannot be cited as automatic grounds for voiding defense cooperation agreements in their entirety does not give a pass to each and every specific contractual obligation contained in a defense cooperation agreement unless such obligation meets the test of being &#8220;consistent with this Treaty.&#8221;  The problem is the loose terminology of the treaty that makes it difficult to determine with any clarity what is or is not consistent with the treaty.</p>
<p>For example, one of the treaty&#8217;s operative &#8220;principles&#8221; is directed at &#8220;ensuring respect&#8221; for the ill-defined norms of &#8220;international humanitarian law&#8221; and &#8220;human rights.&#8221; Other Articles refer to &#8220;relevant international law,&#8221; and &#8220;relevant United Nations instruments.&#8221; Article 6 prohibits a state party from transferring any conventional arms covered by the treaty if &#8220;it has knowledge&#8221; that the arms would be used in &#8220;attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians protected as such.&#8221;</p>
<p>Such provisions in the new treaty can be used by Palestine (now recognized by the United Nations as a &#8220;state&#8221; for the purposes of the Arms Trade Treaty and many other UN-related activities) and the Palestinians&#8217; allies to target United States &#8220;transfers&#8221; of conventional arms to Israel on the grounds that they abet Israel&#8217;s alleged violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law.</p>
<p>The Palestinians and their allies have been setting the stage for this line of argument for years. Back in 2006, for example, The Electronic Intifada posted the following from a group called the Council for the National Interest founded by two former U.S. congressmen with decidedly anti-Israel views: &#8220;Israel is using weapons supplied by the United States to target Palestinian civilians and civilian infrastructure in the Gaza Strip in violation of the U.S. Arms Export Control Act, the Foreign Assistance Act and the Geneva Conventions&#8230; Israel’s attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure in the Gaza Strip are a violation of the Geneva Conventions and constitute war crimes.&#8221;</p>
<p>Although Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorist groups regularly use Palestinian civilians as human shields and store their weapons and munitions in or very close to mosques, schools, hospitals, homes and other civilian facilities, it is Israel that is regularly accused by UN bodies and human rights groups sympathetic to the Palestinians&#8217; propaganda of deliberately attacking civilians and civilian objects.</p>
<p>The Islamist-dominated United Nations Human Rights Council, to which the United States belongs, has repeatedly accused Israel, without any credible evidence, of persistently violating international human rights and humanitarian law and committing war crimes and crimes against humanity. President Obama helped to legitimize the decisions and findings of this atrocious body by deciding to have the United States join it. The result is that the UN Human Rights Council, whose other members include some of the world&#8217;s worst human rights abusers, is in the position of establishing international human rights norms, which may be incorporated into the application of the Arms Trade Treaty in assessing the legality of arms transfers to Israel and other U.S. allies.</p>
<p>If the Senate refuses to ratify the Arms Trade Treaty any time soon, as expected, President Obama may nevertheless adopt the key provisions of the treaty in one of his Constitution-busting executive orders as part of his aggressive gun control agenda. For the reasons outlined above, that would be a very big mistake.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/joseph-klein/anti-gun-u-n-arms-treaty-ready-for-vote/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>From Their Cold Dead Hands</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/from-their-cold-dead-hands/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=from-their-cold-dead-hands</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/from-their-cold-dead-hands/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Mar 2013 04:53:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Matthew Vadum]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guns]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rand]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=183576</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Obama's gun-grabbing plans appear headed for defeat.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/from-their-cold-dead-hands/guns-2/" rel="attachment wp-att-183580"><img class=" wp-image-183580 alignleft" title="guns" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/guns.jpg" alt="" width="280" height="190" /></a>Emboldened by the public&#8217;s waning enthusiasm for tougher gun control measures, five Republican senators are now vowing to filibuster any of President Obama&#8217;s gun-control measures to block their enactment.</p>
<p>The sweet smell of statist defeat is in the air. Tired of being harangued by an authoritarian president, polls suggest Americans have largely returned to their senses after a fleeting flirtation with gun control proposals.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s quite a turnaround from the dark days of December when a madman gunned down innocent schoolchildren in New England. Even some conservative lawmakers cowered as the media relentlessly and viciously attacked law abiding Americans for owning guns.</p>
<p>But many people are incensed at Hollywood left-wingers&#8217; constant condescension on gun issues, which has only grown more intense and obnoxious in recent months. Comedian Jim Carrey, a high-school dropout who opposes vaccinating babies, <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/larry-elder/jim-carrey-not-dumb-dumber-just-ignorant/">jumped the shark</a></span> this week when he released an offensive, unfunny video mocking gun owners as stupid, clumsy hicks. Reaction to the <em>Dumb and Dumber</em> star&#8217;s video was swift and largely negative.</p>
<p>This all shows that in modern American politics, gun control legislation continues to be a sure political loser at the national level.</p>
<p>While it&#8217;s too early for Second Amendment supporters to start popping champagne corks, it appears that no substantial changes to the nation&#8217;s gun laws will be approved by Congress. If anything passes &#8211;and that seems increasingly unlikely&#8211; it may be symbolic legislation that has no teeth.</p>
<p>After Mitt Romney&#8217;s defeat in November, shell-shocked Republican lawmakers are finally beginning to emerge from their collective stupor and fight Barack Obama&#8217;s imperial presidency.</p>
<p>Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/03/28/sen-lee-3-reasons-why-i-threatened-to-block-obamas-gun-proposals/">accuses</a></span> the president of continuing to “use the tragedy at Newtown as a backdrop for pushing legislation that would have done nothing to prevent that horrible crime.”</p>
<p>Restricting Americans&#8217; fundamental constitutional rights ought to require more than a simple majority vote in the Senate, Lee argues.</p>
<p>In that vein, Sens. Lee, Ted Cruz (R-Texas), and Rand Paul (R-Ky.), notified Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) that they will “exercise our procedural right to require a 60-vote threshold in order to bring any of the president’s proposals to the floor.” Lee announced later that Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) also signed on to the filibuster pledge.</p>
<p>The debate &#8220;is about more than magazine clips and pistol grips. It is about the purpose of the Second Amendment and why our constitutionally protected right to self-defense is an essential part of self-government,” Lee said.</p>
<p>“Any legislation that would restrict our basic right to self-defense deserves robust and open debate. Requiring a 60-vote threshold helps ensure that we have that debate rather than skipping directly to the back room deals, horse trading, and business-as-usual politics that typifies the way Congress passes legislation today.”</p>
<p>Obama&#8217;s ongoing anti-gun jihad has been a veritable comedy of errors as leading Democrats, administration officials, and their lackeys in the media revealed their embarrassing ignorance of firearms basics.</p>
<p>World-class bumbler Vice President Joe Biden <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/27/joe-biden-has-more-gun-advice-just-fire-the-shotgun-through-the-door/">offered</a></span> dangerous advice on home defense to his constituents last month.</p>
<p>Biden said women fearful of home invasions should get a “double-barrel 12-gauge shotgun” and fire “two blasts” outside to deter would-be home intruders. Perhaps inspired by gangster movies, Biden also told gun owners to “just fire the shotgun through the door.”</p>
<p>First Lady Michelle Obama said on ABC News that Chicago teenager Hadiya Pendleton was gunned down January 29 by &#8220;automatic weapons.&#8221; The problem is that there are relatively few automatic weapons, which fire continuously while the trigger is pulled, in circulation among the public in America. They&#8217;ve been all but banned in the U.S. since 1934 and their use in crime is extremely rare. Getting federal permission to own one is very difficult and the weapons are tightly regulated. (Handguns, on the other hand, are plentiful, but for the most part they are not targeted in current proposals.)</p>
