Tag: bigotry

The more that turns up about the Ft. Lauderdale shooter, the more we see that government looked the other way at an increasing threat. Thus far, we know that he…

  • Reported to the government that he was hearing voices
  • Reported paranoid delusions to the Government
  • Was arrested on domestic violence charges
  • Violated his subsequent bail conditions
  • Was discharged from the Army with less than an Honorable Discharge
  • Had been visiting IS websites and viewing IS videos

But nevermind all of that; it’s the NRA’s fault.


From America’s 1st Freedom magazine…

by Corinne Mosher – Tuesday, August 2, 2016

Hillary’s Enemies List: Corinne Mosher

Photo credit: @JoshIshmaelPhotography

In response to a Democratic presidential debate question on Oct. 13, 2015, Hillary Clinton put the 5 million members of the NRA at the top of the list of enemies she is most proud of.

This is unprecedented: On national television, a candidate for president of the United States named peaceable, law-abiding gun owners, who are simply trying to protect the Second Amendment, as her biggest enemies. She even listed NRA members ahead of Iran—the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism. Drug cartels, Vladimir Putin, North Korea and ISIS terrorists didn’t even get a mention.

Clinton’s declaration made us wonder how NRA members feel about being recklessly declared her enemy. So we decided to ask them: How does it feel to be named Public Enemy Number 1 by Hillary Clinton? Yet you have to be careful of who it is that is inspiring you to hate, and why.

Today we hear from Corinne Mosher, Kansas State Rifle Association training committee member, professional competitive shooter, wife of a police officer and member of the D.C. Project.

It is a politically rewarding strategy to demonize one group of people in order to unite another group against a “common enemy.” The more unlike yourself you can make your enemy seem, the bigger the lies you can tell about them.

When a presidential candidate publicly denounces five million American citizens as the people she is most proud to call her enemies, she is shamefully putting politics above patriotism, and pandering to constituents rather than embracing her responsibility to uphold the Constitution.

Russian playwright Anton Chekhov once said, “Love, friendship and respect do not unite people as much as a common hatred for something.” Yet you have to be careful of who it is that is inspiring you to hate, and why. For the same knife that in the hands of a surgeon is used to save lives, can, in the wrong hands, be a destructive tool, severing vital connections and leading to permanent ruin.

The question to ask ourselves is not if the irresponsible rhetoric by Hillary Clinton is being used as an attempt to divide us, but why she is attempting to do so. The most obvious answer seems to be that she realizes once we are divided, we are susceptible to attacks from without and within. … once we are divided, we are susceptible to attacks from without and within.

“We the People” of the United States do have enemies, but the voices, faces and stories that make up the NRA are certainly not among them.

NRA’s membership represents a rich collection of different stories, races, religions, gender and sexuality preferences, socioeconomic and educational backgrounds, family structures, and political parties. We have differing levels of participation in the shooting sports and in politics in general, but we all believe in our constitutional right to keep and bear arms. We uphold, honor and sustain the law, especially laws that are intended to keep guns out of the wrong hands and to promote safe firearm storage and handling.

Placing all members of the NRA in one category, as Clinton did, is like trying to complete a paint-by-numbers kit using a paint roller.

If you aren’t a member of the NRA, that doesn’t make you my enemy. If you disagree with my views, political and otherwise, that doesn’t make you my enemy. To truly be my enemy, you have to be attempting to take away any of the basic human rights endowed by my Creator—my life, liberty or pursuit of happiness. Therefore, my short list of enemies is as follows: terrorists, rapists, murderers and tyrants.

So, if you have proudly declared yourself to be my enemy, then I ask, “Which of these are you?”

News Politics

How is it that the NRA gets called racist for commenting and not commenting on events in the news? Oh yeah… I forgot. Those who make a buck off of the 1st Amendment have it in for the 2nd Amendment. And if they can do their part to keep race as an issue in the US, all the better.


Still tingling from the recent “victory” on the House floor, and by floor I mean the carpet itself, the anti-gun, whack-a-do wing of the Democrat party is planning on a unique way of celebrating Congress’ Independence Day recess: By encouraging Americans to surrender their God-given freedoms.


Now here’s the part that I don’t believe they’ve really thought through. They plan, as part of whatever it is they’re going to do (They’re kinda short on specifics.), to remind the American People that is was the Waskawy Wepubwicans that stood between our due process rights and the Democrats’ thirst for power. I’m no political expert, but there seems to be something a little off with that message.

