Showing posts with label Breitbart California. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Breitbart California. Show all posts

Thursday, June 2, 2016

New California Primary Poll: Sanders 44, Clinton 43

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio
iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

Adelle Nazarian / Breitbart News

by JOEL B. POLLAK2 Jun 201617

Sen. Bernie Sanders achieved his first lead over former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in a new USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times pollreleased on Thursday. Sanders drew support from 44% of eligible Democratic voters, versus 43% for Clinton.

The result, within the poll’s 2.9% margin of error, is yet another statistical dead heat in the California primary — the fourth in less than two weeks. However, among voters with the highest propensity to vote, Clinton leads 49% to 39%.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

The Times reports that Sanders is succeeding by winning among minority voters — who have, until now, been Clinton’s firewall:

Hillary Clinton’s popularity has slumped in California under an unrelenting challenge from Bernie Sanders, who has succeeded in breaching the demographic wall Clinton had counted on to protect her in the state’s presidential primary…

As he has done across the country this primary season, Sanders commands the support of younger voters by huge margins in advance of Tuesday’s primary — even among Latinos and Asians, voter groups that Clinton easily won when she ran eight years ago. Many of his backers come from a large pool of voters who have registered for the first time in the weeks before the election.


Among Latino voters in particular, the poll shows a 44%-44% tie.

The question is what the turnout will be on primary day, June 7. Two-thirds — or more — of California primary voters have cast votes by mail in recent elections, and could have been voting since early May, long before Sanders’s late surge.

Sanders leads 48% to 35% among “non-partisan” voters. However, those voters will have to request a special ballot in order to support Sanders.

The poll also found that if Clinton is the nominee, 10% of Sanders voters in California intend to vote for Trump.

advertisement

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. His new e-book, Leadership Secrets of the Kings and Prophets: What the Bible’s Struggles Teach Us About Today, is on sale through Amazon Kindle Direct. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

Read More Stories About:

2016 Presidential RaceBig Government,Breitbart Californiabernie sanders usc dornsife pollCalifornia Primarylos angeles timespolls

Thursday, May 5, 2016

Magazine Depicts Donkey with Hillary Tattoo Raping Donald Trump

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

OC Weekly

by ADELLE NAZARIAN5 May 201629

This week’s OC Weekly cover features a Democratic donkey, with a Hillary for America tattoo, raping a naked depiction of Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump.

The less-than-savory cover appears to be a take on the infamous Donkey Show myth in Mexico, in which a woman has sex with the animal.

“Yes, that is a Democratic ass on top of Donald Trump on the cover of this week’s dead-tree Weekly,” the magazine writes. “And it’s only fitting.”

The image was drawn by Hispanic “cartoonista” Lalo Alcaraz who was born in San Diego, California to Mexican parents. In the dialogue bubbles, the Clinton donkey says, “check out our Trump coverage!” while it shows off its abnormally large teeth. The Trump caricature depicts a flustered and humiliated man saying, “It’s yuuuge!”

The donkey, or ass, is the Democratic Party’s mascot.

The magazine offers the following description of its Charlie Hebdo-like cover choice, which it self-praises as “good stuff!”

For more than a year, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee has peddled all sorts of nasty myths against Mexicans, from painting undocumented immigrants as rapists and Typhoid Marias to insisting a massive wall on the U.S.-Mexico border will make America great again.” His campaign has grown as grotesque as adonkey show, those Tijuana spectacles that exist only in the fevered minds of gabachos, and it made a stop in Costa Mesa last week, with Trump the featured star and theWeeklydocumentingeveryscream,punch and lie. So it’s also only fittinglegendary cartoonista Lalo Alcarazcapture the moment, you know? Besides, Democrats violating Trump from behind is what he can expect when he faces Hillary Clinton come November. Enjoy our package, and don’t forget to register to vote!

BTW, the idea for this cover came from our former sister paper the Riverfront Times, who infamously had theDemocratic donkey humping former Missouri congressman Todd “Legitimate Rape” Akins on its cover in 2012—good stuff!


