The Shura


shura_2Shura: (shūrā) is an Arabic word for ‘consultation’. It is a gathering of Leaders among a Tribe or Group which contemplates an issue, agrees upon a solution, and rallies their groups towards that goal. The agreement reached provides the community’s consent to action, recognizing the authority of the community and accepting the burden of consequence.

Despite the few of you out there scratching your heads, this concept is not at all foreign to the West- gatherings to resolve issues based upon common, recognized places at that table, is fairly commonplace. We do it everyday informally and formally- humans are social creatures by nature and react with hostility to accepted norms being violated.

Therefor it is not without too much effort we can extend such a concept to our defensive postures. For Survivalists, Preppers, Militia-types or just those with a broad concern of the condition of things, and for that…

View original post 1,228 more words

When it comes to political correctness, Millennials have the solution…

Fellowship of the Minds

safe spaces

Like I’m going to take advice from those who love socialism yet can’t define it. Riiiiight.

From Yahoo (via Business Insider): The heated debate about political correctness is often misunderstood.

While many individuals across generations dislike the pejorative use of political correctness to represent censorship, a closer investigation reveals generational differences in the desire to use inclusive language.

Millennials know that using appropriate language invites rather than restricts productive conversation. Creating a supportive environment makes space for all individuals to feel welcome in sharing their opinions, rather than fearing that people will demonize their personhood and attack their character based on their identities. Thanks to the internet, Millennials are citizens of the globe and ambassadors of social justice. Unfortunately, not all generations understand how using certain words or phrases prohibits dialogue and hurts other people.

To discover five things that all millennials want older generations to know about…

View original post 671 more words

President Trump’s Voter Fraud Commission Meets, Smeared by Deniers

President Donald Trump, accompanied by Vice President Mike Pence, center right, and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, center left, speaks during the first meeting of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on the White House complex in Washington, Wednesday, July 19, 2017. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

Remember a few weeks ago when civility was cool? Or, had you already forgotten?

Remember the days after Rep. Steve Scalise was bleeding out at second base in Alexandria, Virginia?  “Kindness builds communities.” Everyone was Mr. Rogers, glad to be your neighbor.

Not anymore. Not with the Four Horsemen of the Voter Suppression Apocalypse on the loose.

Brennan Center graphic

All it took to forget that civility was cool was for the President’s Commission on Election Integrity to hold their first meeting. I’m on that Commission, and I get to experience the ugliness and dishonesty directed at it up close.

The President’s Commission on Election Integrity is going to do what no academic, no law professor, and certainly no group funded by George Soros has been willing to do: inventory and catalog the extent of voter fraud using all available data.

Naturally, a smear campaign sprung into action as soon it was clear that the president was serious.  The groups that raise money telling Americans there is no voter fraud led the effort. They have a lot to lose, so they have a lot to do. After all, if they’re wrong, their donors were had and their claim that voter fraud is a myth risks being exposed as one big lie.

President Trump flipped the script on this crowd. He inverted the risk calculations. That’s what they hate.

And hate they did.

“This not about voter fraud. This is literally about stripping the right to vote from millions of Americans,” Joya Taft-Dick of Washington, D.C., told NPR’s Pam Fessler. To them, Kris Kobach is “one of the country’s foremost architects of voter suppression.” Hans von Spakovsky is “the Dark Prince of voter alarmism” in a storyby Leon Neyfakh.

More articles than I can link to say I specialize in “disenfranchising minorities.” Never mind that I brought more cases to create minority voting districts and to protect minority language rights while I was at the Justice Department than the DOJ brought in the eight years of President Obama. I never saw any of the groups suing over the Commission helping me fight raw racial discriminationin federal court. They were selectively AWOL — but are happy to label someone as racist in a pleading.

But the hate was even spicier on Twitter:

“Racist!” is a favorite slander of the Commission foes. Kobach is a racist. Von Spakovsky is a racist. Pence is a racist. I’m a racist. Ken Blackwell is a … oh wait.

But they’ve got other slurs for Ken.