<p>Unfortunately, Americans never got to hear Mrs. Obama&#8217;s mega-gaffe. ABC News colluded with the Obama White House and <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/02/27/ABC-News-Admits-Editing-Out-FLOTUS-Gun-Gaffe">edited out</a></span> her ignorant claim. The network said the remarks were removed out of time concerns.</p>
<p>New York City&#8217;s know-it-all do-gooder of a mayor, Michael Bloomberg, <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/25/miller-mayor-bloombergs-irresponsible-gun-attack-a/">shelled out</a></span> $12 million for gun control ads that encourage Americans to handle firearms irresponsibly.</p>
<p>His pressure group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, created two televisions ads showing a man dressed as a hunter holding a shotgun. With a child swinging on a tire in the background, the man says, “I support comprehensive background checks so criminals and the dangerously mentally ill can’t buy guns.”</p>
<p>In one ad titled &#8220;Responsibility,&#8221; the actor violates all three gun safety rules preached by the National Rifle Association.</p>
<p>Although there is a child nearby, the muzzle of the man&#8217;s pump-action shotgun is not pointed at the ground or in the air. While the man&#8217;s shotgun is improperly positioned, he keeps his finger on the trigger, as if prepared to fire. The NRA also recommends that weapons be kept unloaded until ready for immediate use, but in the ad the action, or bolt, of the shotgun shown is closed, making it impossible to see whether the firearm contains ammunition.</p>
<p>&#8220;A man who grew up hunting would know that by holding a shotgun straight horizontal, with the action closed and his finger on the trigger, he is committing all three cardinal sins of gun safety,&#8221; notes Emily Miller of the <em>Washington Times</em>.</p>
<p>After a loud start in December, the Left&#8217;s most recent war on gun ownership rights now appears to be on life-support.</p>
<p>A week ago Obama was forced to <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/obama-withdraws-radical-judicial-activist-nominee/">withdraw</a></span> the nomination of Second Amendment enemy Caitlin J. Halligan to the critical District of Columbia Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals. Halligan was successfully filibustered twice by Republican senators largely because of her vehement opposition to gun ownership rights.</p>
<p>The Halligan implosion comes as a new poll indicates public support for stricter gun control laws, which climbed to 57 percent after the attack in Newtown, has since plummeted to just 47 percent.</p>
<p>The CBS News poll was released a week after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he would remove language banning so-called assault weapons from pending gun control legislation. Even if anti-gun legislation clears the Senate, it is unlikely to survive the House of Representatives.</p>
<p>The lead proponent of the wholly arbitrary assault weapons ban, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), could offer the provision as an amendment to the legislation but at this point the prohibition seems almost certainly doomed. Feinstein authored the previous assault weapons ban, which was in effect from 1994 to 2004. It had no observable effect on crime rates.</p>
<p>Despite all this bad news, President Obama is still clinging to the hope that he can bring in sweeping new firearms restrictions through the sheer force of his personality.</p>
<p>Yesterday Obama desperately tried to keep alive the anti-gun hysteria that briefly swept parts of the nation after 20 first-graders were killed in the Newtown, Conn. massacre in December.</p>
<p>“We need everybody to remember how we felt 100 days ago and make sure what we said wasn’t just a bunch of platitudes, that we meant it,” Obama said at a White House event on a national day of action by elitists who wish to disarm their fellow citizens.</p>
<p>“We’ve cried enough,” he said petulantly, in the presidential equivalent of a temper tantrum, as he exhorted Americans to apply pressure to their elected representatives.</p>
<p>Obama&#8217;s post-Newtown proposals would expand intrusive, privacy-violating background checks that make it difficult for people in danger to purchase the guns they need to protect themselves and their families. Critics say &#8211;with justification&#8211; that the expanded background checks amount to a de facto national gun registry.</p>
<p>Of course Obama continues lying, claiming he supports the Second Amendment.</p>
<p>“What we’re proposing is not radical. It’s not taking away anyone’s gun rights,” Obama said trying to bully legislators. He said they may be getting “squishy because time has passed and maybe it’s not on the news every day.”</p>
<p>Even a master manipulator of the mob has his limitations.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank">Click here</a>.  </strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/from-their-cold-dead-hands/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>22</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Left&#8217;s Continuing War on Women</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ann-coulter/the-lefts-continuing-war-on-women/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-lefts-continuing-war-on-women</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ann-coulter/the-lefts-continuing-war-on-women/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Mar 2013 04:33:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ann Coulter]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[domestic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guns]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Second Amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[violence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Women]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=183297</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Liberals' advice to rape and domestic abuse victims is: Lie back and enjoy it.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/ann-coulter/the-lefts-continuing-war-on-women/istock_000017294572smallweb/" rel="attachment wp-att-183298"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-183298" title="iStock_000017294572Smallweb" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/iStock_000017294572Smallweb.jpg" alt="" width="288" height="193" /></a>The New York Times caused a sensation with its kazillion-word, March 17 article by Michael Luo on the failures of state courts to get guns out of the hands of men in domestic violence situations.</p>
<p>The main purpose of the article was to tweak America&#8217;s oldest civil rights organization, the National Rifle Association, for opposing some of the more rash anti-gun proposals being considered by state legislatures, such as allowing courts to take away a person&#8217;s firearms on the basis of a temporary restraining order.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s a new position for liberals to oppose the rights of the accused. Usually the Times is demanding that even convicted criminals be given voting rights, light sentences, sex-change operations and vegan meals in prison.</p>
<p>Another recent Times article about communities trying to keep sex offenders out of their neighborhoods quoted a liberal saying: &#8220;It&#8217;s counterproductive to public safety, because when you have nothing to lose, you are much more likely to commit a crime than when you are rebuilding your life.&#8221;</p>
<p>But that was about convicted child molesters. This is about guns, so all new rules apply.</p>
<p>As is usually the case when liberals start proposing gun restrictions, they assume only men will be disarmed by laws taking guns from those subjected to temporary restraining orders. But such orders aren&#8217;t particularly difficult to get. It doesn&#8217;t occur to liberals that an abusive man could also get one against his wife, whether his accusations are true or not.</p>
<p>Rather than helping victims of domestic abuse, this &#8212; and other Times&#8217; proposals on guns &#8212; only ensures that more women will get killed. A gun in the hand of an abused woman changes the power dynamic far more than keeping a gun out of the hands of her abuser, who generally can murder his wife in any number of ways.</p>
<p>The vast majority of rapists, for example, don&#8217;t even bother using a gun because &#8212; as renowned criminologist Gary Kleck notes &#8212; they typically have a &#8220;substantial power advantage over the victim,&#8221; making the use of a weapon redundant.</p>
<p>As the Times eventually admits around paragraph 400: &#8220;In fairness, it was not always clear that such an order (taking guns from the accused wife abuser) would have prevented the deaths.&#8221;</p>
<p>No kidding. In one case the Times cites, Robert Wigg ripped a door off its hinges and heaved it at his wife, Deborah, after having thrown her to the floor by her hair.</p>
<p>Deborah Wigg moved out, got a protective order and filed for divorce. But doors were not an impediment to Robert Wigg. He showed up at her new house and, in short order, broke down the door and murdered her.</p>
<p>He happened to have used a gun, but he might as well have used his fists. Or an illegal gun, had the court taken away his legal guns. Or another door.</p>
<p>As her husband was breaking in, Deborah called her parents and 911. Her neighbors called 911, too. But the police didn&#8217;t arrive in time. Even her parents got to the house before the cops did, only to find their daughter murdered.</p>