The OC Weekly cover arrives just one month away from the California primary, which will likely decide the state of the race in the Democratic Party. Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee, is just 178 total delegates away from clinching the party’s nomination.

advertisement

Follow Adelle Nazarian on Twitter @AdelleNaz 

Read More Stories About:

2016 Presidential RaceBig Journalism,Breitbart CaliforniaDonald TrumpHillary ClintonDemocratic Party2016 presidential electionDonkeyOC Weekly

Tuesday, April 19, 2016

Breitbart California Primary Projection: Trump 106, Cruz 66, Kasich 0

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

Sandy Huffaker / Getty

by JOEL B. POLLAK18 Apr 2016391

If the California primary, scheduled for June 7, were held today, Republican frontrunner Donald Trump would likely win 106 delegates — 93 from congressional districts, plus 13 for winning statewide — while

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)

97%

would win 66.

Ohio governor John Kasich could win 6 delegates, all from districts currently allocated to Trump, in which case the projection would be Trump 100, Cruz 66, Kasich 6.

The new projections are slightly more favorable for Trump than Breitbart News’previous projection (94 – 72 – 6), and is based on available public polling data, demographic data and qualitative analysis.

That win would likely bring Trump close to the 1,237 delegates for a majority on the first ballot at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland in July, but not quite over the threshold, leading to a contested convention.

Analysis by the Associated Press estimatesthat Trump would need to win even more decisively in California — capturing 130 delegates — to secure the nomination. That would require winning an additional eight congressional districts relative to what Breitbart News has currently projected.

It is not impossible for Trump to do so, but he will be facing stiff competition from a well-organized, data-driven Cruz campaign.

On the Democratic side, Breitbart News projects that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would win 189 delegates to 128 for rival 

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)

16%

 — before “superdelegates” are taken into account. With that majority, Clinton would likely clinch the Democratic Party’s nomination.

It should be noted that Clinton’s lead in California narrowed considerably, particularly among Latino voters, during the period when Breitbart News’ analysis was undertaken. Therefore it is possible her margin of victory would be somewhat lower than projected. Likewise, Trump’s lead may be less than projected, given that Cruz enjoys a structural advantage in California, where the primary is “closed” — i.e. limited to registered Republicans.

Because the contested delegates in the Democratic primary in California are allocated on a proportional basis within each congressional district, and some districts have more delegates than others, it makes more sense for Clinton and Sanders to concentrate on districts where they are already strongest.

In contrast, because Republican delegates are awarded on a winner-takes-all basis, with three delegates in each district, candidates must venture beyond their “safe” seats to win.

The breakdown of seats in the Republican primary is currently as follows:

Safe Trump (11 districts, 33 delegates): 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 43, 50, 51, 52, 53Safe Cruz (6 districts, 18 delegates): 4, 9, 10, 16, 21, 23Leans Trump (15 districts, 45 delegates): 2, 8, 11, 26, 28, 29, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 42, 44, 46Leans Cruz (11 districts, 33 delegates): 3, 7 22, 25, 30, 36, 39, 41, 45, 48, 49Possible Kasich (2 districts, 6 delegates): 6, 12Toss-up (8 districts, 24 delegates): 1, 5, 15, 24, 27, 31, 33, 47

The current Breitbart News projection is based on a particular characterization of the race. But it is possible to project different outcomes by varying those assumptions.

It is possible, for example, for Cruz to win the state if he wins all of the “Safe Cruz” seats (18 delegates) and “Leans Cruz” seats (33 delegates); wins all or most of the “Toss-up” seats (24 delegates); and either prevails in the statewide vote (13 delegates) or wins about half of the current “Leans Trump” seats.

Cruz’s task in the state is made easier by the fact that there are so many places where he can compete with Trump. His best targets are in the Los Angeles and Inland Empire regions, where he has been polling well.