For good measure, @jennycohn1 even published Blackwell’s home address on Twitter. I’m sure Twitter will ban her right away. Oh, be careful there, loons — Ken is an NRA board member.

I’ll let you in on a secret, Jenny and Joya. None of us are affected by your Rule 12 Alinsky attacks. We are far past the point of caring. In fact, the attacks are great fun. Nothing is quite as reassuring, invigorating and humorous as an unhinged leftist attack, so please keep them coming. It makes all the effort worthwhile.

Twitter graphic posted by @KenBlackwell

But there are also the high-minded slurs. Consider Justin Levitt.

This leftist academic (I repeat myself) is known as the Smartest Man in California. If you didn’t know he was, he’ll remind you.

Justice Department photo on Loyola Law School website

Levitt is part of the academic crowd that pushes the Voter-Fraud-Is-a-Myth narrative to the legacy media. Levitt doesn’t like anyone talking about aliens getting on the voter rolls. When the Public Interest Legal Foundation documented over 5,500 voter registrations cancelled for citizenship problems, Levitt went to work. See, he was at the Justice Department during the Obama administration and was part of the neglect that led to corrupted rolls. Because some of the people who were removed in Virginia were eventually put back on the rolls, he thinks the whole report can be ignored.

The problem is that governments shouldn’t be removing citizens from the rolls as non-citizens any more than governments should be putting non-citizens on the rolls. In Virginia, they are doing both.

Our report called any improper removal of citizens “a serious problem with list maintenance in the Commonwealth. Legitimate voters should not be removed from the rolls for not being citizens. If this explains the 5,550-plus instances of removal for citizenship defects, then that circumstance is also appalling.”

Honest academics confront both problems — aliens getting on the rolls or Virginia removing citizens mistakenly. But Levitt isn’t an honest academic, or his version of the report didn’t include the language above.

Then there is former DOJ Civil Rights Division head Vanita Gupta’s attacks on the Commission.  She’s the one who blamed the Baltimore riots and burnings on slavery. David Steinberg dismantles her “‘moon-landing was faked-level’ attack” on the Commission better than I ever could.

And what effort to deny voter fraud could be complete without the NAACP? They filed a lawsuit that devotes page after page to political smears of the commissioners. For me, they have copious quotes from PJ Media articles, complete with links! In one article, I describe the danger of American’s growing impatience with jihadist attacks at home, and how that circumstance creates a dangerous situation that risks a backlash. In other words, I borrowed the same narrative that CAIR and Gupta have been pushing, and warned of the danger. They missed the point, but thanks for quoting the article.

California Secretary of State Alex Padilla joined in, chirping personal attacks at me through government servers using government employees. That’s no surprise. California was the last state to finally implement anti-voter fraud database mandates in the Help America Vote Act of 2002 — over a decade after the law passed. Padilla may be sitting on top of a big rotten batch of mess in his voter rolls. I can understand his worry.

One thing the foes of the Commission have in common: they have something to lose.

Whether it is clout, or face, or donations, the truth about vulnerabilities in our elections threatens their position. Why let civility get in the way of self-preservation?

Here’s my written statement from the Commission’s first meeting:

I would like to thank President Trump for initiating this long overdue effort. I would like to also like to thank the other members of the commission for their willingness to examine the integrity of our electoral systems, seek the truth about vulnerabilities in our systems and contemplate ways to improve the process.

Most Americans value truth, and value elections systems deserving of our faith. It’s been said that “truth enlightens our intelligence and helps shape our freedom.” Clean elections protect our freedom. Elections tainted by fraud disrupt the consent of the governed.

I believe all of the Commissioners are dedicated to an inquisitive and robust search for the data and for the truth about vulnerabilities in and ways to improve our election system.

There are areas of serious concern. For example, people are getting registered to vote even though they mark the voter registration forms “NO” to the question, are you a United States citizen. Again, they checked the box on the registration form that they were not citizens, but were still registered to vote. What fair minded American could support this?  What serious, inquisitive American wouldn’t ask: how does this happen? How often does this happen? How can we improve the system?

