Group Of Female ISIS Supporters Infiltrated In London: ‘We Do Not Submit To The Law Of Any Country’

Undercover British TV Show Reports U.K. Muslim Moms Recruiting Girls For Islamic State: ‘We Do Not Submit To The Law Of Any Country’ – The Blaze

A British television network went undercover for a year among female supporters of the Islamic State group in London and reportedly found British mothers preaching that Allah will destroy Western militaries, that the “man-made” laws of Britain are to be rejected and that Muslims must travel to Syria to join the jihadist group.

In the program, “ISIS: The British Women Supporters Unveiled,” Britain’s Channel 4 reported that its investigation spanned the past year until about four weeks before the Paris attacks, which killed 129 people.


The undercover reporter, dressed in full Islamic garb, including covering her face, penetrated the closely guarded group by first setting up fake social media accounts that she used to communicate with three leading female Islamic State supporters in the U.K. who go by the names Umm Usmaan, Umm Saalihah, and Umm L, whom Channel 4 said it could not name for legal reasons.

The reporter, who presented herself as a woman named “Aisha,” said she is a Muslim who grew up in London and was willing to undertake personal risk in order to discover what has motivated an estimated 700 British Muslims to travel to Syria to fight for the jihadist group – among them 100 girls.

“Aisha” attended secret lectures in London, during which women preached the evils of the U.K. and democracy and described Jews as “filthy,” often with teenage and younger girls present.

The women pushed the notion that man-made laws are not to be followed, only the laws of Islam; therefore, democracy should be rejected.

“We do not submit to the law of any country, any nation,” said one of the women.

One of the women tweeted against wearing the traditional poppy on one’s lapel in honor of servicemen killed in war, describing a person who wears the red flower as an “apostate.”

Accusing Israel of killing Muslim children, the radical female activist Umm L said, “The amount of Muslim children – I won’t even use the word ‘Palestinian’ – Muslim children that are in custody of those filthy Jews.”

On the videos, Umm Usmaan frequently quoted Islamic religious texts to encourage people to travel to Syria, while Umm Saalihah told Muslims online to go work for the caliphate, the documentary reported.

Repeatedly, the British women attacked Britain for allegedly waging a war against them.

“Allah, one by one, he will destroy them,” one female preacher said regarding coalition fighters targeting jihadists.

Those launching air strikes on the Islamic State group in Syria were described as “cowards” and engaged in “killing innocent people.”

“Aisha” the undercover reporter saw online messages encouraging girls to travel to Syria.

“Start saving for a plane ticket and don’t tell anyone,” social media activists told the impressionable young Muslim women.

The documentary can be viewed at Channel 4.



Harvard Law Students OUTRAGED That School Was Built With Slaveowner’s Money… Just Not Enough To Quit Harvard

Harvard Law School Was Built Using A ‘Brutal’ Slaveowner’s Money, And Students Are Starting To Protest – Business Insider


Slave owner Isaac Royall Jr.’s gift to Harvard college upon his death in 1781 allowed the formation of Harvard Law School.

Now, students at the law school are calling for the removal of the law school’s seal, which is the Royall family’s coat of arms, The Harvard Crimson reported.

The movement is being called “Royall Must Fall” and formally began on campus at the end of October with a rally of about 25 people.

“These symbols set the tone for the rest of the school and the fact that we hold up the Harvard crest as something to be proud of when it represents something so ugly is a profound disappointment and should be a source of shame for the whole school,” Alexander J. Clayborne, one of the law students involved, told The Crimson.

More largely, the students aims seem to draw attention to and correct the legacy of slave-owning on Harvard’s campus.

“We demand the removal of the Harvard family crest as the crest of the law school and we demand that the Royall Chair of Law be renamed as well,” Students for Inclusion, a student group on campus, wrote on its Tumblr page.

“We also demand that systemic oppression be recognized as pervasive and endemic to the law school and we demand that it be addressed by the faculty and by the student body at large.”

However, there are dissenting opinions on whether the school should change its seal.

Visiting law school professor, Daniel R. Coquillette, recently published a book called “The Saga of Harvard Law School,” which details the relationship between the Royall family and Harvard.

While he calls Royall “a coward, and a brutal slaveholder,” he doesn’t believe Harvard should change its seal.

“As a historian… you just deal with the fact that this guy founded the school and tell the truth about it,” he said. “To change things is to act like [they] didn’t happen, and that’s a mistake.”



Senior U.S. Officials Conclude That Obama’s Nuclear Deal With Iran Violates Federal Law

U.S. Officials Conclude Iran Deal Violates Federal Law – Fox News


Some senior U.S. officials involved in the implementation of the Iran nuclear deal have privately concluded that a key sanctions relief provision – a concession to Iran that will open the doors to tens of billions of dollars in U.S.-backed commerce with the Islamic regime – conflicts with existing federal statutes and cannot be implemented without violating those laws, Fox News has learned.

At issue is a passage tucked away in ancillary paperwork attached to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, as the Iran nuclear deal is formally known. Specifically, Section 5.1.2 of Annex II provides that in exchange for Iranian compliance with the terms of the deal, the U.S. “shall… license non-U.S. entities that are owned or controlled by a U.S. person to engage in activities with Iran that are consistent with this JCPOA.”

In short, this means that foreign subsidiaries of U.S. parent companies will, under certain conditions, be allowed to do business with Iran. The problem is that the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act (ITRA), signed into law by President Obama in August 2012, was explicit in closing the so-called “foreign sub” loophole.

Indeed, ITRA also stipulated, in Section 218, that when it comes to doing business with Iran, foreign subsidiaries of U.S. parent firms shall in all cases be treated exactly the same as U.S. firms: namely, what is prohibited for U.S. parent firms has to be prohibited for foreign subsidiaries, and what is allowed for foreign subsidiaries has to be allowed for U.S. parent firms.