<p>The protective order didn&#8217;t help Deborah Wigg; the police couldn&#8217;t help; her neighbors and parents couldn&#8217;t help. Only if she&#8217;d had a gun and knew how to use it &#8212; after carefully disregarding everything Joe Biden has said on the subject &#8212; might she have been able to save her own life.</p>
<p>Numerous studies, including one by the National Institute of Justice, show that crime victims who resist a criminal with a gun are less likely to be injured than those who do not resist at all or who resist without a gun. That&#8217;s true even when the assailant is armed.</p>
<p>Liberals&#8217; advice to rape and domestic abuse victims is: Lie back and enjoy it. The Times&#8217; advice is: Get a protective order. The NRA&#8217;s advice is: Blow the dirtbag&#8217;s head off. Or, for the delicate: Resist with a gun, the only effective means to stop an attack.</p>
<p>Apparently a lot of abused women prefer not to lie back and take it. Looking at data from Detroit, Houston and Miami, Margo Wilson and Martin Daly found that the vast majority of wives who killed their husbands were not even indicted, much less convicted, because it was found they were acting in self-defense.</p>
<p>But the Times doesn&#8217;t want abused women to have a fighting chance. Instead, it keeps pushing gun control policies that not only won&#8217;t stop violent men from murdering their wives, but will disarm their intended victims.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ann-coulter/the-lefts-continuing-war-on-women/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>23</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Shadow of the Gun</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/shadow-of-the-gun/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=shadow-of-the-gun</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/shadow-of-the-gun/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Mar 2013 04:50:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Children]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[control]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Education]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fear]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guns]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[schools]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=181248</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How the Left's promotion of fire arms fear instills learned helplessness in our children.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/shadow-of-the-gun/f_0_gun-shadow_g_320/" rel="attachment wp-att-181302"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-181302" title="F_0_gun-shadow_g_320" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/F_0_gun-shadow_g_320.jpg" alt="" width="296" height="223" /></a>Every day another one of the stories comes in. A teacher panicked by a plastic gun, an army man on a cupcake, a t-shirt, a pop tart chewed into the shape of a gun or a finger gun, hits the panic button. Suspensions and lectures quickly follow as the latest threat to the gun-free zone, usually in the form of a little boy, is tackled to the ground and lectured to within an inch of his life.</p>
<p>Tellingly these incidents rarely take place in the inner city schools where teenage gang members walk through metal detectors at the start of the day. The safety officers in those schools, big weary men with eyes that look everywhere at once, don’t waste their time on toys. Not unless those toys are full-size, painted black and filed down to look like real guns.</p>
<p>It’s usually the schools where a shooting is wholly unlikely; where gun violence is not a daily reality, but an unlikely convergence of horror, that institutional vigilance hits an irrational peak as every school imagines that it could be the next Columbine or the next Sandy Hook.</p>
<p>The NRA’s initial proposal of armed school guards was met with an irrational chorus of protests. More guns aren’t the answer, was the cry. And the leading crier was the White House’s expert skeet shooter. In a country where law enforcement is heavily armed and gunmen are stopped by gunmen in uniforms, a strange Swedenization had set in. The problem was not the man, it was the gun. Get rid of the guns and you stop the killing.</p>
<p>Schools across the country are banning not the gun, but the idea of the gun.  Gun-free zones mean places where guns cannot be mentioned, depicted or even symbolized as if the refusal to concede the existence of a firearm will eliminate the threat of it being used on the premises.</p>
<p>This isn’t a precautionary attitude, but a pacifist one. Gun horror is not a productive emotion, but learned helplessness disguised as moral superiority. Rather than teaching children to hate killers, schools are instead teaching them to hate guns. And reducing murders to instruments rather than morals, children are left with no sense of right and wrong, only an instinctive horror of violence.</p>
<p>Pacifists have always demonized armies rather than invaders. During WWI they obsessed over gas. During WW2, it was the bomber and the tank. During the Cold War they demonized nuclear weapons. By dealing with the object rather than the subject, they were able to avoid the question of moral responsibility. Rather than hold the Nazis or the Communists accountable for their actions, they extended a blanket condemnation over the weapons-wielders.</p>
<p>The American GI was just as bad as the SS man or the Kamikaze pilot or the Political Commissar. The only difference was in who had the bigger guns. And the one with the bigger guns was also the one to blame.</p>
<p>That same attitude can be seen today when Israel is blamed for every battle with Islamic terrorists because it has the bigger guns. Rather than evaluating the nature of a conflict and the values of both sides, the pacifists score every war based on firepower.</p>
<p>To believe that there is no such thing as constructive violence is to reject free will. Without accepting the necessity of constructive violence, there is no good and evil, only armed men and unarmed men. Without constructive violence, two boys playing cops and robbers in the schoolyard are not acting out a childish morality play, they are becoming desensitized to murder, and without it a child with a pop tart chewed into the shape of a gun is on the way to being a school shooter.</p>
<p>If there is no such thing as constructive violence, then the police officer is not the solution to crime, he is part of the cycle of violence. And if that cycle of violence does not begin with a man choosing to use a gun for good or evil, then it must begin with the gun. The man becomes the object and the gun becomes the subject. American ICBMs become just as bad as Russian ballistic missiles. An Israeli soldier killing a suicide bomber is just as bad as the terrorist. There are no good guys with guns. To have a gun is to be the bad guy.</p>
<p>For decades the gun-control lobby has brandished assault rifles at press conferences and spent more time describing their killing power than their manufacturers have. The rifle has been upgraded to the assault rifle and now, in the latest Orwellian vernacular used by the White House and the entire media pyramid beneath it, weapons of war.</p>
<p>The dreaded assault rifle or weapon of war or killing machine of mass death actually kills rather few Americans. The average shooter doesn’t bring an AR-15 to a Chicago gangland dispute. Despite the number of these weapons in private hands, most of the killing takes place with handguns in the same parts of the country where large amounts of illegal drugs are sold, women trafficked and stores robbed.</p>
<p>Shootings in America are not caused by guns, they are caused by crime. Guns really do not walk off store shelves and go on killing sprees. That’s what criminals are for.</p>
<p>But the trouble with that discussion is that it takes us into moral territory. Talking about guns is easy, talking about souls is not. If guns don’t kill people, then we have to ask the difficult question of what does kill people.</p>
<p>It’s a bigger question than just Adam Lanza pulling the trigger in a classroom full of children. It is a big question that encompasses the Nazi gas chambers and the Soviet gulags, the Rape of Nanking and September 11. It is a question as big as all of human history.</p>
<p>The left has tried to reduce people to economics, to class and then race, gender and sexual orientation. It has done its best to reduce people to the sum of their parts and then to tinker with those parts and it has failed badly. The best testimony of its profound spiritual failure is that the worst pockets of gun violence are in urban areas that have been under the influence of their sociologists, urban planners, psychologists, social justice activists, community organizers and political rope-pullers for generations. And what have those areas brought forth except malaise, despair, blight and murder?</p>
<p>Banning guns will do as much for those areas as banning drugs did. It is not the shadow of the gun that has fallen over Chicago, but an occlusion of the spirit. Social services have had generations to save the city and they have failed because the technocracy can reach the body, but it cannot reach the soul.</p>
<p>The gun-control activists drew the wrong lesson from Newtown as they drew the wrong lessons from WW2 and September 11. The lesson is not that weapons are bad; the lesson is that people in the grip of evil ideas are capable of unimaginable horrors regardless of the tools at their disposal. A single man can kill a classroom full of children with a gun and a few men can kill thousands with a few box cutters. It isn’t the tool that matters. It’s the man.</p>
