Democrats Push Gun Control, Refuse Armed School Guards

AP/Amarillo Globe-News, Michael Schumacher


Appearing on MSNBC, 2016 Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump told Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, “We have millions of sick people all over the world… This is sort of unique to our country – the school shootings.”

Trump touts two policies to fight school shootings: more concealed carry and better mental healthcare. But the left ignores both of those prescriptions, as well as a third: additional security at schools.

There are approximately 135,000 public, private, and post-secondary schools in the United States. A huge number of major shootings have taken place at schools: Umpqua Community College; University of California at Santa Barbara; Santa Monica College; Sandy Hook Elementary School; Oikos College; University of Alabama in Huntsville; Northern Illinois University; Virginia Tech; Red Lake High School; Marysville Pilchuck High School; Red Lake High School; University of Arizona College of Nursing; Santana High School; Columbine High School; Jonesboro, Arkansas; Lindhurst High School; Stockton, California; the list goes on and on.

Certainly, with well over 100 million law-abiding American gun-owners, targeting gun owners would be significantly more difficult than protecting schools. More importantly, though President Obama scorns those who believe that more guns can prevent crime, more guns held by law-abiding, well-trained people do prevent crime. Obama should talk to his own Secret Service if he thinks otherwise.

Umpqua Community College had one guard on shift at a time. Unarmed. But it did notify those on campus that it was a gun free zone, just like most campuses across America. And according to retired Umpqua Community College president Joe Olson, the college decided against an armed security guard in the last few months. “We talked about that over the last year because we were concerned about safety on campus,” he said. “The campus was split 50-50. We thought we were a very safe campus, and having armed security officers on campus might change the culture.”

Typically, those who oppose armed guards, or arming teachers on campuses, cite idiocies like “changing the culture” or “making children uncomfortable.” Randi Weingarten, head of the National Education Association, has written, “Schools must be safe sanctuaries, not armed fortresses. Anyone who would suggest otherwise doesn’t understand that our public schools must first and foremost be places where teachers can safely educate and nurture our students.”

This is asinine. The only way to keep students safe is to provide security, not hope that gunmen abide by “Gun-Free Zone” signs. In Israel, in order to prevent terrorist attacks, armed guards are posted in schools routinely. That has indeed prevented terrorist attacks. When I attended a Jewish high school in Los Angeles, located next to the Simon Wiesenthal Center, administration provided heavy security – and it worked. In 1999, during the summer months of my high school term, Buford Furrow, a white supremacist with a history of mental illness, stopped by the Wiesenthal Center and wanted to shoot it up – but there was security. So he promptly motored over to the North Valley Jewish Community Center, where there were no armed guards, and proceeded to shoot five people.

So yes, more guns at schools would be a useful measure.

But we won’t do that. Instead, we’ll have asinine, ineffective conversations about “sensible” and “modest” gun control measures the left never specifies. Oregon already has universal background checks, closing the misnamed “gun show loophole”; Oregon already has laws preventing those who have been committed to mental health facilities from owning guns; Oregon already prevents convicted felons and juvenile felony offenders from owning guns. So, what laws exactly would have stopped this shooting, according to Democrats?

The answer: none. But that won’t stop them from pushing utterly unrelated gun control regulations in an attempt to confiscate the firearms of the law-abiding.

Following up on President Obama’s egregiously insulting press conference, at which Obama essentially called for full-scale gun confiscation by citing the gun record of Australia and Great Britain, Senator

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) 16%

(D-VT) said, “There is a consensus for serious gun control, including among people who own guns. And I think that’s what we have to bring about.” Sanders then added, awkwardly, “I don’t know that anybody knows what the magic solution is. What we do know is that the current situation is not tenable. It is clearly not working.”

Zero specifics were offered by Sanders. None were offered by Vice President Joe Biden, either; he simply blathered, “The Second Amendment doesn’t say you can own a bazooka, it doesn’t say you can own an F-15 with hellfire missiles. There’s the ability of government to limit the type of weapon that is available.” First off, F-15s don’t carry hellfire missiles. But the “do something” mentality – which is actually code for revoking the Second Amendment – has taken hold on the left. Hillary Clinton is part of that mentality, too. She called for “sensible gun control measures,” another focus-grouped response, but could not name such measures.

Democrats refuse to see commonalities among shooters, or among locations of mass shootings. Instead, they focus on the gun – even though a higher percentage of schools are hit by gun violence than gun owners are responsible for gun violence. That’s because the left loves using mass shootings as an excuse to implicitly promote a full grab, knowing full well that the policies they espouse leave Americans vulnerable at schools across the country.

Ben Shapiro is Senior Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News, Editor-in-Chief of, and The New York Times bestselling author, most recently, of the book,The People vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against The Obama Administration (Threshold Editions, June 10, 2014). Follow Ben Shapiro on Twitter @benshapiro.

