WND Pundit Gina Loudon: Democrats Want To 'Destroy Marriage' In Order To Cause Violence So They Can Ban Guns
WorldNetDaily pundit Gina Loudon is out with a new column titled “8 Reasons Why Democrats Hate Traditional Marriage.”
We won’t get into all of the reasons that Loudon has uncovered, but she does tell us that Democrats want to bring an end to “traditional marriage” since they want couples to be sick, poor and childless.
Loudon even claims that Democrats seek to “destroy marriage” because they are “opposed to people being mentally healthier,” arguing that Democrats secretly hope for a “mentally deranged person to act out violently” so they can “rush to a TV camera to call for more gun control” and make sure that “all guns were banned.”Have you ever wondered what it is about traditional marriage that is so offensive to Democrats?
1) Married people overwhelmingly vote Republican
For the last several elections, traditionally married people have overwhelmingly voted Republican. Married men and women supported Romney by 14 percent. Married women alone supported Romney by seven points. If only married people were allowed to vote, the GOP couldn’t lose no matter how hard it tried – no matter how spineless and worthless its candidates. The inverse is also true. If Democrats can cause fewer people to get married and fewer people to value traditional marriage, Democrats can destroy the GOP’s advantage among that group of voters.
2) Married people are physically healthier
Studies throughout the years have all agreed that in almost every way, married couples are physically healthier. Married people live longer, are less likely to develop cancer and heart disease, and are healthier in more ways than can be listed here.
You may wonder why Democrats are opposed to people being healthy.
Simply put, when people are healthy, they don’t need help from the government. Of course, no matter how healthy one may be, we are all now forced to purchase health insurance.
3) Married people are mentally healthier
Married people are less likely to suffer depression, develop dementia, commit suicide and are protected from a host of other disorders. Married people are also more likely to describe themselves as happy.
But why would Democrats be opposed to people being mentally healthier?
All it takes is one mentally deranged person to act out violently for Democrats to rush to a TV camera to call for more gun control and government surveillance. If only government agents were able to snoop on everyone (conservatives) 24/7, they could prevent violent outbursts. Also, they claim that if all guns were banned (except from men who guard the president and leftist politicians), there would be no more gun violence.
4) Married people are wealthier
Research done by Ohio State University found that married people individually are almost twice as wealthy (93 percent wealthier) than single people.
To a Democrat, that screams income inequality. It is unfair in the mind of a progressive for married people to have more money than unmarried people. Besides, what did those evil married people do to steal that money from everyone else? Don’t worry. Democrats will turn those tax credits for married couples into taxes levied against married couples. If only those pesky right-wing extremists would get out of the way, they could tax traditional marriage out of existence. That hasn’t been formally proposed yet, but don’t think that hasn’t crossed the minds of Democrats in D.C.
8) Marriage promotes children
Organizations like ZPG (Zero Population Growth), Planned Parenthood and even animal rights groups flourish when fewer children are born, or when having fewer children is the goal. All of those organizations are arms of the Democratic Party, so when they flourish, so does the cash in the coffers of the Democratic Party.
Should the government just stay out of marriage? No!
Democrats flourish when marriage is diminished, but many on the right side of the political spectrum still refuse to take a stand on the issue. They have fallen for the lie of the left that conservatives should be neutral on the issue. The idea that the government should “stay out of marriage” is exactly what the left would love the right to believe. If Democrats and their allies actively push to destroy marriage, and Republicans can be convinced that they should be neutral on the issue, then Democrats will win this one easily and traditional marriage will be something we will soon read about in history books.
h/t: Brian Tashman at RWW
Last month, an Arkansas gun range owner named Jan Morgan got some national attention when she declared her business a “Muslim free zone,” writing on her website, “This is more than enough loss of life on my home soil at the hands of muslims to substantiate my position that muslims can and will follow the directives in their Koran and kill here at home.”
What many news reports missed is that Morgan is not just the owner of a single shooting range, but a national gun activist who has spoken at multiple events for the “religious liberty” group Liberty Counsel as well as Tea Party gatherings and last month’s misnamed “Two Million Bikers” rally against President Obama.
And Morgan has some friends in high places in the gun lobby. In an interview with Arizona-based radio host Josh Bernstein this week, Gun Owners of America director Larry Pratt praised Morgan, saying that she was “on very sound ground” with her Muslim ban.