<p>The gun, the sword, the spear and the club took countless lives and saved countless lives. Civilization has always balanced on a future made possible by little boys playing cops and robbers and playing with little green army men. They can either grow up to be the protectors of the future or the frightened men who will stand aside and do nothing when they hear the screams begin to come because they have been told that all violence is evil.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/shadow-of-the-gun/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>39</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Lesson for the Left on &#8216;Needs&#8217; and &#8216;Rights&#8217;</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ann-coulter/a-lesson-for-the-left-on-needs-and-rights/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=a-lesson-for-the-left-on-needs-and-rights</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ann-coulter/a-lesson-for-the-left-on-needs-and-rights/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 2013 04:08:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ann Coulter]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[assault weapon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bullet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guns]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[magazine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[need]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[right]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=179358</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The question is not whether citizens should have something, but whether the government is entitled to ban it. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/ann-coulter/a-lesson-for-the-left-on-needs-and-rights/gun_woman/" rel="attachment wp-att-179360"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-179360" title="gun_woman" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/gun_woman.jpg" alt="" width="280" height="206" /></a>Having given up on trying to persuade Americans that taking guns away from law-abiding citizens will reduce the murder rate, Democrats have turned to their usual prohibitionary argument: &#8220;Why does anyone <em>need</em> (an assault weapon, a 30-round magazine, a semiautomatic, etc., etc.)?&#8221;</p>
<p>Phony conservative Joe Manchin, who won his U.S. Senate seat in West Virginia with an ad showing him shooting a gun, said, &#8220;I don&#8217;t know anyone (who) needs 30 rounds in a clip.&#8221;</p>
<p>CNN&#8217;s Don Lemon, who does not fit the usual profile of the avid hunter and outdoorsman, demanded, &#8220;Who needs an assault rifle to go hunting?&#8221;</p>
<p>Fantasist Dan Rather said, &#8220;There is no need to have these high-powered assault weapons.&#8221;</p>
<p>And prissy Brit Piers Morgan thought he&#8217;d hit on a real showstopper with, &#8220;I don&#8217;t know why anyone needs an assault rifle.&#8221; Of course, where he comes from, policemen carry wooden sticks.</p>
<p>Since when do Americans have to give the government an explanation for why they &#8220;need&#8221; something? If that&#8217;s the test, I can think of a whole list of things I don&#8217;t know why anyone needs.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t know why anyone needs to burn an American flag at a protest. The point could be made just as well verbally.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t know why anyone needs to read about the private lives of celebrities. Why can&#8217;t we shut down the gossip rags?</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t know why anyone needs to vote. One vote has never made a difference in any federal election.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t know why anyone needs to bicycle in a city.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t know why anyone needs to have anal sex at a bathhouse. I won&#8217;t stop them, but I don&#8217;t know why anyone needs to do that.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t know why anyone needs to go hiking in national parks, where they&#8217;re constantly falling off cliffs, being buried in avalanches and getting lost &#8212; all requiring taxpayer-funded rescue missions.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t know why Karen Finley needs to smear herself with chocolate while reading poems about &#8220;love.&#8221; But not only do Democrats allow that, they made us pay for it through the National Endowment for the Arts.</p>
<p>In fact, I don&#8217;t know why anyone needs to do any of the things that offend lots of people, especially when I have to pay for it. I don&#8217;t mind paying for national monuments and the ballet, but if &#8220;need&#8221; is a legitimate argument, there&#8217;s no end to the activities that can be banned, forget &#8220;not subsidized by Ann.&#8221;</p>
<p>Democrats are willing to make gigantic exceptions to the &#8220;need&#8221; rule for things they happen to personally like. Their position is: &#8220;I don&#8217;t know why anyone needs to hunt; on the other hand, I do see why your tax dollars should be used to subsidize partial-birth abortion, bicycle lanes and the ballet.&#8221;</p>
<p>They&#8217;ll say that no one died in my examples (except abortion) (and bicycling) (and bathhouses) (and national parks), but the victims of mass shootings weren&#8217;t killed by gun owners. They were killed by crazy people.</p>
<p>How about keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people?</p>
<p>Liberals won&#8217;t let us do that &#8212; and yet they won&#8217;t tell us why anyone needs to live on sidewalk grates, harass pedestrians and crap in his pants. Those are precious constitutional rights, straight from the pen of James Madison, and please stop asking questions.</p>
<p>&#8220;I don&#8217;t see why anyone needs &#8230;&#8221; is code for: &#8220;I don&#8217;t do it, so let&#8217;s ban it.&#8221; The corollary is: &#8220;I enjoy this, so you have to subsidize it.&#8221;</p>
<p>Environmentalists say: &#8220;I don&#8217;t know why anyone needs to shower once a day &#8212; my French friends and I take two showers per month. We think we smell fine.&#8221;</p>
<p>That&#8217;s the difference between a totalitarian and a normal person. Liberals are obsessed with controlling what other people do.</p>
<p>As Sen. Dianne Feinstein said this week, so-called &#8220;assault weapons&#8221; are a &#8220;personal pleasure&#8221; and &#8220;mothers and women&#8221; have to decide whether this personal pleasure &#8220;is more important than the general welfare.&#8221;</p>
<p>The &#8220;general welfare&#8221; is every tyrant&#8217;s excuse, going back to Robespierre and the guillotine. Free people are not in the habit of providing reasons why they &#8220;need&#8221; something simply because the government wants to ban it. That&#8217;s true of anything &#8212; but especially something the government is constitutionally prohibited from banning, like guns.</p>
<p>The question isn&#8217;t whether we &#8220;need&#8221; guns. It&#8217;s whether the government should have a monopoly on force.</p>
<p>In liberals&#8217; ideal world, no one will even know you don&#8217;t have to wait 22 minutes for the police when someone breaks into your home, there are toilets that can get the job done on one flush, food tastes better with salt, and you can drive over 55 mph and get there faster.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, we&#8217;re all required to subsidize their hobbies &#8212; recycling, abortion, the &#8220;arts,&#8221; bicycling, illegal alien workers, etc.</p>
<p>Liberals ought to think about acquiring a new hobby: leaving people alone.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ann-coulter/a-lesson-for-the-left-on-needs-and-rights/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>33</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Guns and Double Standards</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jack-kerwick/guns-and-double-standards/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=guns-and-double-standards</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jack-kerwick/guns-and-double-standards/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2013 04:28:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jack Kerwick]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[double standards]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[First Amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guns]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Second Amendment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=179010</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why the Left would never say things about the First Amendment that it says about the Second.  ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/jack-kerwick/guns-and-double-standards/guns/" rel="attachment wp-att-179022"><img class="wp-image-179022 alignleft" title="guns" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/guns-450x300.jpg" alt="" width="315" height="210" /></a>To hear them tell it, the Second Amendment deniers in Washington and their accomplices in the media know about all there is to know when it comes to guns.</p>
<p>Some guns—so-called “assault” rifles—we just don’t <em>“need</em>,” they constantly tell us.  It isn’t that the President and his fellow partisans wish to prevent American citizens from exercising their Second Amendment liberties.  They just wish to prevent us from obtaining those guns that no one <em>needs </em>in any event.</p>