“Any candidate who plays this game with the Obamamedia is a fool”

Screen Shot 2015-09-21 at 6.35.30 PM

Nobody does it better — check out Steyn’s superb slap at Hussein’s stooges:

“Why does one Republican candidate’s ‘scandal’ get hung around the neck of every other guy’s? I’ll answer your question to me about Donald Trump’s ‘gaffe’ after you ask Bernie Sanders, Martin O’Malley, Lincoln Chafee and Joe Biden about Hillary Clinton’s server and how she handled Benghazi. Till then, get lost.”

Get Lost, You Palace-Guard Creeps

by Mark Steyn, September 19, 2015
Egypt Obama Muslim Brotherhood

As the week ended, Obama’s palace guard in the American media were demanding that every other Republican candidate distance himself from Donald Trump’s failure to correct, among thousands of attendees at his events, one who apparently is under the reprehensible illusion that the President is a Muslim.

Any candidate who plays this game with the Obamamedia is a fool. Assuming for the sake of argument that the questioner is genuine and not a plant (like, say, the 14-year old all-American schoolboy clockmaker who didn’t make a clock at all and is the son of a belligerent Muslim activist and perennial Sudanese presidential candidate whose brother runs a trucking company amusingly called Twin Towers Transportation), putting all of that to one side, there are several entirely reasonable responses one could make to the gentlemen of the press:

1) Unlike Hillary Clinton’s under-attended “rallies”, a voter doesn’t have to undergo a background check or sign a piece of paper pledging to support her in the election before being permitted into a Republican candidate’s presence. So at our campaign events there are all kinds of people with all kinds of views – and it goes without saying I won’t agree with them all. If you find that odd, maybe you’ve been covering Hillary too long.

2) Why does one Republican candidate’s “scandal” get hung around the neck of every other guy’s? I’ll answer your question to me about Donald Trump’s ‘gaffe’ after you ask Bernie Sanders, Martin O’Malley, Lincoln Chafee and Joe Biden about Hillary Clinton’s server and how she handled Benghazi. Till then, get lost.

3) In the normal course of events, the President – who is supposed to serve as president of all the people, not just the half of the country that voted for him – should command a certain respect. But this particular president has compared the members of the loyal opposition to terrorists and to the more hardcore Iranian ayatollahs. And none of you media bigfeet huffing and puffing about lèse-majesté gave a crap about that. So, if you’ll forgive me, as someone designated a terrorist and ayatollah by Obama, I’m disinclined to rise to defend the President’s amour propre. Go hector someone else.

4) As to respect for the office, the President is so respectful of the papacy that his White House reception for Pope Francis will be filled with gay bishops, transgender activists and pro-abortion nuns. Apparently His Holiness is expected to have a thicker skin about dissenting voices than King Barack.

5) If I understand you shrill little twerps correctly, I’m supposed to point out to this guy in New Hampshire that the President is not a Muslim but a Christian. Well, his father and step-father were both Muslims, which means, as far as Islam is concerned, he was born a Muslim. Has he renounced it? My fellow candidate Ted Cruz entered this world in Calgary, Alberta in 1970, which means that he was born a British subject and a citizen of Canada. I don’t suppose the Queen cares about that one way or the other – unlike your average Islamic scholar in Qom or Cairo. Yet you media types made such a big deal out of it that Ted was obliged to write to Ottawa to renounce even any theoretical Canadianness. Have you inquired of your buddy the President whether he’s done anything similarly clarifying?

6) As to whether he’s a Christian, have you asked him whether he has attended even semi-regularly any church other than that of Jeremiah (“God damn America”) Wright? A man is free to attend the Westboro Baptist Church but if he chooses to do so I’m not obligated to defend his Christianity. And frankly, whatever the President’s personal faith, there is no dispute that his leadership of the western world has been an utter catastrophe for Christians around the planet. Some of the oldest Christian communities on earth have been entirely extinguished on Obama’s watch: in Mosul, Iraq, which was an American protectorate on the day he took office, not a single Christian remains. Every single one of them is dead or fled. So, instead of jumping through your preposterous hoops and speaking up for the most powerful man in the world, I would rather speak up for the powerless – for the Nigerian schoolgirls, for the Yazidi, for the Copts in Egypt, and for all the other beleaguered Christian communities in the world this feckless president has set alight and watched burn.

7) Oh, and one other thing. This kind of super-fake-o lame-ass nothing controversy that you dowager duchesses of the press are having the vapors about is precisely why the political process has fallen into such disrepute and your own industry is bankrupt. No real person cares about this “scandal”. So, unless you’ve got a question about the economy or immigration or something real, screw off outta here.

– See more at:

Congressional Democrats PAID BY IRANIAN LOBBY to support Obama’s nuke deal

Screen Shot 2015-09-04 at 5.22.26 PM

Every senator who accepted money from the Iranian American Political Action Committee (IPAC) should be impeached and removed from office — or at very least, soundly defeated the next time he or she comes up for reelection. But the enemedia, true to form, will cover for them and do everything it can to keep them on the government payroll.