“I know there will be a lot of people that will be outraged at that, but we don’t facilitate murderers and if you read the Quran, it’s an instruction to go kill people, lots of them,” Pratt said. “And there are Muslims that don’t buy into that, well, how do I know which one you are?”
All of which reminded Pratt that he had been meaning to start giving out a Gun Owners of America award and Morgan “ought to get it.”
h/t: Miranda Blue at RWW
NRA News host Cam Edwards provided a platform for a guest to push a sexist attack against prominent gun safety advocate Shannon Watts in which the guest called Watts a “shrill harridan” and said she “stripped the most basic and threshold abilities of a man” from her husband.
On the October 9 edition of the NRA’s radio show Cam & Company, guest and conservative columnist Kurt Schlichter claimed that Watts, who founded gun safety group Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, had stripped her husband “of the most basic and threshold abilities of a man; that is to defend his self, his family and his community, by being married to this shrill harridan.” Schlichter was unfavorably comparing Watts to actress Annette Bening’s American Beauty character Carolyn Burnham, provoking Edwards’ laughter.
KURT SCHLICHTER: Oh my gosh, I got to tell you something. I got to tell you something. I finally figured out who Shannon Watts of Moms Demand Action reminds me of.
SCHLICHTER: Annette Bening in American Beauty.
SCHLICHTER: Yeah. Huh? Huh? Yeah.
EDWARDS: Boy, now I am going to have to go back and re-watch — I don’t think I’ve that movie since it came out.
SCHLICHTER: Oh yeah.
EDWARDS: But yeah, okay, okay.
SCHLICHTER: Yeah, yeah, and her husband has got to be named Lester.
EDWARDS: [Laughter] That’s awful.
SCHLICHTER: Stripped of the most basic and threshold abilities of a man; that is to defend his self, his family and his community, by being married to this shrill harridan. She is Annette Bening in American Beauty.
EDWARDS: Talking with Kurt Schlichter, writing at Townhall.
Over the past several years the NRA has made a concerted effort to recruit women into the male-dominated gun organization. However, the NRA’s media arm has frequently undercut those efforts by offering sexist commentary on women.
Conservative Columnist Morgan Brittany: Is The Government Orchestrating The Ebola Crisis To Confiscate Guns?
A columnist for conspiracy site WND asked whether the Obama administration has “orchestrated” Ebola and other crises in order to declare “martial law” and seize everyone’s guns.
In recent weeks, conservative media figures have used the Ebola story to attack the Obama administration with twisted criticism, with radio host Michael Savage going so far as to suggest the administration was hoping to “infect the nation.” Now Morgan Brittany, actress and host of conservative online show PolitiChicks, ponders in her WND column, “What If The Conspiracy Theories Are True?”
Writing about a dinner party she attended in “the heart of Los Angeles” with a crowd that “would never want to be thought of as conservative,” Brittany describes how the attendees were skeptical of recent government statements about Ebola and other issues, and claimed ”everything that has come out of Washington has been misleading or an out and out lie.”
According to Brittany, the attendees questioned “Why is there no urgency to stop the disease from entering the U.S.?” She explains the conversation then ”veered into conspiracy territory,” including concerns about what Brittany called ”$1 billion worth of disposable FEMA coffins”:
Upon hearing this latest evidence of the incompetence permeating our government, the conversation veered into conspiracy territory. One of the men brought up the fact that Washington has known for months if not years that we were at risk for some sort of global pandemic. According to a government supplier of emergency products, the Disaster Assistance Response Team was told to be prepared to be activated in the month of October for an outbreak of Ebola. Hmm, that’s just like the fact that they knew 60,000 illegal children were going to be coming across our southern border eight months before it happened.
Questions were then brought up about the stockpiling of ammunition and weapons by Homeland Security over the past couple of years and the $1 billion worth of disposable FEMA coffins supposedly stored in Georgia. Why was there preparation being made for FEMA camps to house people in isolation? These were the questions being seriously discussed.
For the record, the “disposable FEMA coffins” Brittany warns of “have nothing to do with FEMA or any other agency of the U.S. government, and they were around long before Barack Obama was first elected to the presidency of the U.S. in 2008.” According to Snopes, a private company that sells plastic containers called grave liners stored the containers outdoors. An image of the containers circulated online and “gave rise to wild conspiracy theories” that have been circulating online for years.