<p>For the moment, we can put to one side the monumental presumptuousness involved in third parties instructing the citizens of a free society as to what they do and do not need.  It is more important that we grasp what this little lesson entails.</p>
<p>When the Second Amendment deniers talk about “needs” with respect of guns, what they imply is that guns have a unique <em>purpose</em>: guns <em>kill.  </em>Since, say, no one “needs” a so-called “assault rifle” for hunting, it is commonly argued, no one “needs” an assault rifle, for the only purpose of such a weapon is to slaughter.</p>
<p>Interestingly, the very same people who insist upon making this argument from purpose when it comes to guns ridicule it when it comes to almost everything else.  Take the issue of sexual morality, for instance. For millennia, Christians (among others) have contended that sex is permissible only within the confines of marriage.  According to this reasoning, sex has two purposes.  Its chief purpose is <em>reproductive.  </em>Yet it is also intended to <em>unite </em>the spouses. Since only marriage—<em>heterosexual </em>marriage—can fulfill this twofold purpose, sex within any other context is immoral.</p>
<p>This argument may or may not work.  The point, though, is that those on the left resolutely reject <em>this </em>argument from purpose while relying upon another such argument to restrict the Second Amendment.</p>
<p>But let’s play along.  Let’s assume that the left’s argument from purpose against the Second Amendment is sound. And now let’s apply it to the <em>First </em>Amendment.</p>
<p>A free people do indeed <em>need </em>a free press, for it fulfills the purpose of preventing government from becoming tyrannical.  Those in the press are supposed to be forever vigilant against any and all signs of government corruption and abuse.  They are “watchdogs.”  It is on this basis that they are forever poised to take refuge behind the First Amendment when criticisms come their way.</p>
<p>However, what if our media figures <em>fail </em>to fulfill the purpose for which the First Amendment allots them free speech?  What if they not only suspend their skepticism toward all government office-holders, but actually begin to side with some of them?  And, worse, what if those politicians toward whom they’re partial are just those politicians who are anxious to expand the national government ever further?  That is, what if they promote those plans that threaten the liberties of the very Americans for whose sake they exist?</p>
<p>Sadly, these aren’t really hypothetical questions.  The blunt truth of the matter is that those in the “mainstream” media <em>have </em>failed to fulfill their purpose.  And they have failed abysmally.  Moreover, they have allied themselves with politicians, particularly those politicians like Barack Obama, who are all too eager to grow our gargantuan government even beyond its already monstrous size.</p>
<p>Since these same media personalities seem to agree with Obama that those gun rights that allegedly don’t advance the purpose of the Second Amendment can be revoked by the government, then maybe they can be persuaded that those speech rights that don’t advance the First Amendment should be revoked as well?</p>
<p>After all, the speech that comes from a free press is supposed to function as a check upon government.  Outside of politicians, no one <em>needs </em>speech from the media that frustrates this function by strengthening the hold of the government over the citizenry.  Thus, press-control, or media-control, may be necessary.</p>
<p>Maybe we should pressure the government into assembling a bipartisan commission to preside over congressional hearings in which the owners, managers, and even employees of various journalistic outfits are forced to answer tough questions about government-media collusion.  Those organizations deemed guilty of propagandizing on behalf of the government will face stiff penalties, including and up to losing their licensing.</p>
<p>Media personalities will be permitted to exercise their free speech rights. But this means that they will be allowed to operate in the media only if they are using speech in order to challenge government.</p>
<p>To be clear, I am not seriously advocating any of this. My point, rather, is to point out the glaring hypocrisy of journalists and politicians who would never in a million years think to say the things about the First Amendment that they say about the Second.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jack-kerwick/guns-and-double-standards/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>28</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Business of Arming Terrorists</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/theodore-shoebat/the-business-of-arming-terrorists/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-business-of-arming-terrorists</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/theodore-shoebat/the-business-of-arming-terrorists/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2013 04:15:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Theodore Shoebat]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guns]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Morsi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Syria]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[terrorists]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=178525</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[While disarming Americans.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/theodore-shoebat/the-business-of-arming-terrorists/arming/" rel="attachment wp-att-178582"><img class=" wp-image-178582 alignleft" title="arming" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/arming-450x240.jpg" alt="" width="315" height="168" /></a></p>
<p>Obama wants to decree a ban on all assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons, which would apply to rifles and pistols. On this ban, Obama <a href="http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-to-nbc-he-wants-to-ban-semi-autos-first-year">stated clearly</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>I’m going to be putting forward a package and I’m going to be putting my full weight behind it… I’m going to be making an argument to the American people about why this is important and why we have to do everything we can to make sure that something like what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary does not happen again.</p></blockquote>
<p>Yet, the Obama administration has been involved in providing weapons to Syrian rebels who have committed many atrocities across Syria. Why must Americans be disarmed and jihadists be given weapons? Americans are simply observing a right, while the Islamists want guns to force Syria into becoming a Sharia governed state.</p>
<p>Leon Panetta, who is now retiring, and General Martin Dempsey, the principle military adviser of Obama, have both <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/Panetta-Exposes-Rift-With-Obama-on-Plan-to-Arm-4260827.php">revealed</a> that they supported a plan last year composed by Hillary Clinton and General Petraeus that would provide weapons to the Syrian rebels, who are all fighting for a jihadist cause.</p>
<p>John Mccain also supported, and still supports, this plan, <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/Panetta-Exposes-Rift-With-Obama-on-Plan-to-Arm-4260827.php">saying:</a></p>
<blockquote><p>“I urge the president to heed the advice of his former and current national security leaders and immediately take the necessary steps, along with our friends and allies, that could hasten the end of the conflict in Syria”</p></blockquote>
<p>Though Obama is said to have turned down this plan, he still has supported the Syrian rebellion in a very covert and elusive manner. The current administration has instead used a middle-man: Saudi Arabia, to receive American weapons and then transfer them to the hands of the jihadists.</p>
<p>Michael Kelley of Business Insider <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/us-arming-jihadists-syria-2012-10">reported last year</a> that in</p>
<blockquote><p>2011 the U.S. sold $33.4 billion worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia and $1.7 billion to Qatar as sales tripled to a record high and accounted for nearly 78 percent of all global arms sales.</p></blockquote>
<p>And where did these weapons go to? Syria,<a href="http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/Panetta-Exposes-Rift-With-Obama-on-Plan-to-Arm-4260827.php"> where they were obtained by jihadists</a> who would not hesitate for a second to behead any American, or any non-Muslim.</p>
<p>As one American official put it:</p>
<blockquote><p>“The opposition groups that are receiving the most of the lethal aid are exactly the ones we don’t want to have it”</p></blockquote>
<p>Though the U.S. is not directly sending arms to the revolutionists, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/world/middleeast/jihadists-receiving-most-arms-sent-to-syrian-rebels.html?pagewanted=all">it is providing support</a> for shipping small arms such as rifles (which Obama wants to ban in the U.S.) and grenades, and therefore, is nevertheless directly supporting the rebels themselves.</p>
<p>So, to Obama Americans shouldn’t have rifles but Syrian rebels should? This dangerous distortion is just more evidence as to how supportive the current administration has been for the Islamists.</p>
<p>The American government actually expected an organized plan mapped out by the rebels that would show how Syria will be governed in the future. But they haven’t received any future plans, and the reason is that the rebels are using the Americans for the assistance but refuse to reveal their true intentions for a post-Assad Syria, since what they really desire is a Muslim Brotherhood ruled nation.</p>