What’s more, ITRA contains language, in Section 605, requiring that the terms spelled out in Section 218 shall remain in effect until the president of the United States certifies two things to Congress: first, that Iran has been removed from the State Department’s list of nations that sponsor terrorism, and second, that Iran has ceased the pursuit, acquisition, and development of weapons of mass destruction.

Additional executive orders and statutes signed by President Obama, such as the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, have reaffirmed that all prior federal statutes relating to sanctions on Iran shall remain in full effect.

For example, the review act – sponsored by Sens. Bob Corker (R-Tennessee) and Ben Cardin (D-Maryland), the chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the Foreign Relations Committee, and signed into law by President Obama in May – stated that “any measure of statutory sanctions relief” afforded to Iran under the terms of the nuclear deal may only be “taken consistent with existing statutory requirements for such action.” The continued presence of Iran on the State Department’s terror list means that “existing statutory requirements” that were set forth in ITRA, in 2012, have not been met for Iran to receive the sanctions relief spelled out in the JCPOA.

As the Iran deal is an “executive agreement” and not a treaty – and has moreover received no vote of ratification from the Congress, explicit or symbolic – legal analysts inside and outside of the Obama administration have concluded that the JCPOA is vulnerable to challenge in the courts, where federal case law had held that U.S. statutes trump executive agreements in force of law.

Administration sources told Fox News it is the intention of Secretary of State John Kerry, who negotiated the nuclear deal with Iran’s foreign minister and five other world powers, that the re-opening of the “foreign sub” loophole by the JCPOA is to be construed as broadly as possible by lawyers for the State Department, the Treasury Department and other agencies involved in the deal’s implementation.

But the apparent conflict between the re-opening of the loophole and existing U.S. law leaves the Obama administration with only two options going forward. The first option is to violate ITRA, and allow foreign subsidiaries to be treated differently than U.S. parent firms. The second option is to treat both categories the same, as ITRA mandated – but still violate the section of ITRA that required Iran’s removal from the State Department terror list as a pre-condition of any such licensing.

It would also renege on the many promises of senior U.S. officials to keep the broad array of American sanctions on Iran in place. Chris Backemeyer, who served as Iran director for the National Security Council from 2012 to 2014 and is now the State Department’s deputy coordinator for sanctions policy, told POLITICO last month “there will be no real sanctions relief of our primary embargo… We are still going to have sanctions on Iran that prevent most Americans from… engaging in most commercial activities.”

Likewise, in a speech at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy last month, Adam Szubin, the acting under secretary of Treasury for terrorism and financial crimes, described Iran as “the world’s foremost sponsor of terrorism” and said existing U.S. sanctions on the regime “will continue to be enforced… U.S. investment in Iran will be prohibited across the board.”

Nominated to succeed his predecessor at Treasury, Szubin appeared before the Senate Banking Committee for a confirmation hearing the day after his speech to the Washington Institute. At the hearing, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) asked the nominee where the Obama administration finds the “legal underpinnings” for using the JCPOA to re-open the “foreign sub” loophole.

Szubin said the foreign subsidiaries licensed to do business with Iran will have to meet “some very difficult conditions,” and he specifically cited ITRA, saying the 2012 law “contains the licensing authority that Treasury would anticipate using… to allow for certain categories of activity for those foreign subsidiaries.”

Elsewhere, in documents obtained by Fox News, Szubin has maintained that a different passage of ITRA, Section 601, contains explicit reference to an earlier law – the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, on the books since 1977 – and states that the president “may exercise all authorities” embedded in IEEPA, which includes licensing authority for the president.

However, Section 601 is also explicit on the point that the president must use his authorities from IEEPA to “carry out” the terms and provisions of ITRA itself, including Section 218 – which mandated that, before this form of sanctions relief can be granted, Iran must be removed from the State Department’s terror list. Nothing in the Congressional Record indicates that, during debate and passage of ITRA, members of Congress intended for the chief executive to use Section 601 to overturn, rather than “carry out,” the key provisions of his own law.

One administration lawyer contacted by Fox News said the re-opening of the loophole reflects circular logic with no valid legal foundation. “It would be Alice-in-Wonderland bootstrapping to say that [Section] 601 gives the president the authority to restore the foreign subsidiary loophole – the exact opposite of what the statute ordered,” said the attorney, who requested anonymity to discuss sensitive internal deliberations over implementation of the Iran deal.

At the State Department on Thursday, spokesman John Kirby told reporters Secretary Kerry is “confident” that the administration “has the authority to follow through on” the commitment to re-open the foreign subsidiary loophole.

“Under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the president has broad authorities, which have been delegated to the secretary of the Treasury, to license activities under our various sanctions regimes, and the Iran sanctions program is no different,” Kirby said.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), the G.O.P. presidential candidate who is a Harvard-trained lawyer and ardent critic of the Iran deal, said the re-opening of the loophole fits a pattern of the Obama administration enforcing federal laws selectively.

“It’s a problem that the president doesn’t have the ability wave a magic wand and make go away,” Cruz told Fox News in an interview. “Any U.S. company that follows through on this, that allows their foreign-owned subsidiaries to do business with Iran, will very likely face substantial civil liability, litigation and potentially even criminal prosecution. The obligation to follow federal law doesn’t go away simply because we have a lawless president who refuses to acknowledge or follow federal law.”

A spokesman for the Senate Banking Committee could not offer any time frame as to when the committee will vote on Szubin’s nomination.



Project Veritas Hidden Camera Video Shows Hitlery Campaign Violating Election Law

O’Keeke Strikes Again: Undercover Video Purports To Show Hillary Campaign Violating Election Law – Big Government


An undercover video published Thursday by James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas purports to show Nevada-based Hillary Clinton campaign staffers and volunteers ignoring and knowingly violating Nevada’s voter registration laws. Moreover, the video appears to show that this conduct is being condoned and encouraged by a local attorney who works for the Clinton campaign.


