Why the 'White Supremacist' talk by Chris Matthews may just backfire on him

If you have time - though not necessary - check out this related post before continuing.

Race-baiting, Alinsky-acolyte Chris Matthews has practically been hyperventilating at the prospect of the white supremacist group - Aryan Brotherhood of Texas - being responsible for the murders of two District Attorneys in Kaufman County, Texas (Mark Hasse on January 31st and Mike McLelland on Easter weekend) and the Executive Director of the Colorado state prison system, Tom Clements.

As Breitbart's Brandon Darby points out, the mainstream media in general has been eager to push this narrative as well.

Once established, the premise is easy to understand. The likes of Chris Matthews and the rest of the Obama media are attempting to compare these white supremacists to conservatives, Tea Partiers, and Republicans. As is so often the case with these leftists, any time they attempt to make these connections, they usually implicate themselves.

This is where, once again, the left runs into huge problems.

First, take the case of Clements' murder. The primary suspect is the now deceased Evan Ebel, whose father - a Democrat - is close friends with Colorado's Democratic Governor, John Hickenlooper. In an interview with Denver's NBC affiliate, Hickenlooper admitted that Jack Ebel - Evan's father - contributed to his campaign.

Via the AP:

Hickenlooper confirmed his relationship with Jack Ebel to The Denver Post and KUSA-TV Friday evening and then in a written statement Friday night. State records show Ebel donated $1,050 to the governor's 2010 campaign. But there's no indication that Hickenlooper's relationship with the Ebels played a role in the shooting.

Hickenlooper denied having any role in Evan Ebel's parole.

"Although Jack loved his son, he never asked me to intervene on his behalf and I never asked for any special treatment for his son," Hickenlooper's written statement said.

Though Hickenlooper may be telling the truth, he's a Democrat and if there's one thing we know about Democrats, it's that they lie with impunity.

Here is a video from March 22nd, one day after Evan Ebel's death. In it, an NBC 9 reporter attempts to get some answers from Hickenlooper about his relationship with Jack Ebel and whether the contributions to Hickenlooper's campaign prompted the Colorado Governor to talk to Clements about the son of his friend.

It's already been reported that Evan Ebel was released four years earlier than he should have been. We have also been told that solitary confinement got to Evan and may be responsible for making him become more violent / crazy.

Again, via the AP:

Attorney Jack Ebel testified before the Colorado Legislature two years ago that solitary confinement in a Colorado prison was destroying the psyche of his son, Evan.

When Jack Ebel's longtime friend, Gov. John Hickenlooper, was interviewing a Missouri corrections official for the top prisons job in Colorado, he mentioned the case as an example of why the prison system needed reform. And once Tom Clements came to Colorado, he eased the use of solitary confinement and tried to make it easier for people housed there to re-enter society.

If there is an aspect to the charge that Evan Ebel murdered Clements that doesn't make any sense, it's that Ebel was released four years early while Clements was in charge of decisions relative to parole and had already begun to ease up on solitary confinement. In that respect, Clements was not someone that Ebel should have targeted.

At about the 3:25 mark, the reporter asks a question that sets Hickenlooper off (a must-watch).

Via GOP USA:



Now, consider the case of D.A. Mike McLelland. While MSNBC's Chris Matthews was visibly wishing that "white supremacists" were involved in McLelland's murder, he overlooked two things.

1. McLelland and his wife were both white (for that matter, so were Clements and Hasse).
2. McLelland was a Republican.

Via CNN:

McLelland won a three-way race in the 2010 Republican primary and ran unopposed in the general election. Burns said he and McLelland kept in touch "here and there" until January, when McLelland's assistant district attorney, Mark Hasse, was shot to death in a still-unsolved case.

Chris Matthews, et. al. are so desperate that they are willing to play up the narrative that 'white supremacists' (who are apparently tied to Democrats and who murdered whites and Republicans) are responsible for murdering... whites and Republicans.

More evidence that Matthews, et. al. are insane.

Same ATF that gave guns to Mexican Drug Cartels closes gun shop that LEGALLY sold gun to Newtown Shooter's mother

The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) was found to be responsible for telling gun store owners in Arizona to sell high capacity, semi-automatic weapons (AK-47's and .50 Cal) to straw purchasers, whom they knew would 'walk' those guns into Mexico. Those thousands of guns were placed into the hands of drug cartels who proceeded to murder hundreds of Mexicans and at least one Border Patrol agent (Brian Terry).

Now, that same ATF is has shut down a gun store that sold weapons to the mother of Newtown shooter Adam Lanza.

Via Reuters:

The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms said on Friday it had revoked the federal license of a Connecticut gun retailer that sold a weapon to the mother of Adam Lanza, who killed 26 people at an elementary school in December.

The agency on December 20 revoked the license of Riverview Gun Sales in East Windsor, Connecticut, ATF spokeswoman Debora Seifert said. The revocation was reported in The Journal News, of Westchester County, New York, on Friday.

"We did revoke their federal firearms license," she said. The agency did not publicly disclose a reason for the closure.

A woman who answered the telephone at Riverview on Friday, and did not give her name, confirmed the store had sold a weapon to Lanza's mother, Nancy, and that its license had been revoked. She declined further comment.

This may just be one of the most boldly audacious and outrageous moves by the Feds in some time. In operation Fast and Furious, the ATF has the blood of hundreds of Mexicans on its hands for telling gun store owners to sell weapons to buyers it knew would give them to drug cartels. Yet, no one at ATF has paid any real price. Now, the same ATF is shutting down a gun store that did nothing illegal?!?!

I sent the following email to Rep. Darrell Issa's press secretary, Becca Watkins:

Becca, where are you guys on this????

Without explanation, the ATF shuts down gun shop that sold guns to Adam Lanza's mother. Yet, the ATF FREAKIN' TOLD GUN STORES to sell to straw purchasers who put thousands of guns into the hands of cartels, who then proceeded to murder hundreds of Mexcians!!!

Where is Chairman Issa??????

Is he still there????

Issa is head of the House Oversight Committee and knows as much as anyone about what went on in Fast and Furious.

h/t WZ

What if Fast and Furious guns used in murders of Prosecutors?

After Jared Loughner shot Gabrielle Giffords along with several others in a Tucson parking lot, there was grave concern among ATF agents that a Fast and Furious gun may have been used. It wasn't but now that we're seeing the shooting deaths elected officials (a prison chief in Colorado and two prosecutors in Texas), there is certainly no doubt that similar fears are rearing their heads about weapons from that ATF operation being involved.

An ABC News report on the murders is below. Though Fast and Furious is not mentioned, drug trafficking is. While there is a narrative setting in that the Aryan Brotherhood of Texas (ABT) is suspected of being involved, Mexican drug cartels are certainly a possibility as well. We also know that hundreds - if not thousands - of Fast and Furious weapons have still not been recovered.

Another red flag for those suspicious of getting the truth about what is happening is that the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is being viewed as a source of expertise - in both the news report below and other places. This group is extremely far left and has an agenda that does not usually involve getting to the truth.

h/t Freedom's Lighthouse:

Ted Cruz gets very close to hitting Obama on Fast and Furious

With his March 28th press release, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) came closer than anyone in Congress, to rebuking Obama's exploitation of Sandy Hook by pointing to Operation Fast and Furious. Though he didn't name it specifically or highlight the most relevant contrast, he gets very close (hits on the year it was at its height - 2010 - as well as criminals buying guns). In fact, if Senators Cruz, Paul, Lee, et. al. follow through on their filibuster threat and begin hammering on that contrast, it could be devastating for the Democrats in general and Obama in particular.

First, Cruz's press release:

In any conversation about how to prevent future tragedies such as Sandy Hook, our focus should be on stopping criminals from obtaining guns. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration has failed to make this a priority — in 2010, out of more than 15,700 fugitives and felons who tried to illegally purchase a firearm, the Obama Justice Department prosecuted only 44. That is unacceptable.

It is saddening to see the President today, once again, try to take advantage of this tragic murder to promote an agenda that will do nothing to stop violent crime, but will undermine the constitutional rights of all law-abiding Americans. I am committed to working with Sens. Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Marco Rubio, and Jim Inhofe--and I hope many other colleagues--to use any procedural means necessary to protect those fundamental rights.

In response to that press release in my inbox, I sent the following email to Cruz's press office:

Nice release.

Obama never did presser with the families of Fast and Furious victims (hundreds of Mexicans / Brian Terry) standing behind him.

Why? Because Fast and Furious was his administration's fault.

Would love to see this point hammered home during the upcoming filibuster.

Here is one of Obama's most shameless and despicable acts - exploiting Sandy Hook by pushing for gun control with the parents of shooting victims standing behind him. I couldn't even watch the whole thing. More power to you if you can make it to the end.

Video: Joe Biden says Gabby Giffords suffered 'mortal wound'

In the immediate aftermath of the near fatal shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) on January 8, 2011, there were news outlets that erroneously reported she had died. Now, more than two years later, Joe Biden has made the same mistake, saying that Giffords was "mortally wounded" on that day.

Here is the definition of a "mortal wound":

A mortal wound is a very severe and serious injury (almost always a form of penetration or laceration) whether accidental or inflicted intentionally (by either suicide or homicide), which leads directly to the death of the victim.

Ladies and gentlemen, your vice president...

Via Right Pundit:

Video: Retired Substitute Teacher Spanks schoolboard on Gun Control

It truly is amazing that people who sit on school boards like the one this woman completely shredded, can be as intellectually vacant as they are when it comes to understanding the history of gun control.

Nonetheless, retired New Jersey substitute teacher Carole Moore issued a thorough public spanking of her school board.

A must-see video.

Via EAG News:

Despicable: Biden still exploiting Sandy Hook; still silent over Fast and Furious

Twenty-six people - including twenty children - lost their lives at Sandy Hook on December 14, 2012. Hundreds of Mexicans (and counting) have lost their lives as the result of Operation Fast and Furious, an operation led by the Obama administration's ATF. Vice President Joe Biden continues to exploit the former for gun control while ignoring the latter, which was exposed more than two years ago and continues to be stonewalled by the administration to this day.

Why? Because Sandy Hook can be exploited to push for gun confiscation while Fast and Furious not only makes the opposite case but it also makes the case for dissolving the ATF, the prosecution of the Attorney General for contempt of Congress, and the possible impeachment of Barack Obama.

Biden's latest faux-display of emotion took place at Leesburg, VA.

Via Huffington Post:

Biden invoked the slaughter at Sandy Hook Elementary School, at one point choking up as he told of the 20 children, ages 6 and 7, who perished after being "literally riddled with bullet holes." He argued that the U.S. government has an obligation to the families and victims of the massacre to act.

"I can't imagine how [the parents] deal with it," Biden said. "But I can imagine how we will be judged as individuals, judged as a Congress, judged as a nation, if we do not. ... It's simply unacceptable."

At the heart of Biden's speech was a plea to Democrats who may be weighing political consequences of backing contentious pieces of gun-control legislation, such as bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Biden's message -- delivered with his signature passion, growing louder as he argued for urgency -- was that public opinion had shifted.

"The ability, because of all this happening, to misrepresent our positions no longer exists as it did in 1994," Biden said. "The world has changed. The American public has changed.

Then this from Biden:

"Don't tell me, 'Because we can't solve it all, we can't act at all,'" Biden said.

Yeah, well don't tell me that you don't have ulterior motives, especially in light of your continued silence over Fast and Furious. You support Obama's use of Executive Orders to push gun control and apparently also support his use of Executive Privilege to prevent the truth about Fast and Furious from coming out.

That truth? Gun Control.

1993 Video: Killeen, TX woman testifies in front of Congress after losing her parents because of Gun Control

In 1991, Susan Gratia-Hupp went to a Luby's restaurant in Killeen, TX (not far from where Nidal Malik Hasan killed 14 and injured 32 in a gun-free zone eighteen years later) with her parents. Hupp left her gun in the car because Texas law prohibited her from taking it inside. Watch her tell the story of what happened next.

A couple of years ago, Hupp spoke at a Tea Party rally I attended and she has just as much fire and passion today as she expressed in that 1993 hearing.

While you're at it, watch Chuck Schumer's face and then ask yourself if his motives for gun control today are pure.

They are not.

Via Breitbart, which is calling for Piers Morgan to have Hupp on his show.

The Truth about the shooting of Democratic Congresswoman on Joe Biden Gun Control task force

In 1978, Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) was a legal aid to Rep. Leo Ryan (D-CA), the only U.S. Congressman to be murdered in the line of duty. In 2011, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) almost became the second. Speier barely survived the trip to Jonestown, where an insane preacher had moved his insane Temple, but not before she herself had been shot five times.

Incredibly, not only is she still a Democrat but the Joe Biden gun control squad appears to be enlisting her help in developing a plan of action, as she is one of twelve Democratic congressmen who make up the House Democrat Task Force on Gun Violence. The group met with Biden yesterday.

Make no mistake. Speier's presence on that Task Force has to do with her very real and personal history when it comes to being on the wrong end of a gun. After the meeting, CNN interviewed Speier and asked her about her experience at Jonestown in 1978 (beginning at the 2:00 mark). Conspicuously absent from the exchange is any mention of Jones' ideology and who he was in bed with - the Democratic Party. Jones was a Marxist. More on his relationship with very prominent Democrats after the video.

Via Daily Caller:



Jim Jones was a professed Marxist and moved up through the ranks of political power in San Francisco with the aid and assistance of several Democrats. He helped Democratic Mayor George Moscone get elected. In fact, through the use of Community Organizing, Jones and his Temple were very much responsible for Moscone's victory. As a result, Moscone rewarded Jones with a seat on the San Francisco Housing Authority, which oversaw more than $14 million, and later enlisted the help of then California State Assemblyman Willie Brown (D) to introduce legislation that would ensure Jones would become chairman.

Ralph Nader has a little known legacy of disgrace when it comes to Jim Jones as well. An extremely terrified couple who had defected from Jones' cult reached out to Nader for help, in confidence. He betrayed them. Their plea for assistance found its way from Nader to Jones.

Jones also ingratiated himself with other Democrats like then Lieutenant Governor Mervyn Dymally and Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, who once said of Jones:

"I am really pleased and inspired by what I have seen. Here is truly a man - Pastor Jim Jones - who is touched by God."

How about then Democratic Governor Jerry Brown (yes, the one who is in office today)? Brown made several visits to Jones' Temple and clearly turned a blind eye to what was going on. Jones also rubbed elbows with Rosalyn Carter and Walter Mondale (see video below). Speaking of that video, note how Jones boasts about the fact that he was a Marxist (Obama has a history that very much involves studying Marxism and associating with Marxists). Also keep in mind how more than 900 people died in Jonestown; Jones was responsible but it wasn't done with guns:



In a book entitled, Six Years With God, written by Jeannie Mills (a pseudonym), the woman who was betrayed by Nader and ultimately lost her life, wrote:

"Just a few doors down the street from the San Francisco temple the Black Muslims had their temple. Jim made strong overtures of friendship to this strong group, even sending large contingencies of our membership to attend their services, to which they responded by sending their members to our services."

Two more ironic realities about Jim Jones that should raise bold red flags with Speier...

Jones attempted to buy favorable California media coverage - to some degree, successfully - with payoffs labeled as "commendation" awards to show support for the first amendment. Laughable, isn't it? Not surprisingly, the Los Angeles Times and the San Francisco Chronicle received the largest amounts. Eerily salient today, isn't it?

The other reality the mainstream media will not touch is the fact that just prior to the mass murder / suicide in Jonestown, the group bequeathed all of its assets to the Soviet Union.

I cover all of this (and more) in much greater detail in Chapter five of Unsung Davids: Ten Men who Battled Goliath without Glory. The Unsung David in that chapter is a man named David Conn.

Instead of playing defense, the Republican leadership should be exposing the truth behind the groups and individuals responsible for Speier's shooting. In fact, it was the Democratic Party that enabled Jim Jones to acquire the power he did.

That Speier is still a Democrat defies any and all logic, unless one believes that Stockholm Syndrome is a real condition.

Parting thought: In an interview Speier gave last year, she talked about how many people approached her delegation in 1978 to SECRETLY ask for escape from Jonestown. If Speier were honest, would she ask for escape from the Democratic Party?

Sandy Hook vs. Fast and Furious: The tale of two Bidens

On January 9th, Vice President Joe Biden told reporters that 'it's critically important that we act (on gun control)' and that 'the president is going to act with Executive Orders'. Seated immediately to Biden's right was Attorney General Eric 'gunwalker' Holder. That would be the same Eric Holder who was found in both criminal and civil contempt of Congress for not honoring a lawfully issued subpoena for documents that would help get to the bottom of an operation led by the Department of Justice and the ATF.

The gall of Holder to willingly become one of the faces of gun control today is incredible. This may be the Obama administration at its most audacious - and it thrives on audacity.

For two years, the DOJ stonewalled Congress, culminating in the President asserting Executive Privilege to prevent the subpoenaed documents from being released.

With that as a backdrop, ask yourself if it would have been more appropriate for the likes of Biden to turn to his right in this video and address Mr. Holder instead of reporters:

Whenever gun rights advocates rightfully claim that Operation Fast and Furious was about the DOJ and the ATF intentionally putting thousands of assault weapons into the hands of bad guys so they could murder innocent people, the left claims it's a conspiracy theory. Yet, the facts are in. The ATF ran an operation that did put assault weapons into the hands of Mexican drug cartels, who then used them to kill hundreds of innocent people.

All that's left to ascertain is motive but for two years, the administration stonewalled. Why is the urgency with which Biden is advocating gun control now, nowhere to be found for two years relative to the DOJ and the ATF? Why wasn't Obama demanding action be taken when the ATF was caught engaging in egregiously criminal behavior? Instead, he deferred to an Inspector General, who took well over a year to issue its final report.

Again, why didn't Obama demand action on gun control when it was learned that the ATF had placed thousands of assault weapons into the hands of Mexican drug cartels?

Remember this interview with Univision's Jorge Ramos more than three months after the shooting death of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry? Compare Obama's stance then to Biden's stance less than one month after the Sandy Hook shootings:



A silver lining to the administration's stance today - enunciated by Biden on January 9th - is that the truth about the motivation behind Fast and Furious becomes even more clear. The actions of this administration today are 180 degrees from its actions in the wake of Fast and Furious being exposed that it is even easier to see why the ATF armed the cartels.

It was an effort to create the climate that would facilitate gun control, just like the Sandy Hook shootings are being exploited for the EXACT. SAME. PURPOSE.

Operation Fast and Furious blew up in the administration's face. Had it gone according to plan, I have no doubt that Biden or someone else from the administration (perhaps Holder) would have been sitting in front of reporters just like Biden did on January 9th and demanded action on assault rifles because of all the deaths in Mexico.

In this excerpt from Biden's comments to reporters, notice how he accentuates the fact that the children of Sandy Hook were 'riddled' with bullets. Yeah, Joe, hundreds of innocent Mexicans have been - and continue to be - riddled with bullets from assault weapons your administration intentionally gave to hardened criminals.

In the video below, Biden says:

"Every once in a while, there's something that awakens the conscience of the country."

Mr. Vice President, the only reason Fast and Furious didn't do that to a greater extent was that the administration for which you work covered it up and stonewalled attempts to uncover it.

Utterly. Shameless.

Firefighter Shooter beneficiary of 'Straw Purchasing' (think Fast and Furious)

In the days after the fatal shootings of firefighters Mike Chiapperini and Thomasz Kaczowka in Webster, NY on Christmas Eve, it was learned that the shooter did not have legal access to guns; he had already been convicted of murdering his grandmother with a hammer. So how did he get them?

If you're familiar with what happened in Operation Fast and Furious, you're likely familiar with the term 'straw purchaser'. In the case of that operation, which began in 2009 and ended shortly after the death of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry on December 14, 2010, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) led the operation with the approval of the Department of Justice. Straw purchasing was a key component of Fast and Furious as gun store owners were instructed by the ATF to sell weapons to straw purchasers, who then walked those guns across the border into Mexico, putting them into the hands of the drug cartels. The weapons found at the scene of Terry's murder were purchased by a straw purchaser with the ATF's knowledge and approval.

Back to the firefighter shootings...

It's now being reported that the man who lured firefighters to his burning home before shooting at them - killing Chiapperini and Kaczowka - was the beneficiary of a straw purchaser, who also happened to be his neighbor.

Via the Daily Caller:

The neighbor, 24-year-old Dawn Nguyen, was arrested on Friday after police traced the serial numbers on two weapons used by William Spengler, the shooter: a Bushmaster AR-15 semiautomatic rifle and a 12-gauge shotgun, both purchased in 2010.

In exactly the same way, the guns found at Terry's murder scene were traced back to a gun store in Arizona where they were sold to someone who was known to be a straw purchaser for the drug cartels. When you add in the fact that the ATF knowingly allowed those guns to walk across the border, it becomes a matter involving the U.S. State Department, as this exchange from October of 2011 between Rep. Connie Mack and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton illustrates:



Remember, in the case of Fast and Furious, thousands of weapons were allowed to 'walk' into Mexico by U.S. Government officials and hundreds of people were murdered as a result. Here is what Nguyen did in the case of the firefighter shootings:

Nguyen violated federal law by signing a form declaring to a gun retailer that she would be the sole owner of the firearms, U.S. Attorney William Hochul said Friday. She also faces a state charge of filing a falsified business record, a state police investigator added.

“She told the seller of these guns … that she was to be the true owner and buyer of the guns instead of William Spengler,” Hochul said. “It is absolutely against federal law to provide any materially false information related to the acquisition of firearms. … It is sometimes referred to acting as a straw purchaser, and that is exactly what today’s complaint alleges.”

When it came to the weapons sold to straw purchasers in Fast and Furious, all of the aforementioned things took place, with one difference. The ATF knowingly allowed it in advance. There's another difference when it comes to consequences. No one at the ATF has been arrested. To give one an idea of how criminal this all is, consider the charges that Nguyen is facing based on the fact that she provided her neighbor with guns used in the commission of two murders in the U.S. (which didn't included the added element of straw purchasing and then transporting them across international borders):

The federal charges alone could send Nguyen to prison for a maximum of 10 years and levy a fine of $250,000. Both Nguyen and her brother told the media after the shooting that Spengler had stolen the weapons from her, but Nguyen later called police and admitted buying the guns for Spengler, according to police.

Spengler also possessed a .38-caliber revolver during the shooting, which he reportedly used to shoot himself in the head after his rampage. That weapon has not been connected to Nguyen.

Another difference between what the ATF did and what Nguyen did very well could be motive. Did Nguyen know what Spengler was going to do with the weapons she purchased for him? That has yet to be determined but the ATF absolutely knew what was going to happen as a result of allowing straw purchasers to walk those guns into Mexico; hundreds of people were going to get killed.

So what was the motive of the U.S. Government? The answer is the same thing we're seeing today - the exploitation of a 'crisis' to push a gun control agenda.

It becomes obvious that the rule of law applies to some and not others. In another incident involving the ATF, Meet the Press anchor David Gregory was allegedly allowed to break the law by holding up a 30-clip magazine on national television during a recent interview. Subsequent to that interview, it was reported that the ATF gave him permission to do so, despite their having no jurisdiction. To this day, the ATF official who allegedly gave Gregory permission has not been named.

What was Gregory's motive for displaying the magazine during his interview with the NRA's Wayne LaPierre?

As was the case with the ATF in Fast and Furious, gun control. Yet another example of the ATF allowing laws to be broken for a similar purpose.

Ends always justify the means when you're a creature of the left.

Some might remember this powerful report from Univision earlier this year, in which the carnage that resulted from Fast and Furious was investigated. Remember, straw purchasing is what enabled all of these murders, the same kind of straw purchasing that enabled the Christmas Eve firefighter shooter:

Two No-Brainer arguments the Pro-Second Amendment crowd refuses to make

Let's get one thing straight. The left is responsible for politicizing the Sandy Hook shootings. That effort began almost immediately afterward. Rep. Jerrold Nadler even said Obama should 'exploit' the shootings and that the NRA is enabling 'mass murder'. With all that said, the pro-second amendment crowd has to fight back.

But they don't seem interested in going on offense.

There are currently two aspects to the growing gun control debate. One has to do with banning assault weapons and the other has to do with 'gun free zones'. The National Rifle Association's Wayne LaPierre chose to focus on the the latter and all but completely avoided the former. That was a mistake because it ignores a central component in the debate. If it can be made clear why assault weapons should be legal, it can be more easily made clear that 'gun free zones' must either cease to exist or be protected with armed security, which is what LaPierre is advocating.

The left is throwing hay makers in the gun control debate and the right is either throwing jabs or covering up. When gun control advocates question gun rights proponents about whether assault weapons should be available, the response inevitably involves something about the gun not being the problem and that the maniacs who use them irresponsibly is the problem.

The default position always seem to be tried and true platitudes: Guns don't kill people; people kill people. In the case of NRA's Wayne LaPierre, the takeaway line in his speech was:

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

It's a good line that happens to be true but it won't shift the debate or put the left on its heels, which is what needs to happen. Unless at least one of those two things happen, nothing will happen.

First up, how to shift the terms of the debate. The reason for the second amendment is either not understood or it is ignored by those who support gun control. Its purpose is not enunciated - though it is known - by those who oppose gun control.

When one takes the verbiage of the second amendment and couples it with verbiage found within the body of the Declaration of Independence, the true reason why assault weapons should not be banned is made clear.

AMENDMENT II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The reason for the second amendment can be found in the Declaration:

...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Our founding fathers wanted the citizenry to be armed so that it could defend itself from a tyrannical government. LaPierre knows this and so do gun rights advocates but they seem to be either incapable or unwilling to say it. Assault weapons aren't necessary for hunting or even for home defense but they would be necessary if the Government turned on its people. That forces want to take those weapons away at a time when corruption and wickedness in the U.S. Government is as high as its ever been, bold red flags should be raised.

Essentially, the only real argument in response to that from the gun control crowd is one that says there will never be any danger of the U.S. Government becoming tyrannical like King George was or that people who fear such a thing are being paranoid. That is a losing position. Any government can become tyrannical. In fact, most do.

Yet, the argument isn't made by the most prominent of second amendment advocates.

LaPierre focused on home protection from intruders but that is not an argument for the legality of assault weapons, which is what the other half of the debate which the left is focused on. The argument for assault weapons is the citizenry protecting itself from a repressive government. LaPierre didn't make that case.

That's how the debate could be shifted. As for putting the left on its heels, Operation Fast and Furious would do that. The Obama administration - along with the media - has stonewalled getting to the bottom of it. The ATF / DOJ didn't just send assault weapons to Mexican drug lords. The guns that were allowed to 'walk' across the border included .50 calibers, which are far more powerful than the assault weapons the left wants to see banned in the U.S.

After watching the second amendment come under attack, LaPierre gave a speech one week after the Sandy Hook shootings. What he didn't mention in that speech was the lack of media / left-wing outrage at the government-sanctioned, Fast and Furious, which is responsible for hundreds of deaths in Mexico.

Again, LaPierre knows the truth about that operation but he chose not to contrast it with what gun control advocates are doing in the wake of Sandy Hook.

LaPierre's speech is below; it starts shortly after the 1:00 mark. At about the 4:55 mark, some Code Pink whacko interrupts and holds a banner that says, 'NRA Killing our Kids'. Medea Benjamin, another Code Pink whacko who supported the 2010 Gaza flotilla does the same thing at around the 11:00 mark. Code Pink has been conspicuously absent over the last two years when it came to Fast and Furious.



Now for another example of a gun rights advocate in a position of power choosing not to enunciate a winning argument (relevant portion of exchange begins around the 10:00 mark). Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) was on with the Morning Joe crew and when the discussion turned to the subject of whether assault weapons should be banned, Huelskamp so twisted himself into pretzels that he ended up having to defend himself against charges from host Joe Scarborough that Huelskamp was accusing the host of politicizing the shootings. Fast forward to the 10:25 mark to watch Huelskamp tie his own hands behind his back.

At the 11:40 mark, Scarborough asks the congressman why Americans need assault weapons. Instead of explaining why the founding fathers wanted the citizenry to have the right to bear arms or throwing Fast and Furious right back into Scarborough's lap, Huelskamp - who is obviously championing a pro-Constitutional agenda - punts.

At the 12:40 mark, Scarborough even gave Huelskamp the chance to argue for the constitutionality of assault weapons being legal. Instead of saying WHY the second amendment allows for it, Huelskamp glosses over it and then argues that Sandy Hook should not be politicized. Scarborough takes offense and Huelskamp loses the argument because he didn't use the correct one.

In fact, by avoiding the argument that should have been made, Huelskamp actually made it worse for himself. As for the shootings being exploited by the left, Huelskamp should have pointed to Nadler as the perfect example. Instead, he let Scarborough control the debate.

h/t Breitbart:



Now, after watching that, have a look at this answer to a question at the Miss Universe Pageant by Miss Venezuela. She seemed to have the same problem Huelskamp did, though to a much greater and more obvious degree. The question was:

If you could make a new law, what would it be and why?

The question was potentially quite politically charged. If Miss Venezuela would have done what Carrie Prejean did and answered by giving her true beliefs on a social issue, for example, there would be a backlash she obviously didn't want - based on her response.

Instead, viewers were treated to an incoherent answer that included an obscure surfing reference.

Here's a transcript of her answer, via MediaIte:

“I think that any leys there are in Constitution or in life, are already made. I think that we should have, uh, a straight way to go in our similar, or, eh, in our lives as is this. For example, I’m a surfer, and I think that the best wave that I can take is the wave that I wait for it. So please do our only, eh, law that we can do. Thank you, Vegas!”

Enjoy.

As Obama was politicizing speech in Newtown, a mass shooting was being prevented in San Antonio - with a Gun

On the same night that Barack Obama injected his gun control agenda into a speech at a memorial intended for the victims of the Newtown, CT school shootings, a gunman in San Antonio, TX was attempting another mass shooting in a local theater. The outcome was quite different than what happened in Aurora, CO - the site of another mass shooting inside a theater recently.

In this case, a gun was used successfully to prevent a mass shooting.

Via WOAI:

Two people are hospitalized after a gunman chased terrified restaurant patrons into the lobby of the Santikos Mayan 14 movie theater during a showing of "The Hobbit" last night, 1200 WOAI news reprots.

Police detectives and sheriff's investigators say the incident started in the China Garden Restaurant on Southwest Military Drive about 9 PM Sunday, when an employee of the restaurant walked in looking for a woman.

When the woman, who officials say is also a restaurant employee, wasn't there, the man pulled a gun and attempted to open fire in the restaurant but his weapon jammed.

"It started at the restaurant and then went into the parking lot and then into the movie theater," Deputy Lou Antu told 1200 WOAI news.

Investigators say some of the terrified restaurant patrons poured into the movie theater, and the gunman followed.

He opened fire, shooting one man in the chest, before Antu says an off duty sheriff's deputy who was working security at the theater shot him once.

"The officer involved, she took the appropriate action to try to keep everyone safe in the movie theater," Antu said.

The gunman and the patron are hospitalized.

Antu says the gunman never made it into the theater itself, thanks largely to the heroic work of the off duty deputy.

"She did what she felt she had to do," Antu said.  "I feel that she saved a lot of lives by taking the action she had to take."

During an appearance on MSNBC to discuss his controversial comments during an NFL Sunday Night Football halftime show (about the Jovan Belcher murder / suicide),  Bob Costas said the following about the Aurora, Colorado mass shooting inside a theater:

It demonstrates itself in the wild west, Dirty Harry mentality of people who actually believe that if a number of people were armed in the theater in Aurora, they would have been able to take down this nut job in body armor and military style artillery when in fact almost every policeman in the country would tell that you that would have only increased the tragedy and added to the carnage.

When Costas later appeared with Bill O'Reilly, the NBC sportscaster said that if he were in a theater and there was a mass shooter, he wouldn't want to have a gun.

Granted, the person who stopped the shooter inside a San Antonio movie theater lobby was an off-duty police officer but the issue here is the ability to neutralize someone with a gun, who is determined to kill innocent, unarmed civilians. Law-abiding citizens, properly trained in the use of a firearm, can be just as effective as an off-duty police officer in the same situation. Just ask Bob Costas. He has armed security at his disposal.

In Costas' case, he also told O'Reilly that he would not want a gun in such a situation. Perhaps that's because he travels with people around him who have guns.

Like Costas, Obama's speech occurred during an NFL Sunday Night football game and the network broke in to air it.

The irony was that as Obama was politicizing the recent mass shootings, another one was being averted in Texas by what the gun control nuts want banned.

Democrats who want Obama to exploit Connecticut shootings were silent over plans to exploit Fast and Furious

Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. - Saul Alinsky (Jerrold Nadler agrees)

The shooting deaths of 20 young school children in Connecticut happened on the second anniversary of the shooting death of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry. Before the sun set on the day of the school shootings, shamelessly opportunistic Democratic politicians went to work exploiting and politicizing the heinous event to push their gun control agendas. Yet, for the last two years, they've had no interest in getting to the bottom of Terry's murder. Why? Well, because very powerful people inside the Obama administration were behind an operation intended to give guns to bad guys and then exploit the predictable deaths for the same reason - gun control.

Earlier this year, at the NRA Convention, House Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa said the following:

“We’ve never answered the question, ‘What were they thinking of?’ Could it be that what they really were thinking of was in fact to use this walking of guns in order to promote an assault weapons ban. Many think so, and they haven’t come up with an explanation that would cause any of us not to agree.”

To that point, Barack Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were all too happy to push a false narrative that said 90% of the guns used in the commission of crimes in Mexico, come from America.

Here is Hillary during an interview with CBS reporter Lara Logan in March of 2009. Begin watching at the :30 mark:



Here is Obama in April of 2009, touting the same bogus statistics. Take note at the 1:00 mark:



Eventually, that "90%" figure was proven to be false. If it was false, why was it being touted?

Exploitation, perhaps?

Within hours of the horrendous Newtown, CT school shootings, New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg said that Barack Obama must take 'Immediate Action' against guns. New York's governor Andrew Cuomo said society must "unify" and "crack down on guns". In a brief moment of honesty, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) said that Barack Obama needs to "exploit" the shootings to push gun control.

It is amazing that Bloomberg and Cuomo would speak out in support of gun control so soon after these shootings because of their collective silence on Operation Fast and Furious. In that case, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) intentionally let guns 'walk' into Mexico and the Department of Justice (DOJ) at the highest levels was in on it.

As a member of the House Judiciary Committee, Nadler had plenty of opportunities to call out Attorney General Eric Holder on the Department of Justice's role in Fast and Furious. It was a program that was implemented by the ATF for one primary reason - to put guns into the hands of Mexican drug cartels, who would then kill innocent people with those guns. The plan was to "exploit" those deaths to create the climate for more gun control.

In the case of Fast and Furious, guns were intentionally given to bad guys for the purpose of killing innocent people. In the case of the Connecticut shootings, a bad guy was solely responsible for using a gun to kill innocent children.

Yet, Obama, Bloomberg, Cuomo, and Nadler want to 'exploit' the shooting deaths of those children for the purpose of pushing gun control?!

That's called audacity.

Breaking: Border Patrol agent shot and killed at Brian Terry Station

Two U.S. Border Patrol agents were shot early on October 2nd at a place that was dedicated to slain Border Patrol agent Brian Terry. One of the two shot today has died from his wounds.

Via Fox News:

Family Research Council shooting and Southern Poverty Law Center's 'Hate Map'

The shooting that took place inside the Family Research Council (FRC) is beginning to look more and more political in nature. FRC, headed by Anthony Perkins, is a socially conservative organization that supports the traditional definition of marriage and opposes gay marriage. One could say that FRC and Chick-fil-A are on the same page.

Floyd Lee Corkins was taken into custody after shooting a security guard in FRC's lobby. It turns out that Corkins has done extensive volunteer work at a gay rights organization and was carrying several Chick-fil-A sandwiches in his backpack at the time of the shooting. Oh, and one more thing; the FBI has reported that Corkins made a political statement prior to the shooting.

Via CNS News:

On Wednesday, 28-year-old Floyd Lee Corkins of Herndon, Va., allegedly entered the lobby of the Family Research Council and shot the security guard.  According to the FBI, Corkins had a 9mm handgun, two magazines of ammunition, 50 rounds of additional ammo and 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches in his backpack. According to the FBI, he  “stated words to the effect of ‘I don’t like your politics...’”

...The suspect, Floyd Corkins, had been volunteering for the last six months at The DC Center for the LGBT Community. The DC Center released a statement condemning the violence, which was signed by 40 other local and national LGBT groups.

That leads us to the very left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), primarily because of the standard set by the left-wing media, pundits, and movement. The SPLC actually has a 'Hate Map' that identifies entities and individuals it views as being hateful. The FRC is on that map and listed as being 'Anti-Gay'.

First, some context and why SPLC's map is relevant.

Within hours of the Gabrielle Giffords shooting on January 8, 2011, New York Times writer Paul Krugman blamed Sarah Palin for using a map that showed 'crosshair' targets on districts in the country that were held by vulnerable Democrats prior to the 2010 elections; Giffords' district was one that had a target on it and Krugman pounced:

We don’t have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was. She’s been the target of violence before. And for those wondering why a Blue Dog Democrat, the kind Republicans might be able to work with, might be a target, the answer is that she’s a Democrat who survived what was otherwise a GOP sweep in Arizona, precisely because the Republicans nominated a Tea Party activist. (Her father says that “the whole Tea Party” was her enemy.) And yes, she was on Sarah Palin’s infamous “crosshairs” list.

Instead of being fired for journalistic malpractice, Krugman remained a hero to the left. A consequence was that a new, very low standard had been set. Using Krugman's standard, perpetrators of acts of violence could not only escape 100% accountability for their actions but that people who had nothing to do with it could be blamed. In this case, Krugman implied that Jared Loughner shot Giffords because Sarah Palin released a map that was clearly intended to identify vulnerable Democrats to be targeted... for DEFEAT AT THE BALLOT BOX.

Making matters worse for Krugman, as usual, were facts. Not only did Palin's map have absolutely nothing to do with the Tucson shootings but if Loughner was political at all, he was a leftist (he identified the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf as two of his favorite books).

Now, back to Corkins and the FRC shooting. Unlike Palin's map - intended to generate voter enthusiasm in certain districts - the SPLC's 'Hate Map' is quite plainly intended to identify groups with which it disagrees as being legitimate targets of hatred themselves based on their political views.

Via CNS News:

At a press conference on Thursday outside the FRC headquarters in downtown Washington, FRC President Perkins said, “I want to express my appreciation to the groups and organizations that we do not agree with on many public policy issues who have also expressed their outrage at what took place here yesterday. For that, I appreciate it. I appreciate them making those statements.”

“But I would ask them to go a step further and to join us in calling for an end to the reckless rhetoric that I believe led to yesterday’s incident that took place right behind me,” he said.

“And that does bring me to my final point,” said Perkins.  “Let me be clear, that Floyd Corkins was responsible for firing the shot yesterday that wounded one of our colleagues and our friend Leo Johnson.  But Corkins was given a license to shoot an unarmed man by organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center that have been reckless in labeling organizations hate groups because they disagree with them on public policy.”

“And I believe the Southern Poverty Law Center should be held accountable for their reckless use of terminology that is leading to the intimidation and what the FBI here has categorized as an act of domestic terrorism,” he said.  “There’s no room for that in a society such as ours that works through differences that we have on issues in public policy through a peaceful means.”

It is probably not advisable for Perkins to say that SPLC gave Corkins a 'license to shoot' because that can take away from his contention that Corkins was solely responsible for the shooting. However, when applying the standard set by the likes of Krugman, it's a valid point.

The FRC shooting appears to be much more politically motivated than the Giffords shooting was. Let's see, the shooter works for a gay rights group, carries 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches in his backpack, proceeds to walk into the lobby of a socially conservative organization, and says openly that he doesn't like the politics of that organization while shooting people.

Yet, Krugman and his left-wing media colleagues are silent.

h/t WZ

Obama against violence after he was for it?

When Barack Obama talks about solutions to violence in American cities, he's doing nothing more than preventing a crisis from going to waste. Just look at his administration's record. Before we get to that, check out this excerpt from a Reuters article:

"All of us recognize that these kinds of terrible, tragic events are happening with too much regularity for us not to do some soul searching to examine additional ways that we can reduce violence," Obama said at an Oval Office ceremony to sign an unrelated bill.

In this instance, Obama was referring to the Aurora shootings from late last month, as well as the Sikh Temple shootings from earlier this month.

However, Obama has not only been conspicuously silent when it comes to the gun violence / crimes wrought by Fast and Furious, a federal program that put thousands of guns into the hands of bad guys in Mexico; he's gone out of his way to prevent Congress from getting answers about its origins or architects. No one has really been held accountable. He went so far out of his way to prevent the truth from coming out that he asserted Executive Privilege to withhold documents from Congress at the same time Congress was holding the Attorney General in criminal contempt.

Today, we had an explosive report published by The Blaze that could take Fast and Furious to an entirely new level:

A high-ranking Mexican drug cartel operative currently in U.S. custody is making startling allegations that the failed federal gun-walking operation known as “Fast and Furious” isn’t what you think it is.

It wasn’t about tracking guns, it was about supplying them — all part of an elaborate agreement between the U.S. government and Mexico’s powerful Sinaloa Cartel to take down rival cartels.

The explosive allegations are being made by Jesus Vicente Zambada-Niebla, known as the Sinaloa Cartel’s “logistics coordinator.” He was extradited to the Chicago last year to face federal drug charges.

Zambada-Niebla claims that under a “divide and conquer” strategy, the U.S. helped finance and arm the Sinaloa Cartel through Operation Fast and Furious in exchange for information that allowed the DEA, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other federal agencies to take down rival drug cartels. The Sinaloa Cartel was allegedly permitted to traffic massive amounts of drugs across the U.S. border from 2004 to 2009 — during both Fast and Furious and Bush-era gunrunning operations — as long as the intel kept coming.

If Zambada-Niebla is telling the truth, Obama's administration - presumably some big fish inside it - decided that trading intelligence for innocent lives was a good idea. Hundreds of dead Mexicans and Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry will have lost their lives in exchange for "intelligence". Then again, Saul Alinsky (one of Obama's heroes) was a believer in ends-justify-the-means thinking. If the ends are intelligence and the means include dead bodies, Saul would have to agree.

Let's go back to that Obama quote in the wake of the Aurora / Sikh Temple shootings...

"...these kinds of terrible, tragic events are happening with too much regularity for us not to do some soul searching to examine additional ways that we can reduce violence."

How about the latest findings by Judicial Watch? The legal watchdog group claims to have come into the possession of documents that show the White House had a hand in telling police to "Stand Down" during the Occupy Wall Street protests last year:

Judicial Watch announced today that it has obtained records from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) indicating that the General Services Administration (GSA), with the blessing of the Obama White House, instructed law enforcement officers to “stand down” and not arrest “Occupy Portland” protestors who were in violation of the law.

The records, obtained pursuant to a November 11, 2011, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, include internal DHS correspondence. One November 6, 2011, e-mail exchange between DHS/National Protection and Programs Directorate Chief of Staff Caitlin Durkovich and GSA Public Buildings Service Commissioner Robert Peck (who has since been fired) specifically related to Occupy Portland protests taking place on federal property in Portland:

Here is the relevant portion of that email exchange, beginning with Durkovitch:

I am sorry to be emailing you on a Sunday night, but wanted to let you know our Press Shop has received a couple of calls from Portland media outlets about a group of 11 protesters who again set up camp at Terry Shrunk Plaza in Portland last night. They have chained themselves to a large drum filled with concrete. GSA controls the permits and has asked FPS [Federal Protective Services] not to enforce the curfew at park and the prohibition on overnight encampments. Reporters have asked if we will be arresting the protestors as FPS did last week.

Our FPS Commander in Portland says they are standing down and following GSA’s request to only intervene if there is a threat to public safety.

 Peck responds:

Caitlin: yes, that is our position; it’s been vetted with our Administrator and Michael Robertson, our chief of staff, and we have communicated with the WH [White House], which has afforded us the discretion to fashion our approach to Occupy issues…The arrests last week were carried out despite our request that the protesters be allowed to remain and to camp overnight…

As of August 2, 2012 there have been over 7300 arrests involving the Occupy Wall Street movement. The Tea Party? Not so much. Yet, there is a paper trail that shows the White House gave its blessing when the GSA expressed a desire to have law enforcement "stand down" and not arrest OWS lawbreakers.

Back to that Obama quote...

"All of us recognize that these kinds of terrible, tragic events are happening with too much regularity for us not to do some soul searching to examine additional ways that we can reduce violence."

Isn't it strange how Obama decries violence when there is a political opportunity. Then again, signs are increasingly pointing to him supporting violence for the same reason.

Video: Brian Ross learns nothing; calls Sikh Temple Shooter 'Right-wing'

At some point, you really have to wonder about the mental stability of ABC's Brian Ross. While appearing with George Stephanopolous this morning, he referred to the Sikh Temple shooter as being 'right-wing'.

If anything, the opposite is most likely true.

Here is Ross, once again, taking irresponsible journalism to a new low.



In the wake of the Aurora shootings, Ross appeared with George Stephanopolous and implied that the shooter was probably a Tea Party guy because there was a 'James Holmes' registered with the Tea Party in Aurora.

Ross was wrong then too and not only wasn't he fired for this but he was allowed to politicize the Sikh Temple shooter too.



h/t NewsBusters

Was Aurora Theater a 'Gun-Free' Zone?

Gun control advocates are always quick to pounce when people are shot en masse at the hand of a deranged gunman. What these whack jobs don't see are the benefits of second amendment rights. In fact, if one was to use the logic of such whack jobs (not blaming the person responsible but some amendment or law), then we could technically blame the movie theater for not allowing patrons to be armed so they could defend themselves... if that were the case, right?

Via WND:

Gun advocates say the movie theater where a Colorado gunman opened fire Friday, killing 12 and wounded 58, has a strict policy against firearms on its premises – even for patrons with concealed handgun permits.

Cinemark Holdings Inc. owns 459 theaters and 5,181 screens in the U.S. and Latin America – including the Century 16 movie theater in Aurora, Colo., scene of the mass shooting.

The company does not appear to post its firearms policy on its website. WND’s after-hours calls and emails to Cinemark had not been returned at the time of this report.

Dudley Brown, executive director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, told ABC News the Aurora Century 16 movie theater’s policy prohibits firearm carry.

Since 2006, some pro-gun bloggers have complained about their own experiences with Cinemark gun policies.

On the Defensive Carry blog, one Alaskan moviegoer posting under the name “SubNine” claimed Cinemark managers asked him to put his firearm in his vehicle if he wanted to see a movie. According to his post, the managers showed him a cardboard sign near the ticket counter that said, “No firearms allowed.”

If the left wants to go down the road of someone other than John Holmes being responsible for killing 12 and wounding 58, it's sad but it's not without a sufficient retort.

If you gun control freaks want to blame the Second Amendment, you might want to start building your case in defense of Cinemark because those of us who believe in the Constitution are ready to get down in the mud with you if that's what we have to do. How many fewer people would Nidal Malik Hasan have murdered if firearms were allowed on base?

The argument that Cinemark has blood on its hands is about as sound as the argument that gun rights advocates have blood on theirs.

Just remember, you went there first.

Forty years ago, Archie Bunker was laughed at for making the case against Cinemark's alleged position:

Fort Hood Jihadist Attorneys: Military preventing Muslims from being on Jury

If you find yourself wondering why the trial of Nidal Malik Hasan still hasn't so much as completed jury selection after nearly three years since he murdered 14 people, perhaps the latest bit of insane news will help to explain it. Apparently, the defense team thinks the Military is discriminating against potential Muslim jurors.

Via Temple Daily Telegram:

The jury panel selection process for the court-martial of Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal M. Hasan has been described by the defense team as a “highly unusual process” that it wants to know more about.

When pre-trial hearings in the case resume on Friday, look for Judge Col. Gregory Gross to address several points raised by Hasan’s attorneys last week that suggest the military might have screened out Islamic officers in advance.

Army prosecutors in the case say the allegation is simply not true but the defense team wants proof.

They are asking the judge to release paperwork associated with the panel selection so they can better understand the process. In addition, the defense wants to interview Lt. Gen. Donald Campbell, Fort Hood's commanding  general and Staff Judge Advocate Col. Stuart Risch, Campbell's senior legal advisor, to determine if thee was command influence exerted from beyond the gates at Fort Hood.

I fail to see what's so difficult about this. Wives of police officers are not permitted to serve on juries in criminal cases because of an obvious and inherent bias. Muslims should not be allowed to serve on the jury in the Fort Hood Shooter case for the same reason. According to Islam, Hasan was justified.

Instead of taking the position that they're NOT screening out potential Muslim jurors, perhaps the Military / prosecutors should say they did while citing the Qur'an and the Hadith as justification.