<p>One Middle Eastern diplomat, who has worked extensively with the C.I.A., has said that there hasn’t been any report by the rebels as to how Syria will be ruled after Assad is removed. In his <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/world/middleeast/jihadists-receiving-most-arms-sent-to-syrian-rebels.html?pagewanted=all">own words</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>We haven’t seen anyone step up to take a leadership role for what happens after Assad, … There’s not much of anything that’s encouraging. We should have lowered our expectations.</p></blockquote>
<p>Syria is going down the road to become just another state of the future Sunni confederacy that is forming, alongside Egypt and Libya.</p>
<p>Obama said to NBC that:</p>
<blockquote><p>there are a vast majority of responsible gun owners out there who recognize that we can’t have a situation in which somebody with severe psychological problems is able to get the kind of high capacity weapons that this individual in Newtown obtained and gun down our kids.</p></blockquote>
<p>Yet, his administration is helping ship rifles and grenades to Syria, and is working with the Saudis to provide arms to Islamic renegades who themselves have severe urges to commit some of the most vile violence caught on film.</p>
<p>Just to give you a picture of how these rebels use their guns, here is a video of jihadists executing a Syrian police officer:</p>
<p><iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/pTvn417OMWQ" frameborder="0" width="425" height="325"></iframe></p>
<p>Another film I found shows a sadistic bunch of rebels beheading a man in cold blood while laughing and saying “Allah is greater.” If you have the heart for it, the video is found here:</p>
<p><a href="http://shoebat.com/2013/02/17/obama-wants-to-disarm-americans-but-arm-terrorists/brutal-beheading-execution-of-prisoner-by-free-syrian-army-warning-graphic/" rel="attachment wp-att-35356">Brutal Beheading Execution Of Prisoner By ‘Free Syrian Army’ *Warning Graphic*</a></p>
<p>Recent footage shows jihadists executing an innocent civilian. The killer even phones his mother to let her know the sinister act he is about to commit:</p>
<p><a href="http://shoebat.com/2013/02/17/obama-wants-to-disarm-americans-but-arm-terrorists/the-execution-of-sunni-civilians-in-syria/" rel="attachment wp-att-35357">The Execution of Sunni Civilians in Syria.</a></p>
<p>In Syria right now, the most armed entity is the military, the second most equipped are the rebels, and the most defenseless are the civilians. In the midst of the fray, the civilians are the ones who suffer the most, since the Islamists have the weapons, and the military is unable to protect all places of the country at once.</p>
<p>Now, apply this to America. If a full weapons band was ever decreed, the military, the police, and the lawless would be the most armed, and American civilians helpless. Police and military personal would not be able to protect the entire country, leaving the criminals many opportunities to pick out their victims.</p>
<p>Obama and the rest of his leftist ilk keep promoting the idea that guns are the problem, while neglecting the roots of the issue at hand: violent ideologies. All murderers, be they jihadists or spree killers, reject the philosophical idea that life is sacred. Since the Left is not pro-life, they have refused to confront this issue all together, and so are now giving the way to terrorists. The assistance to terrorists in the Middle East will provide confidence for Islamists here in America. Just take a look at the news now. <a href="http://www.nj.com/jjournal-news/index.ssf/2013/02/2_jersey_city_slaying_victims.html">Just this month</a>, a Muslim named Yusuf Ibrahim shot to death two Coptic Christians (Hanny F. Tawadros, 25, and Amgad A. Konds, 27), decapitated them, severed their hands, and buried them in a randomly picked yard. We’re going to be seeing more of this as Islam is allowed to rise and thrive on our insane obsession on tolerance.</p>
<p>As I write in my book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/God-Tyranny-When-Nations-Natural/dp/0982567901">For God or For Tyranny</a>, when the Third Reich reigned, Hitler and his minions established the Nazi Weapons Act of 1938, which prohibited German civilians from owning any firearms. The Left is doing the same thing, but in a ‘nicer,’ ‘gentler,’ more ‘sensitive’ and gradual way. Only those without prudence, foresight, and some historical knowledge on how tyrannies function, would believe that the Obama administration really wants to end crime and protect children (they are all pro-choice).</p>
<p>In our Declaration of Independence, one of the stated reasons for the American Revolution was that King George</p>
<blockquote><p>excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.</p></blockquote>
<p>If the Second Amendment is ever done away with, the only people that would be helped are the savages amongst us.</p>
<p><strong>Theodore Shoebat is the author of the book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/God-Tyranny-When-Nations-Natural/dp/0982567901">For God or For Tyranny.</a></strong></p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank">Click here</a>.  </strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/theodore-shoebat/the-business-of-arming-terrorists/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>11</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Anti-Choice Left&#8217;s Disarming of American Women</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/michellemalkin/the-anti-choice-lefts-disarming-of-american-women/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-anti-choice-lefts-disarming-of-american-women</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/michellemalkin/the-anti-choice-lefts-disarming-of-american-women/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2013 04:25:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Michelle Malkin]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attacks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Colorado]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guns]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pens]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[self defense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Women]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=178325</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[To females who face sexual predators, leftists say "passive resistance may be your best defense." ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/michellemalkin/the-anti-choice-lefts-disarming-of-american-women/womangun/" rel="attachment wp-att-178326"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-178326" title="WomanGun" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/WomanGun.jpg" alt="" width="322" height="236" /></a>If radical gun-grabbers have their way, your daughters, mothers and grandmothers will have nothing but whistles, pens and bodily fluids to defend themselves against violent attackers and sexual predators. Women of all ages, races and political backgrounds should be up in arms over the coordinated attack on their right to bear arms.</p>
<p>In Colorado this week, male Democratic legislators assailed concealed-carry supporters and disparaged female students who refuse to depend on the government for protection. The Democrat-controlled House passed a statewide ban on concealed-carry weapons on college campuses, along with several other extreme gun-control measures that will undermine citizen safety and drive dozens of businesses out of the state.</p>
<p>Condescending Democratic Rep. Joe Salazar of Colorado asserted that young women can&#8217;t be trusted to assess threatening situations at their colleges or universities: &#8220;It&#8217;s why we have call boxes, it&#8217;s why we have safe zones, it&#8217;s why we have the whistles,&#8221; Salazar said during floor debate. &#8220;Because you just don&#8217;t know who you&#8217;re gonna be shooting at. And you don&#8217;t know if you feel like you&#8217;re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone&#8217;s been following you around, or if you feel like you&#8217;re in trouble when you may actually not be&#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>Colorado Sen. Jessie Ulibarri, another elitist Democrat, argued that instead of firing back at a crazed gunman, innocent victims would be better off using &#8220;ballpoint pens&#8221; to stab him when he stops to reload. Colorado Rep. Paul Rosenthal, another Democrat, told women to rely on the &#8220;buddy system&#8221; instead. And on Tuesday, after personally lobbying Colorado Democrats to restrict self-defense options, Vice President Joe Biden blithely dismissed a woman&#8217;s concerns about family security. He advised her, &#8220;You don&#8217;t need an AR-15&#8243; — even though it is the long arm of choice of three million law-abiding citizens, half of whom are veterans, law enforcement officers or both.</p>
<p>The presumptuous paternalism of gun-grabbing male Democrats is not confined to the political arena. On college campuses across the country, the literal disarming of women is standard operating procedure.</p>
<p>At the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, officials advise women that &#8220;passive resistance may be your best defense.&#8221; The school&#8217;s recommendation to girls: &#8220;Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating.&#8221;</p>