According to the video, it is a felony in the state of Nevada for anyone involved in the voter registration process to “solicit a vote for or against a particular question or candidate; speak to a voter on the subject of marking his or her ballot for or against a particular question or candidate.”

The video appears to show that numerous Hillary Clinton campaign staffers are well aware of the law. Nevertheless, the video shows them laughing at the law and repeatedly bragging about violating it by promoting Hillary Clinton verbally and with campaign literature as they attempt to register potential voters.

The Project Veritas video further appears to show that the Clinton campaign staff solicits voter registration in close proximity to state offices, which may also violate Nevada law

According to the video, when the attorney in question, identified as Christina Gupana, was told about this alleged lawbreaking, she advised the staffers to, “Do whatever you can. Whatever you can get away with, just do it, until you get kicked out like totally.”

More than one staffer says that the campaign’s motto towards these laws is “Ask for forgiveness, not for permission.”



Clinton Crime Update: Hitlery’s Marketing Director Violates Campaign Finance Law On Hidden Camera

Busted! Clinton Campaign Director Violates Campaign Finance Law On Hidden Camera – Daily Caller


An undercover video filmed by James O’Keefe and Project Veritas purportedly shows Molly Barker – the national marketing director for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign – “knowingly and intentionally” violating campaign finance law.


Per Project Veritas:

During Clinton’s kickoff campaign event at Roosevelt Island, a Canadian citizen with no affiliation to Project Veritas Action attempted to make a donation to the Clinton campaign by purchasing a Hillary shirt. Barker knew that this was illegal, a fact which was confirmed by Clinton’s national Compliance Manager Erin Tibe, yet proceeded to process the contribution… Barker facilitated a straw man transaction where the Canadian citizen gave cash to an American citizen who subsequently purchased the shirt for the Canadian under Barker’s direction. Thus, Barker who was fully aware of the law didn’t merely look the other way like Tibe did, rather, she actually facilitated election illegalities.



A Clinton official told Time Magazine Monday that “the campaign is confident it upheld the law.”



Hitlery Calls Law Protecting Lives Of Viable Infants “Extreme And Unacceptable”

Hillary Clinton Calls Law Protecting Lives Of Viable Infants ‘Extreme And Unacceptable’ – Weekly Standard


This week, Wisconsin governor Scott Walker signed a law protecting the lives of infants after the fifth month of pregnancy (or 20 weeks after conception), a point in human development when babies can feel pain and survive long-term if born prematurely.

The law includes an exeption for cases in which a physical health issue endangers the life of the mother, but Hillary Clinton still denounced the late-term abortion ban as an “extreme and unacceptable” measure:

Hillary Clinton

Gov. Walker signed dangerous abortion restrictions into law in WI – without exceptions for rape or incest. Extreme and unacceptable. -H

8:43 PM – 20 Jul 2015

Clinton especially objects to the fact that Wisconsin’s law doesn’t include an exception to allow the killing of infants late in pregnancies that resulted from rape. But laws in the blue states of Pennsylvania and New York (which take effect, respectively, at 22 weeks and 24 weeks after conception) also prohibit late-term abortions in that circumstance. Does Clinton think liberal New York’s aboriton law is also “extreme and unacceptable”?

Scott Walker responded to Clinton with the following tweet:

Scott Walker

@HillaryClinton attacks me for protecting life after 5 months, but won’t condemn disgusting Planned Parenthood videos. -SW

5:44 PM – 21 Jul 2015

Republicans in Congress have not only tolerated the legality of abortion in pregnancies that result from rape, they have voted since 1993 for laws allowing federal Medicaid funding of abortions in these extreme cases in order to prohibit funding in more than 99 percent of other cases. But even if one accepts this exception for principled or prudential reasons, it does not follow that this exception must exist in the ninth month of pregnancy.

So does Clinton support any limits on abortion? She has given conflicting answers over the years, and her campaign still hasn’t answered several questions about her position on late-term abortion and taxpayer-funded abortion:

In 2005, Hillary Clinton said that “government should have no role” in limiting the right to abortion – a remark very similar to the one made by Wasserman Schultz this week. “This decision, which is one of the most fundamental, difficult, and soul-searching decisions a woman and a family can make, is also one in which the government should have no role,” Clinton said at the time.

But at other times, Clinton has claimed that she’d be willing to support a ban on late-term abortion. “I have said many times that I can support a ban on late-term abortions, including partial-birth abortions, so long as the health and life of the mother is protected,” Clinton said in a 2000 New York senatorial debate. Clinton did not define “health,” and supporters of a right to abortion have typically defined health exceptions so broadly–to include “mental and emotional” health–that any restriction on late-term abortion would be rendered meaningless. (In 2008, Barack Obama endorsed late-term abortion bans without a mental health exception, but quickly backtracked.)

So would Secretary Clinton support any federal law restricting late-term abortion? If so, how many weeks old must an unborn child be for the law to protect her? Must any restriction on late-term abortion include a “mental and emotional” health exception? And does Clinton still support taxpayer-funded elective abortions for Medicaid recipients?



Another Win For Walker – Wisconsin Voter ID Law Stands As USSC Rejects Appeal

Wisconsin Voter-ID Law Stands As Supreme Court Rejects Appeal – Bloomberg


The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for Wisconsin to implement a voter-identification law that opponents say is one of the strictest in the nation.

Rejecting without comment an appeal by civil rights groups, the justices Monday gave a victory to Republicans, including Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who have championed voter-ID laws around the country. Wisconsin is one of 30 states with ID laws and one of 17 that enacted measures since the Supreme Court upheld an Indiana statute in 2008.

Civil rights groups say ID requirements disproportionately affect minority and low-income voters while doing little if anything to protect against fraud. The organizations pressing the Wisconsin appeal said 300,000 registered voters in that state lack a qualifying ID.

“The right to vote is the foundational element of American democracy,” the groups argued. “Increasingly restrictive voter ID laws like Wisconsin’s Act 23 unjustifiably burden the voting rights of millions of registered voters, particularly African-Americans and Latinos.”