To win a large enough majority to secure the nomination outright, Trump will have to win all of the “Safe Trump,” “Leans Trump,” and “Toss-up” seats, and win several of the “Leans Cruz” seats, while denying Kasich victories in the Bay Area.

Kasich could win two, and perhaps as many as four, districts. He would need to focus on the more liberal Bay Area, as well as in beachfront districts in L.A. and Orange County, where he might hope to slip past the frontrunners by presenting himself as an alternative. Winning at least one or two districts would strengthen his case at a contested convention. In the few districts where Kasich is strongest, he is competing directly with Trump, but he is probably a spoiler against Cruz more widely.

Initial district-by-district analysis follows (click for more):

0102030405060708091011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950515253

Read More Stories About:

Big Government2016 Presidential Race,Breitbart CaliforniaCalifornia Primary,DelegatesRepublican National Convention,Democratic National Convention

Friday, April 8, 2016

Federal Court Bans Cross from Los Angeles Seal

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

Wikipedia

by JOEL B. POLLAK8 Apr 2016686

A federal court ruled Thursday that the Los Angeles County supervisors violated the Constitution in 2014 when they voted to restore a small cross to the county seal. The cross appeared on a depiction of a historic mission building.

The plaintiffs, who included a coalition of liberal religious leaders, sued the county on the grounds that the cross violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The court, agreed, and added that the seal violated the No Aid Clause of the California constitution, which prevents the government from conferring a “sectarian” benefit.

Judge Christina A. Snyder, a Bill Clinton appointee, presided.

 

The 2014 seal replaced one approved in 2004, which had dropped a cross from the seal after the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) objected. After a contentious debate, the cross was added, as a supposedly historic symbol.

The U.S. District Court for the Western Division of the Central District of California granted a permanent injunction against the seal. The key was not just the presence of a cross on the seal — which might have been tolerable if it had been continued from an earlier use — but the fact that the Board specifically decided to add the cross. Though there was a secular reason for adding the cross, i.e. to show history, that did not blunt its sectarian meaning, the court said.

Judge Snyder rejected an argument by the plaintiffs that the Board had violated the No Preference Clause of the state constitution, but found that it did violate the federal Establishment Clause, noting that a “reasonable, objective observer” would see a sectarian purpose in the addition of the cross to the seal, regardless of the official explanation.

The Los Angeles Times reports that the Board of Supervisors was divided in its reaction to the ruling, with retired Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky hailing the decision.

 

Read More Stories About:

Big GovernmentBreitbart CaliforniaFaith,Religious freedomACLUEstablishment ClauseBoard of SupervisorsCrosslos angeles seal