Brittany concludes by lamenting how people have lost trust in government because of supposed dishonesty, which creates a situation where “theories begin to emerge about all sorts of things.” She adds, “My fear is that this has all been orchestrated from the very beginning,” possibly so that “guns can be seized”:
Recent polls show that there is a crisis of confidence among the people. When the people lose all trust in their government because of the lies they have been told over and over again, theories begin to emerge about all sorts of things. We desperately need someone to rebuild the trust and restore faith in this government. The damage that has been done is almost irreparable.
My fear is that this has all been orchestrated from the very beginning. Who knows? Maybe the current administration needs this to happen so martial law can be declared, guns can be seized and the populace can be controlled. Once that happens … game over.
Last month, Brittany was hosted on Fox & Friends to plug her new book, What Women Really Want.
WND has long been a cesspool of wild conspiracy theories. The site has for years led the charge claiming President Obama lacks an authentic birth certificate and has featured columns suggesting the 2012 shooting in Sandy Hook was staged.
h/t: Ben Dimiero at MMFA
Gun Restrictions by Country
cheezefish: Colors are based on which quintile said country falls into on the list provided by the source.
Federations may have different laws depending on states or subdivisions. This is especially true for the US. In this map, the most lenient state laws represent the entire country.
CHICAGO — The national gun lobby in Washington, D.C. is a big machine, motored by a multi-billion-dollar industry. The sprawling network of hardcore activists remaking the political gunscape in statehouses and the courts, on the other hand, is small. How small? It’s so small that when Jeff Knox stepped up to a microphone at the premiere gun-activist conclave and referred to “Dad,” no explanation was needed. Everyone at the Gun Rights Policy Conference last weekend knew who “Dad” was. Dad was Neal Knox, the hardline National Rifle Association board member who until his death in 2005 used his newsletter, The Hard Corps Report, as a machine gun nest aimed at his NRA colleagues, ready to fire at the first sign of weakness or perfidy in defense of the Second Amendment. For holding the gun lobby to his iron standard without mercy, “Dad” became a godfather to the activists who gather every September at an airport hotel under the banner of the Second Amendment Foundation.
Knox had the full power of the family name behind him on Sunday afternoon when he stepped to a microphone, invoked his father, and accused another gun-rights legend, GRPC organizer Alan Gottlieb, of betraying the movement. The alleged betrayal concerned Gottlieb’s writing and backing of an initiative on the Washington State ballot in November. Few Americans have heard of bill 591, but the controversy it has stoked within the gun-rights world tells us much about fissures within its ranks.
Gottlieb’s controversial bill is a direct response to another initiative on the ballot, 594, which expands background checks to include sales at gun shows and over the Internet. It is polling high and expected to pass. If Washington votes “yes,” it will join the growing list of states that have taken gun policy into their own hands in the wake of Newtown. Both the NRA and Gottlieb’s organization oppose 594. But Gottlieb has done more than just denounce it. He has raised more than a million dollars to promote an alternative bill, 591, which wouldprohibit the state from ever “requir[ing] background checks on the receipt of a firearm unless a uniform national standard is required.”
Can you spot the offending language? It’s this: “unless a uniform national standard is required.”
For Jeff Knox and much of the gun-rights movement, to even accept the future possibility of federal background check legislation constitutes apostasy. Some of the groups represented at the GRPC are the ones who, along with stalwarts like the NRA and Larry Pratt’s Gun Owners of America, mobilized in April 2013 to torpedo the Manchin-Toomey Senate bill, which would have closed background check loopholes across the country. After looking at the polling data, Gottlieb initially supported Manchin-Toomey as a way for the movement to get some “goodies” (such as relaxing laws on interstate gun sales) while supporting something that he thought was going to pass anyway. (Gottlieb later dropped his support when Chuck Schumer stripped the bill of Gottlieb’s prized “goodie”.)
Gottlieb’s early support for the Senate bill earned him epitaphs like “sellout” and “traitor.” But it’s now looking like he understood something his critics did not. Steadfast opposition to a federal background-check bill would give rise to a growing and well-funded movement for background-check referenda in the states. In Washington, the coalition behind 594 is supported by a group of wealthy donors, including Bill Gates and Michael Bloomberg, the head of the gun violence prevention group Everytown for Gun Safety. In his newsletter, Gottlieb describes their efforts as the “Billionaire’s Club war against freedom.”
So when Knox asked Gottlieb to defend the language of 591 at this year’s GRPC, attendees sat up in their seats. After a weekend filled with enough policy weeds to replant the Everglades, the confrontation amounted to high-drama.