Wisconsin officials led by Walker, a potential presidential candidate, defended the law. They argued that it will impose a minimal burden on voters while providing more assurance of a fraud-free election.

‘Overwhelming Majority’

“In Wisconsin, as elsewhere, the overwhelming majority of voters already have qualifying ID,” Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel argued. “For those who lack ID, obtaining one and bringing it to the polling place is generally no more of a burden than the process of voting itself.”

In a statement Monday, Schimel said the voter-ID law won’t take effect for an April 7 election for judicial offices because absentee ballots already have been sent to voters.

“The voter-ID law will be in place for future elections,” he said.

In October the Supreme Court blocked the Wisconsin law from applying to the Nov. 4 election. A lower court had revived the law weeks earlier, and civil rights groups told the high court at the time that hasty implementation would mean widespread confusion.

Lower courts have largely backed voter-ID laws. In a notable exception, a federal trial judge said Texas’s statute was the product of intentional discrimination. That case is now before a federal appeals court and could make its way to the Supreme Court before the 2016 election.

2014 Election

Unlike with Wisconsin, the Supreme Court let the Texas law take effect for the 2014 election.

In the latest Wisconsin appeal, groups led by the League of United Latin American Citizens argued that the 2011 state law violated the U.S. constitutional guarantee of equal protection and the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Wisconsin’s law lets voters use any of eight forms of identification, including in-state driver’s licenses, state-issued photo IDs for non-drivers and military IDs. The state also accepts some student identification cards, though not those from the University of Wisconsin campuses.

A federal trial judge invalidated the measure, saying it would deter many residents from voting. The judge also said the state hadn’t pointed to any recent instances of voter impersonation in Wisconsin.

A three-judge federal appeals panel in Chicago reversed that decision, pointing to new rules the state issued to help people obtain the documentation they need to get IDs. Officials took that step after the Wisconsin Supreme Court, in a separate case, said people must be able to get IDs without having to pay a fee for documents.

‘Fig Leaf’

The panel’s ruling drew a rebuke from Judge Richard Posner, who argued unsuccessfully for reconsideration by a larger group of judges. Posner said voter-impersonation fraud was “a mere fig leaf for efforts to disenfranchise voters.”

The Supreme Court in 2008 upheld Indiana’s voter-ID law on a 6-3 vote. Writing the court’s lead opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens said voter fraud was a real risk that “could affect the outcome of a close election.”

Stevens said the record in the Indiana case “does not provide any concrete evidence of the burden imposed on voters who currently lack photo identification.”

The Wisconsin civil rights groups say the trial in their case produced that type of evidence. State officials say the two laws are indistinguishable after the changes required by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

The case is Frank v. Walker, 14-803.



*VIDEOS* House Committees: Hearings On Executive Amnesty And Immigration Law Enforcement





……………………….Click on image above to watch video.


Related videos:






*VIDEO* Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore Sets CNN’s Chris Cuomo Straight On Where Our Rights Come From



Related audio:




Supreme Court Upholds Texas Voter ID Law

Supreme Court Allows Texas Use Of New Voter ID Law – Wall Street Journal


The U.S. Supreme Court on Saturday allowed Texas to enforce its voter identification law for the Nov. 4 midterm elections, denying emergency requests from the Obama administration and other challengers who said the law harmed minority voting rights.

The high court’s move, announced in an early morning order, is a setback for civil-rights advocates and marks the court’s fourth recent action on a state’s election procedures just ahead of Election Day.

A federal judge in Texas last week struck down the state law after holding a trial on the issue and concluding lawmakers acted with discriminatory intent when they enacted the law in 2011.

Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos said the Texas law was the strictest in the country for several reasons, including because it allowed the fewest forms of acceptable photo identification and didn’t make certain accommodations for the poor and the elderly.

The judge said more than half a million registered voters, many of them black or Hispanic, were expected to lack the ID necessary to vote in person at the polls.

This week the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, acting on an emergency appeal by state officials, decided Texas could use the voter ID law for this election. The appeals court said the state already had been training poll workers to apply the voter ID law and said it was too late to change the rules so close to the date when voters were due to begin casting ballots. Early voting in Texas begins Monday.

The appeals court said it was guided in part by recent Supreme Court emergency actions on election rules in Ohio, North Carolina and Wisconsin. The results in those cases pointed in different directions, but in each case the justices blocked late changes to state election procedures, seemingly out of concern for voter confusion. The high court didn’t offer an explanation for its course of action in those cases.

The same held true Saturday when a majority of the court issued a brief written order that allowed Texas to use its voter ID law. But three justices – Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan – dissented, saying the court should have intervened.

“The greatest threat to public confidence in elections in this case is the prospect of enforcing a purposefully discriminatory law, one that likely imposes an unconstitutional poll tax and risks denying the right to vote to hundreds of thousands of eligible voters,” Justice Ginsburg wrote for the dissenters.

The Justice Department and civil rights groups had filed emergency appeals with the Supreme Court, saying there was no justification for allowing Texas to use the voter ID law after a judge found it to be discriminatory.

Texas said in court papers that its law wasn’t discriminatory and was approved to deter and detect voter fraud. The state also disputed the trial judge’s finding that large numbers of voters could be disenfranchised, saying it had taken extensive steps to mitigate “the already minor inconveniences associated with securing photo identification.”

The Supreme Court action Saturday wasn’t a ruling on the legality of the Texas law. The court was considering only whether the law could be applied while Texas appealed the trial judge’s ruling.

With the high court’s action in favor of Texas, three of the court’s four recent emergency actions in election matters have favored the states. The court also allowed Ohio to cut back on early voting and let North Carolina prohibit same-day voter registration and out-of-precinct voting. In a win for civil rights advocates, the court blocked Wisconsin from enforcing its voter ID law for the midterms.