But by all means, Democrats, please remind the American People who was doing what in DC this past week. And please do remind American voters, and American gun owners in particular, that it’s Donald Trump and the Republicans that are standing for freedom this November. And please do remind us all that it’s you folks who are blaming law-abiding Americans for the actions of Islamofascist terrorists. (Terrorists that you imported into the US, by the way.) Please do remind the electorate that it’s you who wants to disarm the American People while it was Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama who armed ISIS. Yes, please do give us all a refresher course. I’d hate to see us all forget these little details.


News Politics


Welcome to the Bizarro World of Democrat gun politics!

Up is down. Right is wrong. Ineffective gun control laws are effective. Like the inhabitants of Bizarro World, anti-gun Democrats need to exist in their own little reality to make their proposals seem reasonable. National Review’s David French looks at The Bizarro Morality of America’s Gun Control Debate

Up is down, good is evil, and truth is fiction for anti-Second Amendment progressives.

To the geeks among us, “Bizarro World” is a fictional planet in the DC Comics universe, a place featuring alternate versions of Superman and other comic-book heroes, governed by a code whose first principle is, “Us do opposite of all earthly things!” But to everyone else, the planet’s name has become shorthand for a backward state of affairs in which up is down, good is evil, and truth is fiction. The gun-control debate is a Bizarro World unto itself, one where activists, writers, and politicians — operating with an attitude of absolute moral superiority — operate according to their own “bizarro code” with three main tenets: Make up history, propose ineffective remedies, and mock proven solutions.

Let’s consider just one of the Bizarro World proposals recently rejected by the Senate, using the terrorist watch list as an excuse to stop gun purchases. The supposed reason for doing this is to prevent another terrorist rampage like the one that killed 49 Americans at the Pulse night club in Orlando. There’s just one problem with this: The jihadi, Omar Mateen, had been removed from the watch list! (And if you followed that link, you’ll noticed that this fact is cited by the L.A. Times as a reason to use the watch list this way. In other words, since the law wouldn’t have stopped Mateen, that’s why we need it!)

Gun control advocates have never had logical arguments as to why their ideas should be adopted into law. They use emotion and hope that no one will notice until it’s too late. It’s the only way their Bizarro laws could ever get passed.


As we’ve already mentioned here, Katie “The Perky One” Couric tossed aside whatever cred she had as a journalist to churn out a piece of anti-gun propaganda. And while she was paid to do so, she got caught lying about one of the groups she “interviewed” for the piece. (She also forgot to pat them down for recording devices!)

There have been multiple calls for Yahoo! News to fire her. These come not only from gun rights groups, but from real journalists who don’t wish to be tarred with her brush. But that could be the least of her problems. She and her staff may have broken Federal gun laws.

[I]t would appear that a producer of the Katie Couric documentary “Under the Gun” committed at least four federal felonies, one for each firearm he appears to have illegally purchased since the individual was not a resident of Arizona where he purchased the firearms.

Couric, given her involvement with the project, could be charged as a co-conspirator.

I’m sure she looks extra perky in orange.


(Now there’s the least surprising headline I’ve ever written!)

At the risk of sounding like I’m on #TeamKatie over this whole #GunGate thing, the perky one isn’t alone when it comes to creative editing. HBO Sports recently distorted the words of Jim Sullivan with regard to the lethality of the 5.56NATO family of cartridges and the AR-15 family of modern sporting rifles. Sullivan, who was on Eugene Stoner’s design team at Armalite 57 years ago, wrote about his disappointing encounter with the anti-gun wingnuts at HBO:

The anti-gun HBO sports interview misrepresented much of what I had said. They were apparently trying to make the AR-15 civilian model seem too dangerous for civilian sales. They didn’t lie about what I said, they just omitted key parts, which changed the meaning.

Specifically, HBO deleted Sullivan’s comments that delineated between the fully automatic M-16 and the semiautomatic AR-15. This was done to make the AR-15 seem “just as deadly” as the M-16. It’s not. Fully automatic firearms are always more lethal than their semiautomatic versions. HBO also deleted his comments about the differences between hunting ammunition, which expands on impact, and the 5.56NATO projectile that tumbles on impact. Expanding ammunition is always more lethal; a distinction that HBO decided to omit from Sullivan’s comments.