Friday, January 22, 2016

Blue State Blues: Donald Trump and the New Conservative Opposition

Listen To Military Veteran Talk Radio


by JOEL B. POLLAK21 Jan 201650
Now that Donald Trump has created the legendary “big tent” of strategists’ dreams, a sudden panic has set in among some conservative pundits.
The New York Times reported Thursday: “Conservative intellectuals have become convinced that Mr. Trump, with his message of nationalist-infused populism, poses a dire threat to conservatism, and plan to issue a manifesto on Friday to try to stop him.”
Herewith, the aforementioned–which, understandably, cost National Review the right to co-host the next Republican debate.
Why would a manifesto work, when nothing else has? And what is the point?
In his lifetime, Andrew Breitbart made two observations about Trump. The first was that he is “not a conservative.”
Trump has become more conservative in recent years, particularly on immigration, but those who distrust him have good reason to do so. As his recent, ill-informed criticism of Justice Antonin Scalia showed, when faced with tough or unfamiliar questions, Trump’s instinct is to revert to liberal mainstream media orthodoxy, then backtrack later.
The other observation Andrew Breitbart made was that Trump could, admirably, unravel the mainstream media’s defenses of Barack Obama.
And that is the true reason for his success in the 2016 campaign.
Many conservative writers and talk radio hosts initially applauded Trump as he waged a one-man war against political correctness, breaking taboos about everything from Mexicans to McCain, from immigration to Islam, and from Clintons to Christmas.
At the start of the 2016 GOP presidential primary, the exceptionally strong field of candidates boasted a throng of solid conservatives, many with long governing experience.
But Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker bogged himself down with consultants, and both former Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal alienated voters by attacking Trump from the left.
That left long-shot Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) in a position to win–and many conservatives began to dream big.
They apparently expected Trump to dent the opposition while allowing Cruz to draft behind him, and eventually overtake him. But it was always possible that Trump and Cruz would clash–and even foreseeable that Trump might play the “Canada card” if necessary.
Still, the end of the “bromance” took many by surprise. And it suddenly became clear Trump could win the nomination himself, and intended to do so, by any means necessary.
That has left many leading conservative pundits disoriented. Just as the GOP establishment has struggled to accept the demise of its preferred candidates, its intellectual wing is struggling to accept the reality of Trump.
Cruz promises supporters he can run to the right, and stay there. Rejecting the Barry Goldwater warning as a one-time anomaly–the result, it is argued, of public sentiment after the Kennedy assassination–the Cruz campaign hopes to mobilize the electorate behind a clear alternative to liberalism and Washington in general. Its chief selling point is Cruz’s record of delivering on promises of opposition, no matter the political or personal cost.
The strategy’s chief weakness is that it depends on dividing the electorate, much as Obama has done–even though the Electoral College favors Democrats.
To win, Cruz has to be the boldest conservative running, without alienating more timid voters whose support he still needs. In that light, his attack on “New York values” was an unforced error that revived doubts about his ability to win a general election–just as he was becoming the most likable candidate.
The Trump strategy is more primitive: win, and keep winning. That is why he begins every speech by citing his yuge poll numbers.
As Democrat strategist (and convicted felon) Robert Creamer wrote in August, predicting Trump’s nomination: “…Trump seems like a winner. Voters follow winners, not losers…Now that he has established himself as the leader of the GOP political pack, the sense of bandwagon will generate even more supporters.”
His momentum has brought Trump support from moderate Republicans, working-class Democrats, and previously disaffected voters. He has expanded the Republican electorate–and not, as GOP consultants had advised, by pandering to minorities; nor, as movement conservatives would have preferred, by using the persuasive power of ideas.
No, his movement is not an Obama-like personality cult, nor “agrarian national populism,” nor proto-fascism. The Trump phenomenon is neither so ominous nor so complicated. It is today what it has been from the start: a rebellion against the media elite.
Yet while Trump counted on the initial support of much of the conservative media, he no longer needs conservatism to win–or to govern. There are more conservatives than liberals in America, but conservatives may be relegated to minority partner in a winning coalition.
At best, what the conservative intellectuals mounting a likely doomed effort to stop Trump are actually doing–though they may not realize it–is staking a claim to lead the new opposition.
They are laying down a marker, and articulating a set of conservative principles that could guide a Republican-led Congress as it begins, under a hypothetical Trump administration, to take seriously its role as a check on the executive.
The danger is that in attempting to stop Trump, these conservatives risk alienating him totally. If there is one near-constant in the Trump campaign, it is his use of a strategy that game theorists call “massive retaliatory strike“: he is friendly by default, but hits back hard if challenged.
Cruz knocks Trump for being a dealmaker. But his conservative critics may regret a missed opportunity to win policy concessions from Trump in exchange for their support, should he win the nomination.
Now they, too, will watch the debates on television.
Read More Stories About:

Thursday, January 21, 2016

GLENN BECK, You Do Not Understand Sarah Palin

AP Photo/Mary Altaffer

by JOEL B. POLLAK20 Jan 2016557

The conservative commentariat has imploded in dismay at Sarah Palin’s endorsement of Donald Trump in Iowa on Tuesday.

Fans of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Trump’s main rival in Iowa and beyond, were understandably dismayed.

But the reaction went far beyond that. Some said Palin betrayed her conservative principles by choosing a candidate whose conservatism is shallow at best. And some rehashed the personal attacks that have been a staple of the left.

In fact, Sarah Palin’s endorsement of Trump makes sense, and fits both her politics and her personality.

Yes, she has been the iconic symbol of conservatism and the Tea Party, whereas Trump seemed perfectly happy to go along with Obama and the Clintons until a few years ago.

But just as Palin has never let herself be defined by the Republican Party, she has never felt bound by ideological checklists, either. She is a conservative, but she is anti-establishment first.

Palin became the governor of Alaska in 2005 by running against the establishment of both parties. In 2014, in Wacko Birds: The Fall and Rise of the Tea Party, I noted:

Ironically, though she would soon become a conservative icon, Palin was billed as something of a political centrist. McCain introduced her to the country as “someone who reached across the aisle and asked Republicans, Democrats and independents to serve in government.” She was socially conservative, but had vetoed a bill that would have prevented same-sex partners from enjoying visitation rights in Alaskan hospitals. She was said to share something of McCain’s rebellious streak, and his willingness to confront his own party’s interests as she took on corruption and special interest groups.


In the Obama era, conservatism became the dominant anti-establishment theme of American politics, thanks partly to Palin. However, over time, Palin has found herself increasingly at odds with the conservative establishment itself, parts of which are anti-populist–happy to have her backing, but faintly embarrassed by her and repulsed by her supporters.

(Update: Ted Cruz has made his reputation as an anti-establishment politician, so it would not have been surprising had Palin supported him instead of Trump, simply on ideological grounds. Palin’s reasons for choosing Trump may be more personal than political. But the dismissive reaction of some Cruz supporters to Palin suggests a kind of elitism. Parts of the anti-establishment conservative movement turn out to be their own kind of establishment.)

It is now fashionable, even among some “true conservative” pundits, to bash Palin’s intellect and mock her speech. Trump’s supporters are often treated with the same disdain as Palin’s fans, as if not even their votes are wanted.

Surprisingly, Ross Douthat of the New York Times came closer to understanding the Palin endorsement than many conservatives outside the mainstream media bubble,tweeting: “Seriously, this is who Palin was meant to be. Her neocon + movement phases were opportunism/osmosis. This is closer to where she started.”

That is too harsh: her “opportunism” included resigning from the governorship and turning down several chances to run for office again. And Douthat may be implying, as others have said outright, that what Trump and Palin really have in common is just celebrity.

That would miss the convictions that motivate Palin, and that still attract millions of Americans to her. Regardless, the kernel of truth in Douthat’s tweet is that Palin was, and remains, the leader of a popular resistance to what American politics has become. It is a conservative resistance, but does not always conform to conservative politics.

It is unclear, as of this writing, that Palin’s endorsement will have a significant effect on the Iowa caucuses, where polls had been trending back in Trump’s direction.

What is remarkable is that just days after defending “New York values,” Trump brought Palin–so often the target of New York elites–on board. It confirmed that he intends to build a big coalition–the “big tent” of political lore.

How odd that some conservatives would still prefer to bar the clubhouse door.

 

Read More Stories About:

Big Government2016 Presidential Race,Breitbart CaliforniaSarah PalinTed Cruz,Iowaconservatives

Sunday, January 3, 2016

Trump Destroys Media - Obama '16 Gun Grab - Islam v Communist - Show Notes


Listen on iHeart Radio at iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Posted by Smyth Radio on Sunday, January 3, 2016

1.       Trump
-          Blasts the Media (1A) Trump at SC Hilton Head Rally
-          Blasts Hilary Clinton (1B) Trump on the Today Show
-          Donald Trump addressed an overflowing crowd at the Mississippi Coast Coliseum – at a rally billed as the largest presidential campaign event in Mississippi history. 2 Jan 16 no teleprompter (1H)
a.       Iran burning down the Tehran embassy ISIS Hillary and Obama (1G) Trump Blasts
b.      Trump “you are the smartest people and jeb has 2%” (1I)
c.       Trump on the 2nd amendment (1J)
-          Hillary on stage saying Trump is ISIS best ally then Trump on NBC responding Then Trump at Mississippi Rally.
-          Glenn Beck Calls Trumps wife Porno star (1C)
-          Info Wars Alex Jones - Obamas mom porn star Frank Marshal Davis Teaching Communism and Russian undercover KGB. Obama speaks about his mentor. (1D)
-          Reds and the Deception by Joel Gilbert interview (1E)
-          Frank Marshall Davis best friend Vernon Jarette the father in law of Valery
a.       Frank (Original Black Bolshevik with Harry Haywood)  was a journalist and joined the communist party in 1932 and tricked blacks and media that communism will eliminate racism. Bolshevik was 1 of 2 parties of Marxist Russian Social Democratic Labour Party then split and became Communist Party of Soviet Union. The Bolsheviks came to power in Russia during the October Revolution phase of the Russian Revolution of 1917, and founded the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic which would become the chief constituent of the Soviet Union in 1922
b.      Soviet agent and sent to Hawaii for a revolution
c.       Obama went to Oxidental to study with Marxist professors
d.      Went to NY to go to Socialist Scholars conventions
e.      Obama hooked up with Bill Ayers and went to Chicago back where his father started the communist

movement
f.        Obama became a trainer for 10 years for Acorn
g.       George Soros 33million dollars to fund BLM “Kill the Cops” just like in the 1960s
h.      Goal is to remove the middle class and destroy the Capitalist Foundation.
i.         They Know Christians will never buy into this. Take away healthcare, flood the country with poor and illegals, take away guns. Dumb the kids down public edu. 3 meals a day at school.  Largest Home School movement since the est. Dept. Edu.
j.        The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of "a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty".
k.       They further wrote:
l.         “ The ultimate objective of this strategy—to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income—will be questioned by some. Because the ideal of individual social and economic mobility has deep roots, even activists seem reluctant to call for national programs to eliminate poverty by the outright redistribution of income.[3]              
m.    Michael Reisch and Janice Andrews wrote that Cloward and Piven "proposed to create a crisis in the current welfare system – by exploiting the gap between welfare law and practice – that would ultimately bring about its collapse and replace it with a system of guaranteed annual income. They hoped to accomplish this end by informing the poor of their rights to welfare assistance, encouraging them to apply for benefits and, in effect, overloading an already overburdened bureaucracy."[4]
n.      Focus on Democrats - The authors pinned their hopes on creating disruption within the Democratic Party
o.      In papers published in 1971 and 1977, Cloward and Piven argued that mass unrest in the United States, especially between 1964 and 1969, did lead to a massive expansion of welfare rolls, though not to the guaranteed-income program that they had hoped for. Some credit them for the almost bankrupt New York.
2.       Islam and Communism Connection (BeyondTheCusp.com)
-          If I was pressed to define Islam in terms that many in the West are far more familiar with, I would equate it with Communism with the difference being instead of the superiority of the State, the Laws of the State, and the Party Leaders being the final authority in Communism, Islam replaces the State with Allah, the State Laws with the Koran and the Hadith, and the Party Leaders with the Imams.
-          Communism
a.       People fully surrender to the dictates of state and the defined Laws of Leaders
b.      Political Leaders are granted power by the Tyrannical govt to define desires and rules of the State.
c.       Party Leaders can pick and choose who must follow which laws and at what time. High power leaders are exempt from laws while the people must adhere to all laws at all times.
d.      In Communist States the Party Leaders are considered infallible and their rule is absolute. Party Leaders have the power to arbitrarily change the rules and invent charges in order to arrest and remove any persons who are seen as obstructing the State and imprison them in a work camp for life or execute them should they pose a real threat.
e.      Communism fully expects to take over the world and the only way for the Utopia to begin is when everyone completely submits to its rule of law or die.
f.        Propaganda must be used at all times especially when negotiating with other non-communist countries. As Japan called America during the Second Great War “Paper Tiger” which in reality was projection. i.e. Retirement, minimum wage, happiness index, obedience score,
-          Deaths By Communist (The following estimates represent citizens killed or starved to death by their own Communist governments since 1918. These numbers do not include war dead. All numbers are mid-estimates. Scott Manning.com) 149,469,610 in the last 125 years.
-          Soviet Union
a.       Red Terror
b.      Great Purge
c.       Great Purge in Mongolia
d.      Soviet Killings During WWII
-          People’s Republic of China
a.       Land reform and the suppression of counterrevolutionaries
b.      The Great Leap Forward
c.       The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution
d.      Cambodia Genocide
-          Other countries i.e. Democratic Republic of Vietnam, Peoples Democratic Republic of Korea, Bulgaria East Germany, Peoples Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Hungary, Democratic Republic of Afghanistan  
-          Islam
a.       People fully surrender to the dictates of Allah and the defined laws attributed to Allah by Muhammad.
b.      Power to issue religious edicts known a Fatwas are granted to Imams through cruel oppressive authoritarianism (dic.com complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom) and terror.
c.       Imams also have the power to choose which verses of the Koran, as many are contradictory, the faithful must follow the Hadiths and the actions attributed to Muhammad which are to be imitated by only truest followers of Islam.
d.      In Islam peace is defined as the point at which the entire population of the world follows Islam and fully surrenders to Allah and Islam.
e.      In Islam, Taqiyya is used. In simple English one would define Taqiyya as lying. In a political and more general sense Taqiyya would be considered as propaganda, misrepresentation, or misleading all in an effort to further the aims of Islam. Hudna is used when setting up “Treaties or a Truce” with other non-muslim countries. In Islam it is defined as not to last more than 10 years and can be broken at any time that the Muslim country feels it can completely conquer the other country.
f.        In Islam the Imams are considered to speak for Allah as his representatives on Earth and as such are infallible. The Imams have the power to arbitrarily change the rules as they see fit and accuse and convict any person who has become troublesome of working against Allah and thus be incarcerated indefinitely or simply executed.
-          Tears of Jihad (Political Islam.com) Death of Slaves by Islam
a.       Africa
b.      Thomas Sowell [Thomas Sowell, Race and Culture, BasicBooks, 1994, p. 188] estimates that 11 million slaves were shipped across the Atlantic and 14 million were sent to the Islamic nations of North Africa and the Middle East. For every slave captured many others died. Estimates of this collateral damage vary.
c.       The renowned missionary David Livingstone estimated that for every slave who reached a plantation, five others were killed in the initial raid or died of illness and privation on the forced march. [Woman’s Presbyterian Board of Missions, David Livingstone, p. 62, 1888] Those who were left behind were the very young, the weak, the sick and the old. These soon died since the main providers had been killed or enslaved.
d.      So, for 25 million slaves delivered to the market, we have an estimated death of about 120 million people. And Islam ran the wholesale slave trade in Africa.
-          Death of Christians by Islam
a.       The number of Christians martyred by Islam is 9 million [David B. Barrett, Todd M. Johnson, World Christian Trends , William Carey Library, 2001, p. 230, table 4-10] .
b.      A rough estimate by Raphael Moore in History of Asia Minor is that another 50 million died in wars by jihad. So counting the million African Christians killed in the 20th century we have: 60 million Christians
c.       [This calculation does not include the Arab biological warfare of the middle ages where enslaved and infected Jews, riddled with plague, were dumped across Europe in regions that had no Jewish origin or settlers. They carried the disease from the brutal Arab slave trade and were part of the enslaved blacks, Christians and Jews who managed to survive by paying jizya (non-muslim tax). These diseased people were then spread into Europe during muslim efforts to conquer the Italian coast (Venice), Greece, Spain, etc. The plague ended up killing half of the entire population of Europe]
-          Death of Hindus by Islam
a.       Koenard Elst in Negationism in India gives an estimate of 80 million Hindus killed in the total jihad against India. [Koenard Elst, Negationism in India, Voice of India, New Delhi, 2002, pg. 34.] The country of India today is only half the size of ancient India, due to jihad. The mountains near India are called the Hindu Kush, meaning the “funeral pyre of the Hindus.”
b.      80 million Hindus + adjusted 320 million = 400 million Hindus
-          Death of Budist by Islam
a.       Buddhists do not keep up with the history of war. Keep in mind that in jihad only Christians and Jews were allowed to survive as dhimmis (servants to Islam); everyone else had to convert or die. Jihad killed the Buddhists in Turkey, Afghanistan, along the Silk Route, and in India.
b.      The total is roughly 10 million. [David B. Barrett, Todd M. Johnson, World Christian Trends AD 30-AD 2200, William Carey Library, 2001, p. 230, table 4-1.]
c.       10 million Buddhists
-          Armenian Genocide by Islam and Hitler’s Holocaust
a.       Muslim decapitation of 1.5-2 million Christians in Armenia. This genocide was marketed by the Grand Mufti al-Hussaini to Hitler and the Nazi’s and adapted for the Jews – which ended up creating the holocaust. Prior to being associated with al-Husseini Hitler had not committed arrests or persecution of the Jewish people. The genocide was initiated after Hitler’s association and collaboration with muslims and their jihad army offered as Nazi collaborators.
-          5 Leading Prominent Authors on the Parallels between Islam and communism
a.       Leading Islamic theologian Sayyid Abul A’la Maududi in The Islamic Law and Constitution “[T]he Islamic state bears a kind of resemblance to the Fascist and Communist states”
b.      Bernard Lewis in his 1954 essay Communism and Islam “content of belief is utterly different, but the aggressive fanaticism of the believer is the same”
c.       Bertrand Russell in The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism , “Mohammedanism and Bolshevism are…concerned to win the empire of this world.”
d.      Jules Monnerot in Sociology and Psychology of Communism, “Communism [is]…both…secular religion and…a universal State…comparable to Islam”
e.      G.K. Chesterton in The New Jerusalem, “to Moslems as to Bolshevists…they wished…to impose it [their creed] on everybody”
 

Wednesday, December 30, 2015

Police May Confiscate Guns without Notice to Owner Starting January 1

JOE KLAMAR/AFP/Getty Images

by AWR HAWKINS29 Dec 201510,886

Beginning January 1, police in California may confiscate firearms from gun owners thought to be a danger to themselves or others without giving the owner any notice.

This is the result of the implementation of “gun violence restraining orders” (GVROs), which go into effect New Year’s Day.

According to KPCC, GVROs “could be issued without prior knowledge of the person. In other words, a judge could issue the order without ever hearing from the person in question, if there are reasonable grounds to believe the person is a threat based on accounts from the family and police.” And since the order can be issued without the gun owner even being present to defend him or herself, confiscation can commence without any notice to the gun owner once the order is issued.

To be fair, Los Angeles Police Department Assistant Chief Michael Moore does not use the word “confiscate” when talking about confiscating firearms. Rather, Moore says, “The law gives us a vehicle to cause the person to surrender their weapons, to have a time out, if you will.”

KPCC reports that “California law already bans people from possessing guns if they’ve committed a violent crime or were involuntarily committed to a mental health facility.” And now, with GVROs, California law allows judges to bar people from possessing guns even if they have not committed a violent crime or were involuntarily committed. Because of this, Gun Owners of California Executive Director Sam Paredes warns that GVROs “may create a situation where law-abiding gun owners are put in jeopardy.”

Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter:@AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

Read More Stories About:

Breitbart California2nd Amendmentgun controlSecond AmendmentGun ConfiscationGun Violence Restraining OrdersGVROGun Owners of California,Sam Paredes