Missouri Legislature Overrules Leftist Governor’s Veto Of Law Allowing Teachers To Be Armed In School

Missouri Legislature Overrules Dem Governor’s Veto, Provides Huge Gun Rights Victory – TPNN


Our system of government was designed with a redundancy of checks and balances. In recent years, Democrats have charged Republicans with supposed obstruction and have maintained that their unwillingness to rubber-stamp the president’s agenda is, somehow, an anti-American concept when, in reality, blocking bad ideas from becoming law is a tremendously American idea upon which our system of government relies.

Similarly, across the country, there have been battles in state legislatures as one party battles another. Recently, Missouri passed legislation that would allow schools to train teachers in the use of firearms and allow such teachers to defend students from a would-be attacker.

The legislation, SB 656, was vetoed by Democrat Governor Jay Nixon. With regards to his veto, Nixon stated, “Arming teachers will not make our schools safer. I have supported and will continue to support the use of duly authorized law enforcement officers employed as school resource officers, but I cannot condone putting firearms in the hands of educators who should be focused on teaching our kids.”

What’s amazing is that every time a “bad guy with a gun” seeks to create carnage, the defenseless are forced to run, hide and cower and pray that a trained “good guy with a gun” makes it to the scene in time to save their life. What this legislation accomplishes is exactly that plus offering the added benefit of a deterrent effect.

I ask: how many would-be shooters would be willing to wage an assault on a school knowing that there are trained, armed teachers everywhere? This legislation will save lives.

However, our representative democracy prevailed as this week, Missouri’s House and Senate voted to override the governor’s veto and the legislation is set to become law.

The House voted to overrule the governor 117 to 39 and the Senate voted to overrule Nixon 23 to 8.

SB 656 doesn’t just arm teachers, but makes adjustments to current laws concerning concealed carrying of firearms. It disallows public housing authorities to infringe upon “a lessee or a member of the lessee’s immediate household or guest [to] personally [possess] firearms.”

It further augments the places in which open and concealed carry is lawful and even lowers the concealed permit requirements from 21 years of age to 19. It also prohibits healthcare professionals from inquiring about a patient’s firearm ownership.

This is a tremendous step in the right direction and an affirmation of our American values. More guns in the hands of responsible citizens has been the only tried-and-true method of lowering violent crime and the right to carry and use firearms in defense of oneself or another is a right that must be recognized and supported.

The anti-Second Amendment crowd is sure to hate this development, but for those who love freedom and have a clear understanding of our rights as Americans should rejoice at the news of this victory that is relatively undiscussed within the leftstream media.



Rep. Issa: Voicemail Left By Former Top Obama Regime Official A Clear Violation Of Federal Law (Audio)

Listen To The Voicemail Left By Former Top Obama Administration Official That Darrell Issa Says Is A Clear Violation Of Federal Law – The Blaze

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) is sounding the alarm regarding new alleged audio of former Labor Secretary Hilda Solis leaving a voicemail for someone “off the record” to ask the individual to contribute and help organize a fundraising event for President Barack Obama’s campaign. Issa says Solis violated the Hatch Act, which prohibits political activity on official time.

In his opening statement during a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on Wednesday, Issa played the voicemail Solis reportedly left to pressure a Labor Department employee to donate to Obama’s re-election campaign.


Read a transcript of the controversial Solis voicemail:

“Hi – this is Hilda Solis calling, um, just calling you off-the-record here – Wanted to ask you if you could, um, help us get folks organized to come to a fundraiser that we’re doing for Organizing for America for Obama campaign on Friday at La Fonda at 6 p.m. Steven Smith, an attorney, and his staff are helping us [inaudible]. There are a lot of folks that we know that are coming but wanted to ask you if you might help contribute or get other folks to help out. I would encourage you to call this number, [inaudible] – that’s his assistant – at [phone number] and you can call [the attorney] yourself who’s a good friend, an attorney, good friend of mine, at [phone number]. And it’s for a Friday event at La Fonda [inaudible] we’re just trying to raise money to show that we have support here in [inaudible].”


Issa went on to slam the Obama administration for showing what he called an “indefensible” attempt to avoid oversight.

“It is deeply ironic that an administration claiming to be the most transparent ever, has resisted oversight of its political office and offered less corroboration than its predecessors,” he said.

Watch Issa’s full opening statement below:




Louisiana Governor Jindal Signs Two Expanded Gun Rights Bills Into Law

Bobby Jindal Signs Gun Rights Bills Into Law – Tea Party

Gov. Bobby Jindal signed two bills into law Friday (May 23) that will expand gun rights for Louisiana residents after they received overwhelming support from the state Legislature. The new statutes will go into effect Aug. 1.


The more sweeping of the two gun rights measures will allow people with concealed handgun permits to carry their weapons into restaurants that serve alcohol, but make most of their money from food sales.

Present law does not allow citizens to carry guns into establishments that serve alcohol. And while people with concealed handgun permits will be able to go into a restaurant serving alcohol soon, they still wouldn’t be able to drink alcohol while packing heat.

The soon-to-be law also gives current and retired law enforcement officers as well as district attorneys and judges even more flexibility than the general public when it comes to concealed weapons. Those in law enforcement would be allowed to carry guns into bars, though they also couldn’t drink while carrying a weapon.

In present law, law enforcement officers are only allowed to have their guns in a bar if they are acting in an official capacity. Even under the new law, local sheriffs will still be able to prohibit their own officers from carrying guns into bars if they didn’t think it was a good idea.

The second bill signed by Jindal will expand the “stand your ground” law in Louisiana. Under current law, a person who kills an intruder coming into his car or house is given the benefit of the doubt and can use self-defense as a lawful reason for the killing. But the same self-defense argument could not be legally applied to situations where a person hurt, but didn’t kill, the intruder.

Metairie Rep. Joe Lopinto, the sponsor of the legislation, said he wanted to close that loophole. People who end up harming – but not killing – an intruder or a carjacker should not be charged with murder if those who kill those people don’t face those consequences, he said.

