What the media misses about Trump’s Sweden statements

Sure, President Trump could have been clearer in referencing what is happening to Sweden. He needs to work on that. But, his words, though inartfully spoken, are based in truth. Tucker Carlson sets the record straight

take a look at what a police officer in Sweden posted about his country. As Jenn Jacques points out it validates Trumps words

A social media post from a Swedish police investigator is laying validation at the feet of the United State President.

Trump’s comments during a Florida campaign rally on Saturday – which some took as a misstatement about a supposed terror attack – dovetail with what Springare has been seeing during a typical week in Orebro, Sweden.

Speaking from Melbourne, FL. on Friday, the President stated:

“You look at what’s happening last night in Sweden, Sweden. Who would believe this? Sweden. They took in large numbers. They’re having problems like they never thought possible.”

Five rapes, three assaults, a pair of extortions, blackmail, an attempted murder, violence against police and a robbery made up Springare’s caseload for a five-day period earlier this month, according to a Feb. 3 Facebook post he wrote. The suspects were all from Muslim-majority countries – Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia and Turkey – save for one Swedish man nabbed in a drug-related case.

In a Facebook post on February 3, 2016, police investigator Peter Springare shared his extreme displeasure with what has happened to his country after accepting hoards of Muslim immigrants:

You can go read his entire post at the link above

In short, the media is so busy trying to make the president look bad, and discredit him they are missing what price Sweden and the rest of Europe is paying for allowing massive immigration of people who do not share Western values. In other words, the media, again, is not investigating, reporting and informing. They are simply too busy attacking Trump to be what they are supposed to be, journalists.

So pretty much everything is racist now

Yes gun targets are now, well, you know

GUNS.com-

The No More Black Targets campaign argues that shooting ranges and instructors should not use “menacing” black targets, and is petitioning to end the practice, citing trigger bias.

“Young black men are 3X more likely to be shot by trained shooters than their white peers,” notes the site for the campaign. “A disturbing potential correlation: The most popular target for shooters to learn to use their firearm is a black silhouette. Unconscious bias can be deadly.”

Good Freaking Grief! But perhaps the most asinine claim is this

The group references a study by University of Illinois researchers that concluded shooters were more likely to fire at a black target.

One of the researhers in that study, Yara Mekawi, told National Public Radio in 2015 that people were “quicker to shoot black targets with a gun relative to white targets with a gun. And…people were more trigger-happy when shooting black targets compared to shooting white targets.”

 

Is John Bolton the leading man for National Security Advisor?

According to the Free Beacon, yes

Senior White House officials and members of the National Security Council are pushing former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton as a replacement for ousted national security adviser Michael Flynn, according to multiple sources in and out of the White House who spoke to the Washington Free Beacon.

Among Bolton’s most vocal supporters are senior administration officials loyal to Flynn and who are upset at the general’s firing. Multiple sources described an effort by these Flynn loyalists to ensure that Bolton is selected as his replacement.

The selection of Bolton as the next national security adviser would empower Flynn’s allies still in the White House and send a message that his national security vision is represented within the Trump administration. Bolton is also favored by White House staffers who are opposed to the selection of any candidate who criticized President Trump during the 2016 campaign.

I think Bolton is the best choice, he grasps the threats facing the nation. Plus, anyone so despised by Democrats has to be qualified

Senator Rubio fighting for gun rights in DC

Fighting for self-defense rights

Senator Marco Rubio’s resurrected Second Amendment Enforcement Act will ensure that law-abiding citizens in Washington, D.C. can exercise their Second Amendment right to carry a firearm, should it pass.

Emotionally charged anti-gunners are doing their best to keep the current stringent D.C. gun laws in place. Unfortunately, they don’t understand that federal laws, already in place, are more than sufficient to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals.

From the bill

Congress finds the following:

(1) The Supreme Court of the United States has confirmed that the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects a fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms independent of service in an organized militia.

(2) Federal courts have repeatedly found provisions of the gun control laws of the District of Columbia to be unconstitutional, most recently in the case of Palmer v. District of Columbia, 59 F. Supp. 3d 173 (D.D.C. 2014), which invalidated on Second Amendment grounds the District’s total ban on carrying firearms outside the home for self-defense. Despite these reproofs, District officials have repeatedly and publicly asserted their determination to continue passing laws aimed at curbing the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by law-abiding residents and visitors.

(3) The law-abiding residents of the District of Columbia are deprived by local laws of handguns, rifles, and shotguns that are commonly kept by law-abiding persons throughout the United States for sporting use and for lawful defense of their persons, homes, businesses, and families.

(4) The District of Columbia remains one of the most dangerous large cities in the United States. The District’s gun control regulations interfere with the right of law-abiding residents and visitors to protect themselves from violent crime.

(5) Federal law already provides comprehensive regulation of the manufacture, sale, and possession of firearms, including the licensing of commercial conduct. These regulations apply in the District of Columbia, as elsewhere. The District’s attempt to expand upon these regulations with its own regulations has created a confusing, onerous, and inhibiting environment for individuals in the District who wish to engage in lawful commercial activities relating to firearms.

(6) Legislation is required to correct the District of Columbia’s laws in order to restore the fundamental rights of its residents under the Second Amendment and thereby enhance public safety.

It is tragic that bills like this are needed, but given the craven nature of the Cult of Gun Control it is no surprise.