<p>If that fails, it&#8217;s time to deploy other assault bodily fluids! No joke. UCCS seriously advises potential victims: &#8220;Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone.&#8221;</p>
<p>In a quick survey of campus tips for women, Twitchy.com editor Jenn Taylor notes that at the State University of New York at Plattsburgh, women are also told that &#8220;passive resistance (vomiting, urinating, telling the attacker you&#8217;re diseased or menstruating) may be your best defense.&#8221; The University of Wisconsin Oshkosh tells girls to &#8220;(c)ry or create a scene of emotional or mental instability.&#8221; Instead of a Glock, the school prefers students take a page from &#8220;Glee.&#8221; Yes, ladies, when you fear for your lives, it&#8217;s time to engage in theatrics by faking a &#8220;faint&#8221; or &#8220;seizure.&#8221; And at Oregon State, female students are advised to tell sexual predators they are &#8220;sick or pregnant,&#8221; because guns and knives are banned on campus.</p>
<p>As I&#8217;ve noted before, colleges and universities have become coddle industries. Big Nanny administrators oversee speech codes, segregated dorms, politically correct academic departments and designated &#8220;safe spaces&#8221; to protect students selectively from speech the left deems &#8220;hateful.&#8221; Instead of teaching students to defend their beliefs, American educators shield them from vigorous intellectual debate. As the erosion of intellectual self-defense goes, so goes the erosion of physical self-defense. Instead of encouraging autonomy, our higher institutions of learning stoke passivity and conflict-avoidance.</p>
<p>Where are the War on Women warriors of the left when you need them? Paging Ashley Judd, Eva Longoria, Sandra Fluke and every indignant feminist who (rightly) took Todd &#8220;legitimate rape&#8221; Akin to task — as I did — last fall. The sexist stance of gun-grabbers goes far beyond Akin-esque junk science about magical wombs that can prevent pregnancy. The idea that women can&#8217;t be trusted to know when they are at risk takes direct aim at their very sovereignty and security.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s anti-self-determination. It&#8217;s anti-freedom. It&#8217;s anti-choice.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/michellemalkin/the-anti-choice-lefts-disarming-of-american-women/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>23</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Cultural Deviancy Is the Problem, Not Guns</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/walter-williams/cultural-deviancy-is-the-problem-not-guns/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=cultural-deviancy-is-the-problem-not-guns</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/walter-williams/cultural-deviancy-is-the-problem-not-guns/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Feb 2013 04:10:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Walter Williams]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[blacks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chicago]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guns]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hispanic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marriage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=177477</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The real driving force behind fire arms violence. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/walter-williams/cultural-deviancy-is-the-problem-not-guns/rappers-gun-violence-4/" rel="attachment wp-att-177479"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-177479" title="rappers-gun-violence-4" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/rappers-gun-violence-4.jpg" alt="" width="290" height="217" /></a>There&#8217;s a story told about a Paris chief of police who was called to a department store to stop a burglary in progress. Upon his arrival, he reconnoitered the situation and ordered his men to surround the entrances of the building next door. When questioned about his actions, he replied that he didn&#8217;t have enough men to cover the department store&#8217;s many entrances but he did have enough for the building next door. Let&#8217;s see whether there are similarities between his strategy and today&#8217;s gun control strategy.</p>
<p>Last year, Chicago had 512 homicides; Detroit had 411; Philadelphia had 331; and Baltimore had 215. Those cities are joined by other dangerous cities — such as St. Louis, Memphis, Tenn., Flint, Mich., and Camden, N.J. — and they also lead the nation in shootings, assaults, rapes and robberies. Both the populations of those cities and their crime victims are predominantly black. Each year, more than 7,000 blacks are murdered. Close to 100 percent of the time, the murderer is another black person.</p>
<p>According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, between 1976 and 2011, there were 279,384 black murder victims. Though blacks are 13 percent of the nation&#8217;s population, they account for more than 50 percent of homicide victims. Nationally, the black homicide victimization rate is six times that of whites, and in some cities, it&#8217;s 22 times that of whites. Coupled with being most of the nation&#8217;s homicide victims, blacks are also most of the victims of violent personal crimes, such as assault and robbery. The magnitude of this tragedy can be seen in another light. According to a Tuskegee Normal and Industrial Institute study, between 1882 and 1968, 3,446 blacks were lynched at the hands of whites.</p>
<p>What percentage of murders, irrespective of race, are committed with what are being called assault weapons? You&#8217;d be hard put to come up with an amount greater than 1 or 2 percent. In fact, according to FBI data from 2011, there were 323 murders committed with a rifle of any kind but 496 murders committed with a hammer or a club. But people who want to weaken our Second Amendment guarantees employ a strategy like that of the Paris chief of police.</p>
<p>They can&#8217;t do much about hammers, clubs, fists or pistols, but by exploiting public ignorance, they might have a bit of success getting an &#8220;assault weapon&#8221; ban that will have little impact on violent crime.</p>
<p>There are other measures these people employ in an attempt to end violence that border on lunacy. Massachusetts&#8217; Hyannis West Elementary recently warned a 5-year-old&#8217;s parents that if their son made another gun from a Legos set, he&#8217;d be suspended. Elementary-school children have been suspended or otherwise disciplined for drawing a picture of a gun or pointing a finger and saying, &#8220;Bang, bang.&#8221; I shudder to think about what would happen to kids in a schoolyard if they played, as I played nearly 70 years ago, &#8220;cops &#8216;n&#8217; robbers&#8221; or &#8220;cowboys &#8216;n&#8217; Indians.&#8221; Maybe today&#8217;s politically correct educators would cut the kids a bit of slack if they said they were playing &#8220;cowboys &#8216;n&#8217; Native Americans.&#8221;</p>
<p>What explains a lot of what we see today, which politicians and their liberal allies would never condemn, is growing cultural deviancy. Twenty-nine percent of white children, 53 percent of Hispanics and 73 percent of black children are born to unmarried women. The absence of a husband and father from the home is a strong contributing factor to poverty, school failure, crime, drug abuse, emotional disturbance and a host of other social problems. By the way, the low marriage rate among blacks is relatively new. Census data show that a slightly higher percentage of black adults had married than white adults from 1890 to 1940. In 2009, the poverty rate among married whites was 3.2 percent; for blacks, it was 7 percent, and for Hispanics, it was 13.2 percent. The higher poverty rates — 22 percent for whites, 35.6 percent for blacks and 37.9 percent for Hispanics — are among unmarried families.</p>
<p>Other forms of cultural deviancy are found in the kind of music accepted today that advocates killing and rape and other vile acts. Punishment for criminal behavior is lax. Today&#8217;s Americans accept behavior that our parents and grandparents never would have accepted.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/walter-williams/cultural-deviancy-is-the-problem-not-guns/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>39</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Brainwashing Kids About Guns</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/mark-tapson/brainwashing-kids-about-guns/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=brainwashing-kids-about-guns</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/mark-tapson/brainwashing-kids-about-guns/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 04:35:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mark Tapson]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[control]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guns]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kids]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[schools]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[toy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=177210</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How the Left is undermining support for the Second Amendment in k-12 public education. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/mark-tapson/brainwashing-kids-about-guns/toy-guns-gun-violence/" rel="attachment wp-att-177386"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-177386" title="toy-guns-gun-violence" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/toy-guns-gun-violence.jpg" alt="" width="286" height="199" /></a>A spate of recent incidents in which schoolchildren were punished for <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">unconscionable gun crimes</span> triggering the hysteria of politically correct school officials highlights the left’s increasing insanity about guns.</p>