“Stand your ground” laws are controversial, particularly after it was thought Florida resident George Zimmerman would use such a statute to defend his high-profile shooting of teenager Trayvon Martin.

There has also been a controversial “stand your ground” case in New Orleans, where a 33-year-old Marigny homeowner shot an unarmed 14-year-old. Lopinto said his legislation would not apply to this particular case because the shooting took place outdoors.

In an unusual move for Louisiana, the Legislature and Jindal have agreed to enact one new gun restriction. Domestic abusers under a legal protective order will be prevented from owning a gun for 10 years under a new law that will go into effect Aug. 1.

The National Rifle Association – which usually fights gun restrictions – remained neutral on the domestic abuser provision, which is probably one of the reasons the pro-gun Legislature and Jindal agreed to pass it.

When presenting the restriction, state Sen. J.P. Morrell said Louisiana has a particularly high rate of fatalities related to domestic abuse. ”We lead the nation in spouses murdering spouses with firearms,” he said.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story


Georgia Governor Nathan Deal Signs Bill Into Law Allowing Guns In Churches, Bars And School Zones

Georgia Gov. Signs Bill Allowing Guns In Churches, Bars, And School Zones – CNS

Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal signed into law Wednesday a bill that expands gun rights in the state to allow weapons in government buildings, bars, places of worship, and school zones under certain circumstances.


Under House Bill 60, also known as the Safe Carry Protection Act of 2014, school districts will get to decide whether to allow authorized personnel to carry weapons within school safety zones under certain circumstances.

In addition, church leaders will be able to decide whether to allow licensed gun owners to bring weapons into their place of worship. The law also removes fingerprinting requirements for renewal licenses.

The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action called the bill the “most comprehensive pro-gun bill in state history.”

Deal, who characterized himself as a staunch defender of the Second Amendment, said the measure “will protect the constitutional rights of Georgians who have gone through a background check to legally obtain a Georgia Weapons Carry License.”

“Roughly 500,000 Georgia citizens have a permit of this kind, which is approximately 5 percent of our population,” Deal said in a press release. “License holders have passed background checks and are in good standing with the law. This law gives added protections to those who have played by the rules – and who can protect themselves and others from those who don’t play by the rules.”

“Our nation’s founders put the right to bear arms on par with freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Georgians cherish their Second Amendment rights, and this law embodies those values,” he added.

Executive Director Pia Carusone of Americans for Responsible Solutions, which lobbied against the bill, called it “extremism in action.”

“It moves Georgia out of the mainstream,” Carusone said. “Since the Georgia House first passed this expansive legislation, thousands of Georgians and tens of thousands of Americans have said loud and clear that they are tired of the gun lobby advancing its extreme agenda at the expense of their families’ safety.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story


Obama Signs Into Law Ted Cruz Bill That Passed With Unanimous Consent Then Immediately Refuses To Enforce It

Obama Signs Cruz ‘Anti-Terrorist’ Bill Into Law, Says He WON’T Enforce It – TPNN


In 1979, there was a student takeover of the United States Embassy in Tehran. For 444 days, 52 Americans were held hostage. Then President Jimmy Carter was lambasted for his weak foreign policy which lead the Iranians to view him as an inconsequential leader. Therefore, they did not fear America. When Ronald Reagan became president in 1980, with the spinelessness of Jimmy Carter purged from the White House, the hostages were released on the very day of his inauguration.

But, the pain of those nearly 15 months in captivity would linger not just for those held hostage, but for America as the people remembered that horrible time in our history. The country would have to recover and again position itself as a world leader to be feared and respected.

We have seen our position of power in the world erode over the last 5 years, with the most recent indicator being the invasion of Ukraine by Russian President Vladimir Putin, a former KGB operative who is unafraid of Obama’s weak warnings.

As the world has watched this invasion, events that some believe are a signal to the beginning of another Cold War, the pain caused by the Iran hostage crisis some 35 years ago is being renewed.

Hamid Abutalebi has been selected by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani as their United States Ambassador. Abutalebi was one of the hostage takers of those 52 Americans. While he claims he only served as a translator and negotiator, the United States Congress voted unanimously to deny his entry into the United States, since the U.N. meetings are held in New York.

The bill passed by Congress was authored by Republican Senator Ted Cruz from Texas and Congressman Doug Lamborn from Colorado. After the bill passed unanimously with bi-partisan support, Cruz and Lamborn released the following statements in calling for Obama to sign the bill to prevent terrorists from obtaining visas to enter the U.S. as U.N. ambassadors.

Congress has voted unanimously in support of a bill to reject Iran’s deliberately insulting nomination of a known terrorist – one of the 1979 hostage-takers – to be their ambassador to the United Nations,” said Sen. Cruz. “I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for supporting it, and urge the President to act quickly. We, as a country, can send an unequivocal message to rogue nations like Iran that the United States will not tolerate this kind of provocative and hostile behavior.”

“I have been working hard with House Leadership to move this bill even before it passed the Senate,” said Congressman Lamborn. “I appreciate House Leadership’s rapid response to my request to quickly bring the Cruz/Lamborn bill to the House Floor for a vote. It will give the President the power to prevent an Iranian terrorist from entering our country with diplomatic immunity. This is a great example of leadership in action by both Houses of Congress. After Senator Cruz worked to ensure Senate passage earlier in the week, I felt that it was extremely important that the House respond in-kind by considering the Cruz/Lamborn bill in an expedited manner. It is great to see Congress send a strong, bipartisan message that Iranian evildoers will be treated like terrorists, not tourists. Terrorists, from Iran or elsewhere, should not be allowed to walk the streets of Manhattan with diplomatic immunity.”

Individuals with diplomatic immunity cannot be prosecuted or even charged with so much as a traffic ticket, let alone an act of terrorism.

Eight days later, President Obama has signed the bill into law, but, according to the Washington Examiner, he immediately released a statement saying that he would not enforce the law. While Obama recognized the concerns of Congress regarding allowing a terrorist to gain access to our country, he stated the following to explain his decision to ignore the law of the land.