With his comb-over, pencil mustache, and brightly colored bowties, Alan Gottlieb has the presence of a harried, slightly eccentric accountant. But the Queens native is no dutiful CPA; he’s a convicted tax felon who does not flinch easily on questions of strategy, let alone challenges to his commitment to the Second Amendment. In the 1970s, while still in his twenties, Gottlieb began organizing the legal workshops that grew into the brain trust that won the landmark Supreme Court rulings of Heller and McDonald, which enshrined gun ownership in the home as an individual right guaranteed by the Second Amendment. At the podium in Chicago, Gottlieb welcomed the chance to deliver a blunt message to the background-check dead-enders who had been calling him a traitor since Manchin-Toomey.
"The bottom line is that" the background check issue "is different" from other gun gun policy debates, Gottlieb explained, pointing to public opinion. "What issues do you find that get 70 to 90 percent of the people to agree on anything?"
After Knox asserted that he doesn’t believe polls showing support for background checks, Gottlieb responded, “You may not believe the number, but I’ve seen well over 500 polls all across the country over the last six years on background checks. They all say the same damn thing. They’re not wrong, believe me.”
Knox countered with another reality: many gun groups, especially those in the referendum states of the southwest, are never going to sign off on background checks, ever, at any level. In Arizona, “I wouldn’t be able to get our members to proactively concede anything,” said Knox. His hardline solution is to “let them go ahead and deal with the consequences.”
By “them,” Knox means the feds. In the purist view, the best way to deal with any gun law is to dig in, take the hits, and ignore the law, forcing the government to “deal with the consequences.” Knox said he wished the NRA had taken that approach with the 1934 National Firearms Act, which regulated machine guns and banned short-barrel rifles.
To Gottlieb, that’s a doomed strategy. In any case, he stressed, “the Bloomberg people” know gun groups will never support background check legislation, so they can “knock our teeth out and there’s nothing we can do about it.” He later added, “They’ve got us hogtied because they know we’re not going to change. I’m being honest with you. I’m not expecting you to change, but that’s why we’re going to lose.”
When subsequent questioners echoed Knox, Gottlieb reminded his audience that even without a background check system in place, there are good reasons not to sell guns to strangers. “If you’re stupid enough to sell a gun to someone you don’t know, forget the criminal liability — what about the civil liability?” he asked. “What about you getting sued” if the buyer kills someone?
Earlier that morning, a speaker had flattered the GRPC crowd by calling them “the most sophisticated gun-rights gathering in the country.” This is probably true. It’s also telling. All of the room’s combined political experience, intelligence, and savvy still does not add up to the ability to grasp how America’s largely unregulated gun trade has become a public health crisis, or why background checks and other common-sense measures poll so well. The gun-rights movement continues to see background-checks through the same paranoid prism it sees everything else: the threat of door-to-door gun confiscation.
This is the shared nightmare lurking beneath all the policy weeds, one so taken for granted that it’s left unspoken. But never for very long. In Chicago, Sean Maloney of the Buckeye Firearms Association warned, “A universal background check equals universal confiscation. Look it up, it’s history, it happens every time.” Stephen P. Halbrook delivered a lecture on the discredited theory that gun confiscation was responsible for Hitler’s rise to power. California activist Stephen D’Andrilli argued that his state’s new microstamping law is not really about solving crime and tracking illicit gun transfers, but setting up a confiscatory police state. All told, around a third of GRPC speakers invoked the unstoppable logic of confiscation.
The coming wave of background check referenda was just one threat assessed in Chicago. Another peril, one less easily tied to the confiscation scenario, is the current stall in the upper courts. In his luncheon keynote, the celebrated gun lawyer Alan Gura discussed his desire to build on Heller by getting a concealed-carry case before the Supreme Court, and thus extend the right to bear arms beyond the home. But he wasn’t holding his breath. Gura noted that the court has rejected all of his petitions since taking McDonald in 2010. Moving down a notch, Gottlieb noted with alarm that “our enemies” control nine of 13 circuit courts: “Four more go down, and we can’t even create a conflict between circuits to get cases to the Supreme Court, where we are hanging on by, disgustingly, one vote.”