<p>A five-year-old girl from Pennsylvania <a href="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/19/5-year-old-suspended-labeled-a-terrorist-threat-for-threatening-to-shoot-friend-with-toy-bubble-gun/">was suspended</a> from school last month after telling a friend she was going to shoot her with a pink toy gun that sprays <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">hollow-point bullets</span> bubbles. Despite not even having the bubble gun with her at the time of the shockingly dire threat, the kindergartener was later interrogated by school officials without her<strong> </strong>parents present. She was ultimately – are you sitting down for this? – labeled a “terrorist threat,” suspended for ten days, and required to undergo psychiatric evaluation.</p>
<p>At about the same time, a school in Maryland <a href="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/16/its-ridiculous-three-6-year-olds-suspended-for-making-gun-signs-with-hands-during-recess/">suspended</a> two six-year-olds for making a gun gesture with their hands while playing cops-and-robbers during recess. Two weeks before that, another six-year-old was suspended for the same terrorist offense. This idiocy is reminiscent of an <a href="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/08/28/school-allegedly-asks-deaf-preschooler-to-change-his-name-because-sign-language-version-resembles-weapons/">incident</a> last year in which a deaf three-year-old was informed by school district officials that the signing he uses for his name too closely resembles him waving a gun. So now he is required to spell out his name letter by letter instead. That’ll teach him.</p>
<p>The insanity continues. Now a seven-year-old Colorado boy has been <a href="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/05/second-grader-playing-rescue-the-world-at-recess-suspended-after-throwing-pretend-grenade-at-evil-forces-with-adorable-interview/">suspended</a> for throwing a pretend grenade at a pretend box full of “evil forces” while playing “rescue the world” at recess. Again, that’s a <em>pretend</em> grenade he lobbed at a <em>pretend</em> box of evil (good thing he didn’t refer to it as an “axis of evil,” or the officials might have tarred and feathered the kid and run him and his Bush-loving parents out of town). His school maintains a list of “absolutes,” no-nos designed to keep the schoolgrounds safe, which includes “no fighting, real or imaginary; no weapons, real or imaginary.” Because it isn’t enough to ban students from <em>playing</em> with real weapons; it must be <em>verboten</em> even to <em>think</em> about them, even when combating evil.</p>
<p>Alex Evans said he threw the fake grenade “so nothing can get out and destroy the world… I was trying to save people and I just can’t believe I got dispended.” Alex, that’s because you’re not far enough along in school yet to have been sufficiently indoctrinated by your schoolteachers. In a few years, once you’ve absorbed enough <a href="http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=939">Howard Zinn</a> and <a href="http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1232">Noam Chomsky</a>, you will understand that <em>we</em> are the ones destroying the world through our imperialistic war-mongering and racist theft of natural resources. However, had you thrown an imaginary grenade at an imaginary band of violent Tea Partiers, you would have gone to the head of the class.</p>
<p>In an article that contains more handwringing about how guns are poisoning our children’s minds, <em>The</em> <em>New York Times</em> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/fashion/parents-are-facing-a-loaded-question-cultural-studies.html?_r=0">reports</a> on groups of “anti-toy-gun activists” (now <em>there’s</em> a pathetic label) who encourage exchanges in which toys like Hula Hoops are given to children who turn in their toy guns – a sort of children’s version of firearm buybacks like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia">the one that disarmed Australians</a> back in the 90s. One of those is the California group Alliance for Survival, whose coordinator Jerry Rubin explains, “No one is saying that if you play with a toy gun, you’re going to grow up to be a violent killer.” No? Then why ban toy guns? Because “the game is still the same: pretend to kill your friends, pretend to kill your classmates.” Except that kids aren’t pretending to kill their friends and schoolmates; they’re pretending to kill <em>the bad guys</em>. Anti-toy gun activists like Rubin can’t comprehend that this might be healthy practice for when these children grow up and one day have to confront uncompromising evil in the real world.</p>
<p>This is all part of the radical left’s determination to make pariahs out of American gun owners, even if those guns dispense nothing more dangerous than bubbles or a deaf boy’s name. As the totalitarian hypocrite Eric Holder <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYyqBxD-3xw">said</a> at the Women’s National Democratic Club years ago, American youth need to be “brainwashed” into thinking negatively about guns. In fact, he urges kids to report gun owners to authorities, so be careful who knows you have a legally purchased and registered handgun, all you law-abiding moms and dads. You might find yourselves betrayed to the government by your own children, just like during China’s Cultural Revolution. “I’ve also asked the school board to make a part of every day some kind of anti-violence, anti-gun message,” Holder said, “every day, every school, at every level… We need to do this every day of the week and really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.”</p>
<p>This is the Attorney General who funneled guns into the hands of Mexican drug cartels, resulting in hundreds of murders. He is part of an administration that turns a blind eye to gun violence committed in this country by <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;frm=1&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;cad=rja&amp;ved=0CEAQqQIwAA&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.examiner.com%2Farticle%2Ffamily-research-council-shooter-used-splc-hate-map-media-silent&amp;ei=K84WUbfCMMn3igK224HwAQ&amp;usg=AFQjCNEQExpPHUxG8vSgfLi0zMyUNRSmMQ&amp;bvm=bv.42080656,d.cGE">leftists</a> or Islamic terrorists like the Fort Hood shooter, whose massacre was labeled “workplace violence” (as opposed to the kindergartner who <em>was</em> called a terrorist threat). The Obama administration cares about a tragedy like Sandy Hook only insofar as it is a crisis they don’t want to let go to waste. The administration says nothing about the ongoing handgun massacre of children in tightly gun-restricted Chicago, because it doesn’t fit their “ban guns to save the children” narrative, and because, quite frankly, they don’t care about saving the children anyway. What they care about is disarming the American populace. Their obsession with gun control is about big-government gun confiscation, not gun crime prevention, just as their demonization of guns in the minds of schoolchildren is also about disarming Americans and molding a generation of defenseless pacifists.</p>
<p>This hatred of guns is ragingly irrational. The left wants to indoctrinate upcoming generations into believing that, in any and all circumstances, guns – even imaginary ones; even a pointed index finger – are the apotheosis of violent evil. And yet the Obama administration has now opened the door to combat for women in the military. How are those women – and our young men  too, for that matter – supposed to deal with that disconnect, when from kindergarten onward they are relentlessly brainwashed to despise guns, and yet are now expected to go into combat and kill the enemy?</p>
<p>And then of course there is the hypocrisy of left-leaning Hollywood, which inundates young people with violent imagery and then pats itself on the back with smugly self-righteous <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;frm=1&amp;source=web&amp;cd=4&amp;cad=rja&amp;ved=0CEgQtwIwAw&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D64G5FfG2Xpg&amp;ei=StkWUZ6oNemXigKd44GgAw&amp;usg=AFQjCNEnaU23zMJu098teXGsAFRRkl8mRg&amp;bvm=bv.42080656,d.cGE">public service messages</a> calling for immediate political solutions to gun violence.</p>
<p>The left does not want American citizens to own guns – it’s that simple. And they want to shape our children into a helpless citizenry that entrusts its protection to the well-armed nanny state. They care nothing about the right of Americans to protect their homes, schools and loved ones from home invaders or burglars or rapists. They care least of all about our 2<sup>nd</sup> Amendment right to bear arms to oppose a tyrannical government, because that right stands in the way of the radical left’s tyrannical ambitions.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank">Click here</a>.  </strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/mark-tapson/brainwashing-kids-about-guns/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>21</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 1468/1667 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-31 12:44:44 by W3 Total Cache -->