“Acts of espionage and terrorism against the United States and our allies are unquestionably problems of the utmost gravity, and I share the Congress’s concern that individuals who have engaged in such activity may use the cover of diplomacy to gain access to our Nation.”

When Bush was president, then Senator Obama was extremely critical of him for signing such statements stating that, “Congress’s job is to pass legislation. The president can veto it or he can sign it.” The statements that Bush signed did not grant a terrorist unfettered access to our country.

Now that Obama is president, he has demonstrated time and again his complete disregard for any laws that he does not like. Certain laws, like his signature legislation Obamacare, are deemed the law of the land that must be followed. However, he very often changes parts of that law unconstitutionally via executive order to fit his political needs. With others, such as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), he would, in his lawlessness, decide that he would not enforce the law.

His decision to sign the bill into law, but immediately state that he will not enforce it flies in the face of the rule of law upon which this country was built and endangers America.

Obama’s disregard for the law as passed by Congress and signed by him, thereby allowing a known terrorist who committed an act of terrorism against the American people unto American soil, comes days after the one year anniversary of the terrorist bombing at the Boston Marathon. Iran was insistent that the terrorist Abutalebi was their choice for ambassador. When the U.S. threatened denial, they requested an investigation by the U.N.

Thanks to Obama, no investigation is needed. The President of the United States is going to allow a known terrorist to violate the law with no repercussions and give him complete access to America and its citizens with diplomatic immunity.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story


New Jersey CEO Warns State Assembly “We Will Not Comply” With Proposed Gun Control Law (Video)

New Jersey CEO Takes A Stand Over Proposed Gun Control Bill, Warns Lawmakers ‘We Will Not Comply’ Just Like Connecticut – The Blaze


A New Jersey man warned a State Assembly committee last week that he and other gun owners in the state “will not comply” with a proposed gun control bill to further limit magazine capacity.

During the March 13 hearing, Anthony P. Colandro told lawmakers that the proposed bill would turn law-abiding gun owners into criminals overnight. Colandro is the CEO of Gun for Hire, a firearm training center in New Jersey, and expressed concern regarding what the law could do to his business.

“I own, personally, approximately $30,000 of guns, contrary to what Cease Fire New Jersey Says, that they do not make 10-round magazines for,” he explained. “I also have in my possession at my range over $20,000 of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.”

He then asked the chairman of the committee who exactly would be compensating him if the items suddenly become illegal.

“Have you guys seen what is happening in Connecticut right now?” he continued. “One million gun owners in New Jersey are also gonna say, like our brothers and sisters in the north, that we will not comply. And I can tell you here and now, I will not comply.”


The bill currently under consideration, known as A2006, bans all magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. The proposed law exempts firearms with .22 caliber tubular magazines.

After more than three hours of testimony last Thursday, the Assembly Law and Public Safety Committee voted 5-3 to advance the bill. The bill then cleared Democratic-controlled Assembly on Thursday with a 46-31 margin. A version of the proposed law has been introduced in the state Senate but has yet to come up in a committee for a vote.

As TheBlaze reported last week, Shyanne Roberts, a 9-year-old competitive shooter, also appeared before the New Jersey Law and Public Safety Committee last week speak against the proposed law.

“I have worked and trained very hard to get to the level I am at and if A2006 becomes law, I will be forced to choose between giving up on a very great and promising future in a sport that I love or asking my dad to move to another state,” she said. “I will not be giving up my sport.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story


Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals Strikes Down California Law Restricting Concealed Carry

Ninth Circuit Strikes Down CA Law Restricting Concealed Carry – Big Government

In a 2-1 decision issued on February 13th, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled “San Diego County violates the Constitution’s Second Amendment by requiring residents to show ‘good cause'” before being allowed “to obtain a concealed carry permit.”


The court ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is, in and of itself, a sufficient cause for bearing arms for self-defense. Moreover, it is a sufficient cause both inside and outside of one’s domicile.

According to SFGate, Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain’s majority opinion emphasized “the right to bear arms includes the right to carry an operable arm outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense.”

He said the Second Amendment must be read as including "the right to carry weapons outside the home" because "the risk of armed confrontation" is in no way limited to one's home. He supported his points by citing the examples of "a woman toting a small handgun in her purse as she walks through a dangerous neighborhood or a night-shift worker carrying a handgun in his coat as he travels to and from his job site."

O'Scannlain "disagreed with federal appeals courts that have upheld [similar] requirements" in states like New York and New Jersey, where citizens also have to show "good cause" to get a concealed permit.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story


California’s Activist Supreme Court Rules Illegal Alien Can Practice Law In State

Illegal Immigrant Allowed To Practice Law, California Court Rules – Wall Street Journal

A Mexican immigrant who is living in the country illegally but had graduated from law school and passed the California bar was granted a law license Thursday by the state’s highest court.


In a unanimous decision, the California Supreme Court granted a motion filed by the state bar’s Committee of Examiners to admit 36-year-old Sergio C. Garcia. Mr. Garcia, who will open his own practice in Chico, Calif., after he is sworn in, can now legally be retained as an attorney in the state, though he cannot be employed by a firm, attorneys representing him said.

In an interview, Mr. Garcia said he was satisfied with the decision, as it was always his intention to practice privately, in the area of civil litigation. Attorneys who represented Mr. Garcia said he is the first attorney living openly in the U.S. as an illegal immigrant granted the right to practice law. Similar cases are before courts in New York and Florida.

“Right now, I am super excited, I am super happy; this has been a long, drawn-out struggle,” Mr. Garcia said. “This case in California serves as a beacon for the rest of the country to follow suit. There really is no national interest for keeping somebody like me from practicing, and paying taxes to their full potential.”

The decision to grant Mr. Garcia a law license came after California Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, signed into state law legislation that specifically allows undocumented immigrants to be admitted as attorneys. That law went into effect Wednesday.