Yet there are plenty of special interests who would rather that these questions not be asked. They don’t want to seek the truth. They don’t even want anyone to ask any questions.

That’s the wrong approach. Americans have never assumed we couldn’t accomplish the mission, couldn’t improve the way things work.

There are ways to examine the truth about our elections without harming a single legitimate voter registration. I am sure the members of this Commission will do their best, as I will, to improve our election systems. For the first time, we have the tools, the will, and the support of the majority of the American people who are concerned with voter fraud, to document any vulnerabilities in our election systems and suggest improvements.  I’m excited to help.

OSU ‘Study’ Bolsters Meme that Gun Owner Control Opponents are ‘Extreme’

By David Codrea

Because nothing says “moderates” like raised fists, bullhorns and pink pussy hats.
David Codrea in his natural habitat.

USA – -( “A group of Oregon State University researchers recently concluded gun violence prevention groups in the United States are ‘middle-of-the-ground’ in ideology,” the Corvallis Gazette-Times parrots unquestioningly. “This surprised the professors as it contradicts some depictions of gun violence prevention groups as ‘anti-gun,’ they said.”

“The researchers spent two years studying national and regional gun violence prevention groups and concluded they are motivated to reduce death and injury by firearms, but that they want to do so while reserving the right to own guns,” the article assures readers.

So they all have big “buts”?  You know, I believe in the Second Amendment but…

In other words, (if you’re willing to turn a blind eye to the end game gun ban goals) all the Bloomberg Moms and Bradyites want are “common sense gun safety laws” and “reasonable regulations.” Which are demonstrably code words for: opposing the bearing of arms; ending private sales; bankrupting the firearms industry; imposing prior restraints; banning the very types of weapons needed by a citizen militia; ignoring due process; and treating freedom like a disease…

Left unadressed is why the most effective “gun violence prevention” seems to be an armed response.

The selected example the authors gave of a being “’in the middle’ of the gun debate” is telling:

“[O]ther constitutional rights have restrictions, the researchers said. “You can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater …That is a restriction on the First Amendment right to free speech.”

If you’re going to quote Holmes, get it right.

Oh bull. Not that ridiculous and tired old strawman again. Of course you can — there are no prior restraints. It’s just that there had better be a fire. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ conveniently misstated quote was:

“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” [Emphasis added]

You can’t open fire in a crowded theater either, at least not unless it’s also legally justifiable. No one but a deceiving gun-grabber would try to get people to think otherwise.

And that leads us to question if the “researchers” are truly unbiased fact-finders, or if they might have indications of personal biases and motives that merit further scrutiny of their conclusions (rather than just blindly swallowing what  the Gazette-Times regurgitates on their behalf).

The title of the “study” in question:

“Addressing the Wicked Problem of American Gun Violence: Consumer Interest Groups as Macro-social Marketers.”

“Wicked”? Bursting right out of the starting gate with virtue signaling hardly suggests room for acknowledging when the application of violence with a firearm (or its deterrence) might be “righteous” and “beneficial.”

So she’s a demonstrable advocate.

Featured author Aimee Huff’s credibility for fair-mindedness would be less susceptible to skepticism if she didn’t use her Twitter account to retweet a link from a Hillary Clinton donor calling President Trump “a megalomaniac”; to applaud Facebook and other sites for banning gun ads; to promote slick Saatchi and Saatchi propaganda spots from “Evolve”; and to promulgate as legitimate another “PSA” that my 2015 FOIA request proved specified “actors” on the filming permit.

Might Ms. Huff have some predispositions on the subject?

Her co-authors are also marketing wonks: Michelle BarnhartBrandon McAlexander and James McAlexander.

By presenting such “researchers” as the arbiters of what is moderate, it makes opponents seem unreasonable and extreme, which is the goal. Having that message crafted by professional marketeers means we’re being fed selected information by people who areusing their skills to influence, to manipulate and to promote a disarmament agenda.

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.

In addition to being a field editor/columnist at GUNS Magazine and associate editor for Oath Keepers, he blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.