But 5.56 can’t complete with hunting cartridge bullets, which can legally [per the Hague Convention] be expanding hollow point that are more lethal than tumbling. Their lethality is based entirely on how powerful they are. 5.56 is only half as powerful as the 7.62 NATO (.308) hunting bullet. That doesn’t mean I’m not pleased to see AR-15s sell on the civilian market. It just means I didn’t realize they would 57 years ago. And I’m not on the wrong side of any gun issue unless someone wants to argue that an infantry rifle cartridge should kill a cavalry horse at 1,000 yards (30-06 criteria).

Funny how HBO has no problem with 11-year olds stabbing one another to death so long as they’re in costume, but they do have a problem with you owning a modern rifle.



There’s even a hashtag for it: #GunGate.

Katie Couric was caught lying about gun rights advocates in her EPIX “documentary” Under The Gun. Through a bit of creative editing (Which is fine for movie making, but not for something that’s allegedly journalism.) Couric and her minions made it look as though the gun totin’ Virginia hicks were dumbfounded by her question about background checks. In fact, the editors spliced in a nine seconds of “B-roll” footage from before the interview started. What she didn’t realize is that the members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League had made their own audio recording of the interview…

So no, Under The Gun isn’t journalism. But in Ms. Couric’s defense, it wasn’t supposed to be. She was getting paid to deliver a product to her clients; not to do real journalism. And per the film’s site, these clients include:


These are groups that paid good money for a “documentary” and they expect results. The last thing they want is an even handed work of actual journalism. They wanted something that says what they want to hear. They wanted an infomercial; not a documentary. Do you think that Couric would ever have lunch in this town again if she delivered the latter? Of course not!

So in her defense, she was simply giving the customers what they asked for. Don’t you wish that all of your vendors were as compliant as Katie Couric?



FRIDAY, MAY 27, 2016

Katie Couric is an Anti-Gun Fraud and Hypocrite

Google-search “Katie Couric, gun control, edited” and you’ll see what we’re talking about. Actually, you’ll see what most news organizations are talking about.

Fox News: Katie Couric slammed for ‘deceptive’ documentary about gun rights

Washington Post: Audiotape: Katie Couric documentary falsely depicts gun supporters as “idiots”

New York Times: Audio of Katie Couric Interview Shows Editing Slant in Gun Documentary, Site Claims

Reason: Katie Couric Anti-Gun Doc Deceptively Edited to Suggest Gun Rights Activists Don’t Have Answers

The Blaze: Katie Couric Documentary Accused of Deceptively Editing Gun Rights Activists—Here’s the Evidence

Washington Free Beacon: Audio Shows Katie Couric Documentary Deceptively Edited Interview with Pro-Gun Activists

Daily Caller: Katie Couric Edited Gun Documentary to Silence Pro-Gun Opinions

The articles’ titles pretty much tell the story, but the details go something like this: Couric has produced a documentary promoting gun control. Lest there be any confusion on that point, the documentary’s website says that its partners include Everytown, Moms Demand Action, the Brady Campaign, the Violence Policy Center, the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, and other anti-gun groups. And it urges people to “Reject the NRA” and to contact lawmakers, urging them to support background check legislation and other gun control efforts.

In the documentary, Couric interviews members of a local, Virginia-based pro-Second Amendment group. She asks them why they don’t support “universal” background check legislation. What is shown on camera thereafter is the interviewees sitting speechless for a full nine seconds, after which time the video cuts away, as if they never figured out an answer and the cameraman gave up and turned the camera off. The implication? Couric had proven once and for all that gun control opponents are incapable of producing a single argument against gun control.

But an audio-only tape of the interview, available here, proves that several of those being interviewed answered Couric immediately and at considerable length. Couric’s team simply deleted their answers, and inserted the “speechless” video footage in their place.

The articles linked above make clear that Couric and her director, Stephanie Soechtig, set out not to “document” anything, but to persuade viewers to adopt their anti-gun views. All of this reminds us that Couric is the same political activist that she has always been, first as a “journalist” that would bend the truth to propagandize audiences, and now as a “filmmaker” that will do the same.

According to CNN, Couric says she is “very proud of the film.” Her hubris notwithstanding, it remains to be seen if Couric’s legacy is forever tainted – as it should be – from her attempt to mislead the American public into believing a false narrative on gun control.