“Gillibrand and other pro-Dealers got Iran cash,” by Jeff Dunetz, The Jewish Star, September 3, 2015 (thanks to Banafsheh):

One of the many unanswered questions about P5+1 agreement with Iran is why so many Congressional Democrats are rallying behind the President on this issue when recent polls show the majority of Americans want Congress to reject the deal.

Part of the reason is obvious: they are supporting a president from their own party, but a not-so-obvious reason may be that there is a “nefarious” lobby trying to control American foreign policy, and for a change the anti-Semites can’t blame the Jews. Iranian lobbyists are making big campaign donations to Democrats and are funding pro-deal propaganda.

Writing in Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield pointed out that many of the Democratic legislators who announced their support for the deal are getting money from the Iran lobby, specifically the Iranian American Political Action Committee, IPAC, which maxed out its contributions to Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) and Al Franken (D-Minn) — each received $5,000 in the 2014 election cycle.

“Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), the Iran lobby’s third Dem senator, didn’t bother playing coy like her colleagues. She came out for the deal a while back even though she only got half the IAPAC cash that Franken and Markey received.”

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), who represents the state with the largest Jewish population in America, surprised many with her support of the deal. In addition to IAPAC cash, “Gillibrand had also picked up money from the Iran lobby’s Hassan Nemazee,” Greenfield reports. “Nemazee was Hillary’s national campaign finance director who had raised a fortune for both her and Kerry before pleading guilty to a fraud scheme encompassing hundreds of millions of dollars. Nemazee had been an IAPAC trustee and had helped set up the organization.”

Barbara Boxer, who also came out for the deal, also Iran lobby funds.

Getting IPAC cash on the House side were Mike Honda (D-CA), Andre Carson (D-IN), Gerry Connolly (D-VA), Donna Edwards (D-MD) and Jackie Speier (D-CA). Each of them supports Obama’s P5+1 turkey.

But the Iran lobby’s biggest wins weren’t Markey or Shaheen. The real victory had come long before when two of their biggest politicians, Joe Biden and John Kerry, had moved into prime positions in the administration. Not only IAPAC, but key Iran lobby figures had been major donors to both men.

“That list includes Housang Amirahmadi, the founder of the American Iranian Council, who had spoken of a campaign to ‘conquer Obama’s heart and mind’ and had described himself as ‘the Iranian lobby in the United States.’ It includes the Iranian Muslim Association of North America (IMAN) board members who had fundraised for Biden. And it includes the aforementioned Hassan Nemazee.

“A member of Iran’s opposition had accused Biden’s campaigns of being ‘financed by Islamic charities of the Iranian regime based in California and by the Silicon Iran network.’ Biden’s affinity for the terrorist regime in Tehran was so extreme that after 9/11 he had suggested, ‘Seems to me this would be a good time to send, no strings attached, a check for $200 million to Iran’.

Another part of the Iran lobby pushing the deal is the Ploughshares Fund. Ploughshares is not pushing the deal directly, but it’s financing many of the other groups pushing Congress to vote “yes.” Michael Rubin exposed the Plowshares money in a recent Commentary piece.

According to Rubin, Ploughshares Fund is “a multimillion-dollar group which defines itself as a foundation seeking nuclear disarmament but which has, for several years, taken a consistently apologetic line toward Iran.” Ploughshares has been throwing its weight behind influential organizations such as the National Iranian American Council, the Arms Control Association, and the Atlantic Council, among others, in an attempt to garner support for the deal, Rubin reported.

Ploughshares gave $150,000 to the National Iranian American Council for “advocacy” about the Iran Deal, $210,000 to the Arms Control Association to “influence US policy toward Iran,” and another $25,000 to fund an “expert workshop” and press briefings, according to Rubin.

Per its annual report, Ploughshares also gives money to the anti-Israel group, J Street ($100,000) that has not only fought additional sanctions over recent years but also that has worked to promote the Iran agreement. J Street’s support also comes from the fact that it was President Obama, not the Jewish community who gave the group legitimacy.

“In short, Ploughshares spread millions of dollars around to pro-administration groups to support whatever Iran Deal came out of Vienna. To criticize the Iran Deal would be to risk a significant source of funding—double digits percentages of their total budget in most cases—of these various groups,”

Organizations receiving funding from Ploughshares rarely acknowledge they’re being lobbied. They produce biased analysis and host one-sided panel discussions in order to advance the agenda they are being paid to move forward.

“Hence, various organizations hosted one-sided panels in the wake of the Iran Deal announcement with multiple Ploughshares grantees without acknowledging their funding from the Ploughshares grantees.”

At various times during the debate about his Iran agreement, President Obama has talked about nefarious lobby money pushing against peace. Something that many have commented was a not-so-veiled reference to the anti-Semitic meme that some hidden “Jewish lobby” controls the government.

The lobby that neither the president nor the congressional supporters of his deal will talk about is the pro-Iranian lobby that, either through campaign cash or directly in support of the deal, are a huge force in trying to give Obama his short-term legacy, the P5+1 agreement.

Long-term, that deal may very well be remembered by the ultimate war to end all wars waged by an apocalyptic Iran.

– See more at: