New documents obtained by the government watchdog Judicial Watch prove, again, that guns sold through the Obama Justice Department's Fast and Furious Operation have been used by Mexican cartels for mass murder south of the border.
"According to the new records, over the past three years, a total of 94 Fast and Furious firearms have been recovered in Mexico City and 12 Mexican states, with the majority being seized in Sonora, Chihuahua and Sinaloa. Of the weapons recovered, 82 were rifles and 12 were pistols identified as having been part of the Fast and Furious program. Reports suggest the Fast and Furious guns are tied to at least 69 killings," Judicial Watch reports. "The documents show 94 Fast and Furious firearms were seized, 20 were identified as being involved in 'violent recoveries.' The 'violent recoveries' involved several mass killings."
The documents include locations, type of gun recovered and number of people killed:
June 30, 2014 — One 7.62mm rifle recovered in Tlatlaya, Estado de Mexico. This is the reported date and location of a shootout in which 22 people were killed.
May 22, 2015 — Two 7.62mm rifles recovered from the site of a massive shootout in Rancho el Sol, Michoacán, that left one Mexican Federal Police officer and 42 suspected cartel members dead.
August 7, 2015 — One 7.62mm rifle was among five firearms reported as recovered from an abandoned stolen vehicle in which three dead shooting victims were found in Parral, Chihuahua.
January 29, 2013 — One 7.62mm rifle seized in Hostotipaquillo, Jalisco is reportedly related to the assassination of the town police chief, Luis Lucio Astorga and his bodyguard.
January 11, 2016 — One .50 caliber rifle seized from the Joaquin “Chapo” Guzman’s hideout in Los Mochis, Sinaloa, where he was (re)arrested.
Keep in mind these stats only relate to 94 Fast and Furious guns, most of them being AK-47s and .50 caliber rifles, that have been recovered. The Department of Justice, with help from ATF, trafficked more than 2500 of them right into the hands of violent Mexican cartels members. Fast and Furious guns are only recoverable and traceable when they are left at crime scenes, which doesn't account for the number of times they were used in previous crimes.
Former Attorney General Eric Holder admitted during congressional testimony years ago that guns trafficked by the DOJ would be used to carry out violent crimes. In 2011, former House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa told reporters, citing Mexican Attorney General Marisela Morales, hundreds of Mexican citizens had been murdered as a result of the operation. Since then, a number of guns from the operation have been found at crime scenes in the U.S.
"These documents show President Obama's legacy includes one of gunrunning and violence in Fast and Furious," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. "As the production of documents from the ATF continues, we expect to see even further confirmation of Obama's disgraced former Attorney General Eric Holder's prediction that Fast and Furious guns will be used in crimes for years to come."
Last month a federal judge struck down an executive privilege claim made by President Obama in June 2012 over thousands of Fast and Furious documents. Those documents show the lengths Holder and his closest aides at DOJ went to cover-up the Operation and the scandal that followed, which became public when Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was murdered by Mexican bandits in December 2010. They were carrying guns from Operation Fast and Furious.
Electoral integrity advocates are frequently scolded and demagogued by the Left for supporting and pursuing voter ID laws, which institute a simple and straightforward manner of asking eligible voters to prove that they are who they say they are when they arrive at a polling station to cast their ballot. Such legislative efforts are not foolproof catch-alls that root out all forms of fraud, but they erect a minimally-burdensome safeguard against certain types of illegal voting. Nevertheless, these bills are often met with fierce, loud opposition from people who claim the proposed legislation is a "solution in search of a nonexistent problem," and probably a nefarious racist scheme to disenfranchise voters of color. These disingenuous arguments require anti-ID forces to ignore or shrug off tangible instances of genuine voter fraud. Here's the latest example via CBS 2 in Los Angeles:
A comparison of records by David Goldstein, investigative reporter for CBS2/KCAL9, has revealed hundreds of so-called dead voters in Southern California, a vast majority of them in Los Angeles County. “He took a lot of time choosing his candidates,” said Annette Givans of her father, John Cenkner. Cenkner died in Palmdale in 2003. Despite this, records show that he somehow voted from the grave in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008 and 2010. But he’s not the only one. CBS2 compared millions of voting records from the California Secretary of State’s office with death records from the Social Security Administration and found hundreds of so-called dead voters. Specifically, 265 in Southern California and a vast majority of them, 215, in Los Angeles County alone. The numbers come from state records that show votes were cast in that person’s name after they died. In some cases, Goldstein discovered that they voted year after year.
This one local reporter, using this one method, uncovered hundreds of dead voters in just one small corner of the country -- some of whom "voted year after year" after their deaths. When I tweeted about this story yesterday, a number of lefties trotted out their familiar refrain: This is an isolated incident that is in no way indicative of any larger problem. This argument requires its adherents to flat-out pretend that contradictory evidence does not abound. See, for example, this story out of Florida. Or this story out of North Carolina. Or this story, wherein a convicted fraudulent voter and poll worker in Ohio was cheered at a Democrat-sponsored anti-ID rally in Ohio. Or these instances of elected Democrats being charged and convicted of illegal voting. While you're at it, don't forget about Rhode Island's voter ID law, passed by a Democratic legislature and co-sponsored by black Democrats who stated that they'd personally witnessed fraud. The anti-voter ID crowd must be forced to explain just how much fraud they're willing to accept. Double voting, non-citizens voting, dead people voting, etc. I'll leave you with a friendly reminder that there is an overwhelming bipartisan consensus in support of these common sense laws. These Q-poll numbers were released earlier this month:
Recent Quinnipiac swing state polling: Voter ID laws are overwhelmingly popular pic.twitter.com/Ffv886Buoc— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) May 25, 2016
Veteran leftist and Yahoo News Anchor Katie Couric, with help from her friends at Bloomberg's gun control organizations and her producer Stephanie Soechtig, is out with a new "documentary" called Under the Gun. Couric has been making press rounds for weeks, promoting the film as fair, accurate and factual. Today, that was blown out of the water and the film has been exposed as a fraud.
The Free Beacon's Stephen Gutowski just busted Couric for deceptively editing an interview with gun owners from the Virginia Citizens Defense League. How? She asked them questions, they gave good answers and therefore, she had to destroy them. Instead of showing their answers, Couric and her film team intentionally edited the interview to make them look like unhelpful, uniformed, gun toting morons. She also painted them as enablers of felons and terrorists.
First, the clip from Couric's film:
Next, the full audio reported by Gutowski on Wednesday, proving the interview was maliciously edited:
This wasn't a mistake, it was done on purpose. Over to you, Bearing Arms:
Ladies and gentlemen, Dan Rather had a certain degree of deniability when his producers failed to do their due diligence and vet the so-called “Killian documents” for authenticity. It was a mistake, but still cost four people their jobs at CBS News and tarnished Rather’s lengthy and up until then, respected career.
Yahoo! News anchor and Under the Gun executive producer and narrator Katie Couric cannot off up any plausible deniability at all for her team’s decision to commit what is nothing more or less than fraud.
This project was Couric’s “baby,” and she was responsible for every aspect of the final cut of a heavily-biased documentary which now appears to contain blatant and intentional fraud designed to make the VCDL appear as if they didn’t have an answer to the interviewers questions, when they did indeed have an immediate, detailed, and rational response from three members of the group which went to so far as to cite law and Supreme Court decisions on prior restraint, pointing out the sort of “pre-crime” laws championed by gun control supporters is both Orwellian and blatantly unconstitutional.
Katie Couric’s “Gungate” was intentional, willful, and malicious fraud, and should in Couric’s immediate termination and her being treated as a pariah for the rest of her life.
Naturally, Couric didn't respond to Gutowski's request for comment. CNN's Brian Stelter is working on getting a statement from Couric and those promoting the film.
I'm pursuing comment from the director of this documentary; Couric; and Epix, which broadcast it... https://t.co/EuAABHlE2V— Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) May 25, 2016
Democrats may be touting their advantage with Hispanic voters. It’s something that’s certainly on the mind of Republicans. At the local and state level, Republican have been able to make decent gains into these communities—the Texas GOP is an example—but nationally the party has a way to go regarding outreach. But there is some sliver of hope for Republicans to make inroads. Right now, Hispanic voters, like Asians, overwhelming support a large government; though support dips the longer they’re immersed in American culture (via PanAm Post):
According to the Pew Research Survey, “When it comes to the size of government, Hispanics are more likely than the general public to say they would rather have a bigger government providing more services than a smaller government with fewer services.”
But the difference is not small. Overall, 75 percent of Hispanics prefer bigger government, compared with only 41 percent of the general US public. Interestingly, Hispanic support for large government declines after more time immersed in American values.
For 81 percent of first-generation Hispanic immigrants, a bigger government is more desirable. For the second generation, the preference drops to 72 percent. By the third generation, only 58 percent prefer bigger government.
Hispanic preference for bigger government prevails regardless of party affiliation, and Hispanic Catholics are particularly supportive of a larger government. Overall, 56 percent of U.S. Hispanics either identify with the Democratic Party or are independent but lean democratic, while 21 percent identify with or lean toward the Republican Party. Parenthetically, Cubans are somewhat of a political anomaly. Cubans who are registered to vote are closely split in party affiliation: 47 percent identify with the GOP, while 44 percent tilt toward the Democrats.
Jose Azel of the Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies aptly notes that Latin America is usually dotted with class warfare and calls for social justice. The political foundations of most of the countries in the region is marked by socioeconomic instability that might have called for more government intervention, even veering into authoritarian action as we’ve seen in Venezuela.
Like Asian Americans, you would think they would be model candidates to be core members of the Republican voting bloc. They’re hard working, church going, usually from regions of the world where left wing economics has brought nothing but misery, yet they trend leftward in their voting habits. Part of this is that Republicans don’t enough outreach, like showing up to their respective cultural festivals. Another aspect of field outreach is having candidates says absurd things about immigrant groups. This has a ripple effect as other immigrant groups usually rally around the one that’s perceived as being attacked. Nevertheless, the main point is that Hispanics, like most voter groups in the country, are winnable—and the longer they remain immersed in our values, the more they shed the collectivist leanings of their former home countries. There’s an opening there.
The closer we get to the Democratic convention in Philadelphia, the more the hostility between Bernie Sanders and Debbie Wasserman Schultz surfaces. Last week, Sanders told CNN he was rooting for the Democratic National Committee chair’s primary challenger Tim Canova, noting his policies better align with his. Sanders didn’t just talk the talk – he is even raising money for Canova in his primary effort.
While the Vermont senator says he’s supporting Canova because he is a more convincing progressive, another reason he’s refusing to support Schultz’s reelection efforts could be how she has treated his presidential campaign. As head of the DNC, Schultz made decisions that obviously favored Hillary Clinton, such as scheduling few debates, some of which were scheduled for weekend nights when few would be watching. After the chaos that ensued in Nevada earlier this month, Schultz frustratingly urged Sanders to denounce his supporters’ behavior. Sanders’ team insisted their candidate condemns any kind of threats and accused the DNC chair of “throwing shade” at his campaign.
His team is doubling down this week. On “Fox and Friends” Wednesday morning, Sanders’ campaign manager Jeff Weaver concluded that the situation has become personal for Schultz.
“I think it became very personal for her,” Mr. Weaver said. “She has lashed out at the campaign…on a number of occasions - these joint fundraising agreements which took money from state parties and gave it to the DNC.”
Weaver also sounded off on Clinton supporter Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) this week, rejecting her claims that Sanders supporters threatened her in Nevada.
Sanders’ contrast to Hillary Clinton and the Democratic establishment is evident in a new ad that asks voters to pick a “new direction” for the Democratic Party.
Sanders says in the ad that voters should push to "break the back of a corrupt" campaign finance system, "stand up to Wall Street" and "fight for tuition-free public colleges and universities."
“What choice do Californians have in this election? The biggest one of all," Sanders says in the 30-second ad released Tuesday. "California, it's a long way to Washington, but you can send them a message they can't ignore."
In a year of the outsiders, messages like these threaten to jeopardize Clinton’s White House chances.
Will the internal struggle within the Democratic Party hurt the Democrats’ chances this November? After all, Republicans are beginning to unite behind Donald Trump one-by-one – even some people who were his most vocal critics last fall.
An aide to House Speaker Paul Ryan has quashed reports that the congressman is on the verge of endorsing Donald Trump.
"We've not told the Trump campaign to expect an endorsement. He's also not told anyone he regrets anything," a Ryan aide said, reports The Washington Examiner.
Multiple reports had cited aides within the Trump campaign saying an endorsement from Ryan could come as soon as this week.
Ryan noted after his meeting with the presumptive GOP nominee earlier this month that he was “encouraged with what [he] heard from Donald Trump” but added that unification is a “process” that “takes time.”
“I don't want us to have a fake unification process here," he continued.
Clearly, when--or if--the time comes that Ryan backs Trump, we'll know it's authentic.
The Democratic civil war over the presidential nomination continues, with Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders warning that things could get “messy” in Philadelphia. Democrats, like the Republicans, are having their nominating conventions in July, but the party unity building exercises look as if it will be more arduous for the Democratic nominee, which is most likely going to be Hillary Clinton. She’s less than 100 delegates away from clinching the nomination, which many thought would be a cakewalk. Instead, the former secretary of state has suffered numerous defeats at the hands of a self-described Democratic socialist.
Yet, even with Sanders’ string of wins, especially when the primary shifted towards the West and Pacific Northwest, Clinton still maintained her delegate lead. As expected, Sanders was not able to win by margins that would have allowed him to overtake the former first lady, as the entire Democratic primary process is based off of proportional allocation of delegates. Clinton’s dominance during the I-95 Corridor primaries also pretty much sealed the deal. Still, even with those facts, Sanders supporters feel cheated, and their anger is reaching critical levels. They feel that the system is rigged. Those feelings boiled over during the chaotic Nevada Democratic Convention in Las Vegas last week, where outgoing Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) said she felt her safety was in danger.
This is what national Democrats fear is going to happen in front of every major news network in the country: a devoted cohort of Sanders supporters wreaking havoc on the convention floor. Then again, Sanders told the Associated Press that life and democracy is messy—and that our political order isn’t always so gentle.
The Democratic presidential candidate said in an interview with The Associated Press that his supporters hoped to see a platform at the July convention that reflects the needs of working families, the poor and young people as opposed to one that represents Wall Street and corporate America.
The Vermont senator said he will "condemn any and all forms of violence" but his campaign was bringing in newcomers to the process and first-time attendees of political conventions. He said the Democratic Party could choose to be more inclusive.
"I think if they make the right choice and open the doors to working-class people and young people and create the kind of dynamism that the Democratic Party needs, it's going to be messy," Sanders said. "Democracy is not always nice and quiet and gentle but that is where the Democratic Party should go."
Asked if the convention could be messy, Sanders said: "So what? Democracy is messy. Everyday my life is messy. But if you want everything to be quiet and orderly and allow, you know, just things to proceed without vigorous debate, that is not what democracy is about."
Democrats already seem to be considering options to appease the Sanders crowd. There’s talk on the Hill that Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), who is also the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, could be dumped before the convention. Schultz has been the source of ire from the Sanders army for her perceived bias in this primary contest. Sanders had said if he were to be elected president, Schultz would be shown the exit. Still, Sanders will get one-third of the seats on the Democratic Party platform committee. Dr. Cornel West and Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, have been named by Sanders to participate in the drafting of what could be a decidedly left wing platform. James Zogby, a Palestinian rights activist, is also included in the mix.
The tension, however, doesn’t seem to be dissipating. Jeff Weaver, Sanders’ campaign manager, said that Sen. Boxer’s claims about fearing for her safety were inaccurate, describing her recollection of events as “incongruous.”
The Clinton campaign has issued a statement in response to a State Department Inspector General report released today showing former Secretary Hillary Clinton violated the Federal Records Act and put security at risk through the use of a private email server.
"While political opponents of Hillary Clinton are sure to misrepresent this report for their own partisan purposes, in reality, the Inspector General documents [show] just how consistent her email practices were with those of other Secretaries and senior officials at the State Department who also used personal email. The report shows that problems with the State Department's electronic record keeping systems were longstanding and that there was no precedent of someone in her position having a State Department email account until after the arrival of her successor. Contrary to the false theories advanced for some time now, the report notes that her use of personal email was known to officials within the Department during her tenure, and that there is no evidence of any successful breach of the Secretary's server. We agree that steps ought to be taken to ensure the government can better maintain official records, and if she were still at the State Department, Secretary Clinton would embrace and implement any recommendations, including those in this report, to help do that. But as this report makes clear, Hillary's use of personal email was not unique, and she took steps that went much further than others to appropriately preserve and release her records," the Clinton campaign released Wednesday.
This statement discounts these facts:
a) Hillary Clinton maintained a personal server in addition to a number of personal email addresses. This is unique. Other Secretaries of State who used private email from time to time weren't using private servers set up inside their homes.
b) The inspector general found Hillary Clinton violated the Federal Records Act by deleting tens-of-thousands of emails from her personal email server before turning over what she deemed to be government business emails to the State Department prior to her departure in 2013. Other Secretaries of State did not engage in mass deletion as Clinton did. The State Department can't keep or properly preserve records Clinton deleted before they were turned over, despite what this statement tries to imply.
c) Thousands of pieces of top secret, classified information have been found on Clinton's private server. At this point, this is not the case with previous Secretaries of State.
d) Good hackers cover their trackers, making it impossible to tell if a server has been breached. UPDATE: The IG report, as Guy notes, includes emails from IT saying the Clinton server had been hacked...again.
f) The statement that Clinton "took steps that went much further than others to appropriately preserve and release her records" is a lie. Again, she set up a private server in her home to avoid transparency, Congressional oversight and federal records law and again, she deleted 30,000 emails before turning the rest over for preservation.
I'll leave you with this:
Hillary Clinton and her presidential campaign have habitually derided and dismissed serious developments pertaining to her national security-compromising email scandal, preposterously seeking to cast the entire imbroglio as witch hunt-style machinations of partisan Republicans. Thus far, this "vast right-wing conspiracy" has entailed several left-leaning media outlets, the Obama-appointed intelligence community Inspector General, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. As Katie wrote earlier, Team Hillary must now add another highly unlikely source to its roster of ignominy: The Inspector General serving as a nonpartisan watchdog at...the very government agency she led for four years. The new, damning report directly refutes a number of insistent statements Mrs. Clinton and her allies have issued over the last 15 months. Many of her assertions at an initial press conference in March 2015 have been demonstrably proven to be inaccurate and deceitful. The list of falsehoods has now expanded:
(1) "Everything I did was permitted," Clinton has said on multiple occasions, averring that her email scheme did not violate any rules or laws. This statement has been swatted down by federal records-keeping experts, and by a federal judge who was elevated by Clinton's husband. Now her own State Department's IG drives the final nail into this mendacious talking point's coffin: "The report concluded that Clinton violated the agency’s email rules when she chose to exclusively use a private email server during her four years at State Department and did not promptly turn over records after she departed the agency," Politico writes. More:
State Dept. inspector general: Clinton didn't seek permission to use private email server, wouldn't have received it https://t.co/KWCyZOgU30— The New York Times (@nytimes) May 25, 2016
(2) "I've been more transparent than anybody I can think of in public life," she told CBS News in March, adding that she's 'fully cooperated' with probes into the email affair. Here's an important quote from Politico's story, based on the State Department IG's findings. Well then:
(3) I used one email [and one mobile device] "for convenience," not to avoid public records requests. The first half of that claim has been disproven many times over. The Clinton campaign's denials that she was trying to shield her correspondence from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) actions have never passed the smell test -- avoiding scrutiny seemed like the entire purpose of setting up a rogue, private email server in the first place -- but now we have an admission in Hillary's own words. Keep in mind that this passage also re-proves that she deliberately eschewed the creation of an official email account, which she was required to have. As you read this, don't forget that Hillary went on to withhold and attempt to delete "personal" emails that were unequivocally work-related. And kindly recall this New York Times headline:
DUDE. State IG report has Clinton telling Abedin she doesn't want an official email acct b/c she wants to avoid FOIA pic.twitter.com/apAbAS76Aa— Lachlan Markay (@lachlan) May 25, 2016
Was the server ever hacked?
No, there is no evidence there was ever a breach.
Was there ever an unauthorized intrusion into her email or did anyone else have access to it?
From the IG report:
'We were hacked again,' IT person said in 2011 on Clinton's private email server. Clinton says she was never hacked. pic.twitter.com/rxQpbzX0AA— Ted Bridis (@tbridis) May 25, 2016
The highlighted quote actually reads "we were attacked again," which Clinton defenders will note could be different than admitting to a successful hack. Then again, a low-tech Romanian hacker nicknamed "Guccifer" who claims to have penetrated her emails multiple times (he successfully hacked the emails of her confidante Sidney Blumenthal, about whom she's also lied) has been extradited to the US by the feds and is reportedly in the process of striking a plea deal. An official at the Defense Intelligence Agency, the former acting director of the CIA, and the former Secretary of Defense have all said that it's a virtual certainty that hostile foreign governments were able to access Clinton's unsecure server. And here we have her server manager temporarily shutting the thing down after a flurry of known cyber attacks. I'll leave you with a few refreshers: Hillary Clinton claimed none of the emails on her bootleg server were classified, and that she personally didn't send any classified materials. There were, in fact, more than 2,000 classified emails on that server, including top secret and above top secret information -- with dozens that were classified at the time (she signed a sworn agreement to protect all secret data, regardless of whether it was marked as such). She personally sent more than 100 of them. Hillary Clinton was explicitly warned, and acknowledged the warning, that her improper and vulnerable email arrangement endangered sensitive material in 2011. Undeterred by the clear threat her behavior posed, she carried on with her reckless system through the end of her tenure. Hillary Clinton has lied about nearly every facet of this story, from start to finish. Soon, the Obama Justice Department will have to determine whether her conduct was grossly negligent, and therefore criminal. Today's Inspector General report appears to do significant damage to her on the 'intent' front.
UPDATE - The spin begins:
GOP will attack HRC because she is running for President, but IG report makes clear her personal email use was not unique at State Dept— Brian Fallon (@brianefallon) May 25, 2016
Aside from "others did it, too" being legally irrelevant, it is also wrong. We've dealt with a variant of this excuse in the past, but let's make things very simple:
Setting up a private, improper, unsecure server to conduct *all* email business was, in fact, unique to one person. https://t.co/QB3QXhOFUu— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) May 25, 2016
It’s as if we’re getting a preview of what Second Amendment rights would look like in Hillary Clinton’s America. Recently, California all but banned rifles and imposed background checks for ammunition. Now, Hawaii may become the first state that enters its gun-owning residents into a federal database (via AP):
Hawaii could become the first state in the United States to enter gun owners into an FBI database that will automatically notify police if an island resident is arrested anywhere else in the country.
Most people entered in the "Rap Back" database elsewhere in the U.S. are those in "positions of trust," such as school teachers and bus drivers, said Stephen Fischer of the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services Division. Hawaii could be the first state to add gun owners.
"I don't like the idea of us being entered into a database. It basically tells us that they know where the guns are, they can go grab them" said Jerry Ilo, a firearm and hunting instructor for the state. "We get the feeling that Big Brother is watching us."
Sen. Will Espero, who introduced the bill, and the Honolulu Police Department said Hawaii could serve as a model for other states if it becomes the first to enact the law.
Yet others say gun owners shouldn't have to be entered in a database to practice a constitutional right.
"You're curtailing that right by requiring that a name be entered into a database without doing anything wrong," said Kenneth Lawson, faculty at the University of Hawaii's William S. Richardson School of Law.
"This is an extremely dangerous bill. Exercising a constitutional right is not inherently suspicious," said Amy Hunter for the National Rifle Association. "Hawaii will now be treating firearms as suspect and subject to constant monitoring."
We can look forward to this if Clinton and the Democrats retain control of the White House and possibly take back Congress. In Hawaii, it’s possible that in the future, your name would be added into a federal database because you’ve exercised a constitutionally protected right to own a firearm. That’s ridiculous. Moreover, it does set up an avenue for government to confiscate your guns. Clinton has said that Australia’s gun control laws serve as a “good example,” though we all know that the Land Down Under implemented a draconian system of gun registration, bans, and, yes, confiscation. Oh, and it created a rather violent black market for firearms. This isn’t crazy talk. Government will always overstep its bounds. Wayne LaPierre said at CPAC in 2013 that the only reason anti-gunners want a gun registry is to either tax our firearms or to take them.
Chairman McCaul: Senate Could Solve TSA Problem Today ‘If They Would Act’ on My Bills | Cortney O'Brien
Breitbart’s Milo Yiannopoulos Visited DePaul University, Social Justice Warriors Went Indiscriminately Insane | Matt Vespa