The movement is also increasingly aware of enemies within. A recurring theme of GRPC 2014 was the danger posed by hucksters preying on the pro-gun community. The most successful and least-trusted of these groups is Dudley Brown’s Colorado-based National Association for Gun Rights. Brown has built up a fundraising juggernaut with a combination of hyperbolic and fact-challenged advocacy, violent culture war rhetoric, and attacks on other activists. He’s widely considered to be a snake in the grass. At GRPC, Brown’s name drew as many hisses as Eric Holder’s.
"We need to be careful," said D. Allen Youngman, a veteran gun lobbyist. "If all a United States senator hears is cut-and-paste talking points from a huckster like Dudley Brown — ’black helicopters are coming to take the guns’ — then you can imagine how they are going to characterize communications from you." Youngman would know. He represented the U.S. small arms industry at both the Capitol and the UN during that body’s Arms Trade Treaty talks, giving him perfect vantage to observe how the rhetoric and falsehoods spread by groups like Brown’s take root and undermine the work of more sober activist campaigns.
In Washington State this November, none of that will matter. There are no phone calls to Senate offices in referendum campaigns. The losses that Alan Gottlieb worries the American public may inflict on the gun-rights movement will be delivered directly, by ordinary people checking boxes on pieces of paper. In other words, pretty much the exact opposite of a police state.
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said on his “Washington Watch” radio program yesterday that the U.S. government is failing to protect the southern border, enabling members of ISIS or another terrorist group to enter the country and launch a dirty bomb attack.
Since federal officials refuse to act, Perkins said, America’s last defense against ISIS may be Texas gun owners who will quash the plans of terrorists coming to America, adding that he wouldn’t rely on liberal New Englanders to protect the country.
“It’s to the nation’s benefit that Texas is on our southern border and not one of the New England states because in Texas you’ll be hard-pressed to find a household that doesn’t have a gun and an owner that knows how to use it,” he said.
“Where if they were going to invade, someone was going to move into our country and do it through the New England states, we’d all be in trouble. That’s part of the Second Amendment, it may be that even the liberals will be grateful for the Second Amendment if the government doesn’t do what it’s supposed to do and keep us safe.”
h/t: Brian Tashman at RWW
This business owner, Jan Morgan, has made her business a “Muslim free zone.” Her reasonings are listed on her website and it’s the most sickly Islamophobic bullshit I’ve read. But what’s even worse is the comments from so many people supporting her and spewing equally horrible comments.
And this is just a small portion from the comments sections. Practically every single comment I saw was saying the same thing. Please tell me again how America is so tolerant? It’s honestly scary how people are saying this discrimination “needs to be done,” or that “desperate times call for desperate measures.” That type of talk rings back into some dark times in history and it’s fucking terrifying.
#IL12: Raging GOP Candidate's Past Includes Dog Killing And Mysterious Stolen Gun [TW: Animal Cruelty]
WASHINGTON — Illinois state Rep. Mike Bost (R-Murphysboro) has made a name for himself throwing extraordinary tantrums during legislative sessions. But he doesn’t appear to have contained his notorious temper to the statehouse, according to a review of court and police records obtained by The Huffington Post.
Bost, who is running for Congress this fall under the slogan “Passionate Leadership for Southern Illinois,” has a lengthy history with local authorities, including some incidents that suggest “passionate” is a bit of an understatement.
The earliest episode dates back to 1986, when a neighborhood beagle named Rusty bit Bost’s 4-year-old daughter. The report filed by animal control officials indicates that the girl provoked the attack by chasing the dog. She ultimately had to get 19 stitches on her face.
According to court records, Bost was displeased that authorities would not be able to deal with the 10-year-old dog immediately. So he got his handgun, drove to Rusty’s owner’s home, and shot the dog to death while it was penned in an enclosure.
Neighbors were “very alarmed and disturbed,” according to the police report, but a jury eventually found Bost not guilty of breaking any laws. The local paper reported the case under the headline “Area man acquitted in dog killing trial.”
The documents also detail another alarming, more mysterious incident. Bost, a gun-rights defender who in 2008 voted against a bill to require the prompt reporting of stolen guns, did not report a gun that was stolen from his own home.
In 2006, Bost’s nickel-plated special edition .357 Rossi revolver was stolen from his gun safe. According to police records, Bost did not know about the theft until police showed up at his door to inform him that the gun had been used to threaten another man’s life. Bost led investigators to the safe, and the firearm was indeed missing.
It is unclear who stole the weapon and how it was removed from the safe, but Bost and family members suspected that the thief may have been connected to a 17-year-old girl who had stayed briefly in Bost’s house. Bost told police that he usually did not lock the side door to the room that contained the safe.
Other incidents found in the files are less distressing, but similarly portray Bost as an aggressive man whose actions often put him in conflict with others.
While Bost once felt justified in shooting a dog to death, in later years, he wasn’t too worried about his own dog roaming the neighborhood. Local police records show that neighbors were so concerned about Bost’s pet scampering around their homes and the local school that they called police at least four separate times.
Several people who encountered the lawmaker seem to have responded especially poorly to him, though the records do not indicate why. According to one report, in 1999 someone kicked in Bost’s front door looking for him, but left when they encountered only his wife. Bost reported the incident to police. He also called the cops in 2009 after someone left a note on his car that was described as suspicious, along with a copy of the “Narcotics Anonymous” pamphlet.
Along with a fairly typical assortment of traffic tickets and moving violations, Bost was also involved in at least two car accidents. In a 1996 crash involving his red Beetle, Bost was found at fault for failing to yield to another motorist.
Bost’s campaign did not respond to requests for comment, including questions about the stolen gun and what the string of incidents might say about the candidate.
Bost’s outbursts are a regular hit on YouTube. Perhaps most notoriously, while railing in 2012 against what he saw as unfair floor procedures, he punched at a stack of papers that he had flung into the air. At the end of that rant, he compared Illinois Republicans and his constituents to biblical Jews in Egypt, hollering, “I feel like somebody trying to be released from Egypt! Let my people go!” And last spring, during debate on concealed carry rules, Bost smashed his microphone, prompting a Democrat to quip, “We don’t want someone like that carrying a concealed weapon.”
Democrats have sought to portray Bost, who is challenging Rep. Bill Enyart (D-Ill.), as a fundamentally unsound person whose volatile temper would only make Washington worse. So far, they’ve used his infamous outbursts in at least two ads, in which they dub Bost “Meltdown Mike.”
He is the wrong choice to be IL-12’s next Congressman!
h/t: Michael McAuliff at HuffPost Politics
Source: The Huffington Post
WorldNetDaily columnist Gina Loudon is promoting her book “What Women Really Want” by arguing today that Republicans should be “giddy” about the prospect of running against Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential race.
She calls on GOP politicians to attack Clinton for supposedly tolerating rape and other forms of violence against women: "If she stood passive while Islamic women were raped and stoned to death, what will she passively let happen to women were she president of the United States?"
Loudon goes on to claim that immigration reform and gun policy reform are part of the real “war on women.”The first war is one where women are being serially gang-raped and stoned to death by Islamists across the world who believe women are only one-fifth of a person. If a woman is raped, under Shariah law, five men must testify that they witnessed the woman being raped. Otherwise, she is stoned to death in front of her friends and family. Christian and Jewish women are being led like lambs to slaughter by Islamists. There is definitely a war on women, but not the one the statist elites in D.C. like to pretend is happening. That is but a ruse designed to distract the simple minded.
Where are the old-school feminists who cussed conservative icons like Phyllis Schlafly and burned their bras in protest of equal pay, in the face of this bloody war on women? Do equal rights not to be stoned matter less than equal pay or birth control?
Where is Hillary on this? If I were GOP leadership, I would be giddy about the thought of a Hillary run. Aside from Benghazi, think about a campaign based on what she never did to stop the real war on women. If she stood passive while Islamic women were raped and stoned to death, what will she passively let happen to women were she president of the United States?
Women with whom we spoke on our book tour are most concerned with safety and security, and that is because of failed foreign policy and open borders exacted on them by the pro-old-feminist administration (including old feminists like Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton, etc.). Economic security and national security are of grave concern to women today. Open borders give away jobs, especially starter jobs for youth. Open borders let terrorists in our country, and that threatens women’s families and futures. Open borders mean children with unknown, untreatable and, in some cases, latent diseases sit in classrooms with our children.
Even for those women who don’t care to ever touch a gun (and that is OK), most still wouldn’t want to take away the rights of other moms to protect their children, their families from abusers, or their homes from tyranny.
h/t: Brian Tashman at RWW
Loesch: Obama slashed funding for gun safety program
For well over a decade, gun owner groups have promoted the use of trigger locks to protect children from weapons around the home. One long-standing effort is Project Child Safe, run by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the voice of gun makers, shooting ranges, and retailers.
Conservative radio host and commentator Dana Loesch went to Twitter to berate President Barack Obama for neglecting this approach.
"Obama admin gutted @ProjChildSafe budget to provide trigger locks and safety kits," Loesch tweeted Sept. 4, 2014.
We wanted to see whether the current administration drove down spending for this particular trigger lock program.
We emailed Loesch’s show for evidence to back up the statement, but we did not hear back.
The senior vice president and general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, Lawrence Keane, explained that Project Child Safe is a nonprofit run by his group and is largely sustained by the foundation and private donations. But during the administration of President George W. Bush, it received a great deal of government support.
"There was grant funding from the Department of Justice," Keane said. "There were a number of different grants. They varied in size. Over time, they totaled $90 million over 8 years."
The foundation used the money to buy trigger locks and safety manuals. It partnered with over 15,000 state and local law enforcement agencies across all 50 states to distribute these safety kits for free to gun owners. Keane said since 2001, the program has provided over 36 million kits, with no government money going toward salaries or overhead.
There’s no question the federal money is a fraction of what it was. Whether that happened on Obama’s watch is another matter.
A more complicated picture
We went to USA Spending, a government website that gives anyone the chance to see how federal agencies spend the taxpayers’ money. 2002 was the high-water mark for federal grants to the National Shooting Sports Foundation. That year, the Justice Department awarded it nearly $50 million to cover the costs of trigger locks and other safety materials.
2003 was also a strong year. Washington provided another $25 million. But as this chart shows, after that, the flow of government dollars to the foundation plummeted.
In 2006, the Department of Justice gave the foundation $917,850. By 2008, the amount fell to $500,000. These declines took place under the Bush administration, three years before Obama took office.
The chart also shows a shift in the federal agency that supported the distribution of safety kits. In 2009, the Department of Veterans Affairs began granting the National Shooting Sports Foundation to provide the kits to veterans.
"The VA approached the National Shooting Sports Foundation because of concerns they had, and have, with returning vets having post-traumatic stress disorder," Keane said.
Under the Obama administration, the VA provided the foundation about $3 million through 2012 to deliver about 1.5 million Project Child Safe safety kits, according to Keane. On an annual basis, that is slightly more than the amount spent in the last year of the Bush administration. Keane said the work with the VA is ongoing with an estimated additional $2 million in the pipeline.
According to the Justice Department, the foundation had provided 32 million kits by 2005. In the seven years since, about 4 million kits have been delivered.
Loesch said that the Obama administration gutted the budget for Project Child Safe. In reality, the deepest cuts took place during the Bush years. Obama inherited a program funded at $500,000. In 2009, the funding agency changed from the Justice Department to Veterans Affairs. While the funding for Project Child Safe itself ended, the same kind of kits were distributed to peoples’ homes, although through different channels. Funding increased very slightly from the last year of the Bush administration. The work between the foundation and Veterans Affairs continues.
We rate the claim False.
Recently, a conference was held at the Upper Room Church in Keller, Texas entitled “Deliver Us From Evil" where one of the featured speakers as Gary Cass, head of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission.
Cass, who normally spends most of his time attacking President Obama, Muslims, gays, and Mormons, spent an hour and a half blasting America for having a “broken moral compass” for electing politicians who support things like reproductive choice and marriage equality. Cass went on to declare that the nation’s colleges and universities have “now become perverted factories of unfaithfulness,” especially Harvard which is now “animated by the spirit of Antichrist,” before attacking “progressive Christians” as ones who “have murdered their own souls, destroyed their own churches, and have undermined our nation.”
Finally, Cass explained to the audience that "you can’t be a Christian if you don’t own a gun":
h/t: Kyle Mantyla at RWW
Routine sexist attacks from the National Rifle Association’s media outlets are undermining the organization’s political effort to reach out to women as a growing demographic.
On August 25, NRA magazine America’s 1st Freedom attacked prominent gun safety advocate and Mom’s Demand Action for Gun Sense in America founder Shannon Watts. As Gawker’s Adam Weinstein explained, the article featured images of Watts “as a cutout mom with kitchen and housekeeping accoutrements, because moms oughta know their place!” The accompanying article accused Watts of lying about being a stay-at-home mom, because she had for a time run a PR firm out of her house while raising her children.
This offensive depiction of a woman from NRA media seems in stark contrast to the political arm of the NRA, which the very same day debuted several new ads narrated by women — in a series titled “Good Guys” — promoting the message that guns are a sign of empowerment for women and that women are an important part of the NRA community. One features a woman lauding the importance of “Mom and Dad”; one stars a woman emphasizing the “courage" it takes to be one of the "Good Guys." Another ad released earlier this month also featured a female narrator driving a pickup truck and attacking Everytown for Gun Safety founder Michael Bloomberg, telling him to “keep your hands off our guns.”
Right-wing female commentators have long argued that “guns are the great equalizer between sexes in crimes against women,” falsely claiming that guns make women safer. CNN’s S.E. Cupp, The Blaze’s Dana Loesch, and Fox News’ Katie Pavlich have regularly appeared on cable news and published books to promote the NRA as a pro-women organization.
But as Media Matters noted in a feature on the NRA’s annual meeting, 2014 seemed to mark a shift for the organization towards focusing increasingly on women and moms. In part that shift is monetary, as advertisers see women as a largely untapped market. It also seems, however, that the shift is in part in response to gun safety organizations, including Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action, who increasingly emphasize how dangerous guns can be for women in abusive situations.
This recent recognition of women by the NRA is undermined, however, by the attack on Watts and the numerous misogynistic and sexist comments from NRA commentators and spokespeople.
Just two months ago, for example, an NRA commentator fetishized assault weapons by comparing them to attractive women. Noir, a Sunday web series hosted by NRA News commentator Colion Noir, aired two separate ads that at first appear to feature a narrator describing stylishly-dressed, flirtatious women (“Her Jimmy Choo’s can’t be comfortable, but you’d never know it … She’s the kind to tell the bartender how to make her drink”), only to reveal at the end that he was describing a gun the entire time. One of the ads aired just days after a mass shooting in Isla Vista, California, which was reportedly inspired by the shooter’s admitted hatred of women.
Last year, the NRA featured Fox News’ Sean Hannity as a keynote speaker at the 7th Annual NRA Women’s Leadership Forum Luncheon, despite his association with a group whose leadership has claimed that one of America’s greatest mistakes was allowing women to vote.
NRA News host Cam Edwards once attacked Glamourmagazine’s Women of the Year Awards for making “the world a more dangerous place for women,” because the event honored victims of gun violence, including Pakistani education reformer Malala Yousafzai, and former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) — who was wounded during a 2011 mass shooting in Tucson, Arizona.
Most outrageous is NRA board member Ted Nugent, whose rampant sexism - including calling Hillary Clinton a “toxic cunt,” comparing abstaining from drugs and alcohol to avoiding “fat chicks,” telling a CBS producer “I’ll fuck you, how’s that sound?”, and featuring a nude, bound woman with a grenade in her mouth on an album cover — has never been a problem for the organization.
Gun safety advocates and progressives have also been talking about women more lately, as part of a new push to recognize the dangers guns pose to women in domestic violence situations. The presence of a gun in an abusive situation increases the risk that a woman will be murdered by 500 percent, and women are more than three times as likely to be murdered when there is a gun in their house even when domestic violence isn’t a factor. In fact, more women in the U.S. were killed by an intimate partner using a gun from 2001 to 2012 than the total number of troops killed in action in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.
As for the argument that those women could have defended themselves if they had a gun, The Atlanticexplained that according to a study published in the American Journal of Public Health, researchers interviewed women across 67 battered women’s shelters, and found that nearly a third of them had lived in a household with a firearm. “In two-thirds of the homes, their intimate partners had used the gun against them, usually threatening to kill (71.4 percent) them. A very small percentage of these women (7 percent) had used a gun successfully in self-defense, and primarily just to scare the attacking male partner away.”
The NRA doesn’t want to talk about the realities of domestic violence. Instead, they prefer to fearmonger about liberals attempting to “insult” women by “taking” their guns. But they can’t have it both ways, talking about women as nothing more than sex objects and housewives one day, and liberated gun owners the next.
A cop literally tried to sodomize a woman with his own service pistol. And now he is allowed to carry a firearm again.
Kopel takes issue with Watts’ description of the group as a “grassroots” effort since she is an experienced public relations professional with former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg as a client. Moms Demand Action is now part of Bloomberg’s group of gun control organizations.
And Kopel is upset that Watts “purports to speak for all mothers” when she actually “speaks only for a relatively small group of highly gullible people, including some mothers.”
He points readers instead to gun rights activist Julie Globb, “captain of Team Smith & Wesson” and “mother of two.”