Thursday’s decision by the state Supreme Court, which grants licenses to attorneys in the state, clears the way for admission to the bar of at least one other current applicant in California who is in the country illegally.

At issue in Mr. Garcia’s case was a federal law that prohibits people in the country illegally from obtaining professional licenses. That law had a subsection that allowed states to grant licenses if a state law was passed.

It isn’t clear what impact Mr. Garcia’s case might have beyond California. While the precedent set by the high court in the country’s most populous state is noteworthy, the decision came only after the state legislature acted.

Mr. Garcia was born in Mexico but was brought to the U.S. when he was about 18 months old. He returned to Mexico at the age of nine, and then came back to the U.S. at the age of 17, according to the summary of his case that was part of the court’s opinion. Mr. Garcia’s father filed an immigration visa petition on his son’s behalf in 1994. That application has been pending since 1995, given the visa backlog for individuals from Mexico.

Mr. Garcia graduated from high school, attended college and received his law degree in 2009 from Cal Northern School of Law, passing the bar that same year. After he listed his immigration status as “pending” in his application to the state bar, the bar conducted an investigation into Mr. Garcia and determined the immigrant possessed the “good moral character” to qualify.

Jerome Fishkin, an attorney in Walnut Creek, Calif., who originally took Mr. Garcia’s case pro bono with his wife, Lindsay Slatter, said that it was immediately clear that Mr. Garcia’s immigration status was the main issue, and that Mr. Garcia met all other requirements to be a good attorney.

Steven Camarota, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit group that wants to reduce the flow of immigrants to the U.S., said the decision was a mockery of the rule of law.

“It conveys or demonstrates once again, how we are not serious about our laws,” Mr. Camarota said.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story


In today’s edition of Wrong House Asshole………….

Via Bearing Arms

Bearing Arms reader reported this defensive gun use that happened just five blocks away from him:

Police say Antione Garret, 34, and his girlfriend awoke to the sound of someone breaking into their home on Leybourn Avenue. When Garret heard the front window shatter, he ran downstairs and saw Randy Estrada, 21, climbing inside. Garret fired his handgun several times, until Estrada climbed back out the window and ran away.

A short time later, Estrada called 911 to report that he had been shot and was taken to a Toledo hospital for treatment. He is expected to survive his injuries.

“If someone’s breaking into your house and you fear for your safety, you have the right to defend yourself and your family. And in this case, that’s what we believe Mr. Garret has done,” said Sgt. Joe Heffernan with the Toledo Police Department.

Bob Owens, who runs Bearing Arms makes a great point in this post. the man defending his home will never be charged because he fired to stop the threat. Once the intruder fled, that threat was neutralized. 


And here come the Leftists attacking Stand Your Ground again

Bearing Arms has the story, and yes it is tragic, and sad, but the last thing to blame should be common sense self-defense laws, or the armed home owner

It had to be a terrifying experience for Joe Hendrix and his fiancee. They’d just moved into a new home two weeks before, and at 4:00 AM Wednesday morning, someone knocked on the front door, then tried to open it. Hendrix’s fiancee called 911, and he armed himself with a .40 S&W pistol.

After ten minutes law enforcement officers had still not arrived. Hendrix opened the back door and went outside. Why he made this decision isn’t clearly explained in any of the accounts presented so far.

What we do know is that when Hendrix entered the back yard he encountered a figure in the darkness and raised his gun. He issued commands including a command to stop, but the figure kept coming closer, with something in his hands, without saying a word. Hendrix fired four shots. One of them struck the figure in the chest. The figure—a man—crumpled to the ground, and there he lay until the coroner took his body away mid-morning.

The figure that had knocked on the door, tried to turn the door handle, and who kept coming in the darkness, was Ronald Westbrook.

Westbrook was a 72-year-old Air Force veteran who was suffering from advanced Alzheimer’s disease. Hendrix could not have known at the time.

Westbrook had been wandering for hours in 20-degree temperatures, and was three miles from home. Authorities speculate that Westbrook was drawn to the front porch light of Hendrix’s home on an otherwise darkened street. His dementia had left him slow to speak (some say mute), and he was probably both very confused and exhausted.

The local sheriff went to church with Mr. Westbrook and knows his family. He acknowledges that Mr. Hendrix had every right to be in his yard, and every right to fire his gun at a figure in the dark that kept coming towards him without saying a word. One of his own deputies might have even dropped the proverbial ball, having stopped Westbrook at 2:30 AM, but let him continue wandering.

It’s hard to argue that Westbrook was a threat, but just as hard to claim that Hendrix shouldn’t have felt threatened when a darkened figure refused to listen to the warning that Hendrix was armed and that he should stop coming closer.

The media is already lining up to blame Georgia’s version of the stand-your ground law, a law journalists don’t understand any more than they understand anything else about firearms.

The media doesn’t ask why a man with advanced dementia was left in a situation where he could wander around for hours without being missed. They don’t ask how the situation might have been resolved if the deputy who encountered Westbrook at 2:30 AM had been more curious about an old man doddering along alone in the dark on a frigid night.  The media doesn’t bother to ask if the situation would have ended any differently at all if the responding deputies encountered Westbrook lurching toward them in the dark. They don’t ask if he was already well along the way towards dying from exposure after being in 20 degree temperatures for four hours in his delicate state.

No, there is a law to scapegoat! For the media, that is all that really matters in a profession that is far more interested in promoting political propaganda that it is reporting inconvenient details surrounding an unfortunate event.

As I said, this is a tragic story. But no more tragic than if the poor man suffering from Alzheimer’s would have died of exposure. More details will emerge. and evidence will come forward, so jumping to any solid conclusions would be ill-advised. But that will not stop the media or the gun grabbers will it? I cannot see how anyone could blame the homeowner, again, assuming his account is accurate. But, I am sure he will be raked over the coals because he dared to go outside. But, he has every right to do so. And to do so armed, and yes, to fire at a figure approaching him in the dark.