The Scott Family Responds to Video Footage of Charlotte Shooting

After calls from Keith Lamont Scott's family for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department to release the video footage from this week's fatal shooting, they have complied. CNN showed the dash cam video from the deadly encounter live on air on Saturday. The Charlotte police approached Scott after they discovered him with marijuana. In the video, we see the two officers beside the truck as Scott steps out of his car, seemingly retreating from the truck, before they shoot him. In the body camera video, we see another angle of the incident, with Bob Owens at Bearing Arms noting you can clearly see Scott wearing an ankle holster. (Warning: graphic)

At a press conference Saturday night, the Scott family attorney Justin Bamberg insisted the footage suggests the police officers' shooting was not justified.

"Mr. Scott doesn't appear to be acting aggressive" in the video, Bamberg says. "He doesn't lunge at the officers. It appears he has his hands by his side. The moment he is shot, he is passively stepping back."

Furthermore, he says one cannot say Scott was wielding a gun because it's impossible to identify what is in his hand at the time of the shooting.

Ray Dotch, Keith Scott's brother-in-law, said their family is dedicated to finding the "absolute unfiltered truth." 

"Unfortunately, we are left with far more questions than we have answers" after watching the video, he said. "It doesn't make sense."

Dotch also criticized the media for demanding information into Scott's demeanor. 

"We shouldn't have to humanize him in order for him to be treated fairly." 

Still No Sign of the Two Wanted Men in NY Bombing

Three days after the FBI released images of two men walking away from the scene that left over 20 injured in the suburb of Chelsea, Manhattan, no one has come forward with any information. Investigators say the two men picked up a suit case form the scene that contained one of the improvised explosive devices used by Ahmad Rahimi to kill Americans.  

The men apparently saw the abandoned suitcase on 27th Street and found the pressure cooker inside that had been fashioned into a bomb. They set the device on the sidewalk and left with the suitcase.

One possibility that investigators have proposed is that the men were tourists, and may have already left the country.

The New Pro-Trump Cruz: I Forgive Him For Insulting My Wife

After a disastrous appearance at the Republican National Convention in July, where he failed to endorse Republican nominee Donald Trump, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) finally endorsed the billionaire on Friday—probably disappointing his die-hard supporters (or forcing them desperately rationalize this decision) and confirming that he’s a snake oil salesman to his detractors, who have long felt that Ted Cruz is all about Ted Cruz. Some have brought up the fact that Cruz is endorsing the man who led a pretty nasty campaign against his wife. Well, the new, improved pro-Trump Cruz is ready to forgive Trump (via The Hill):

Cruz told the Texas Tribune Friday he was ready to move past that.

"I have spent several months thinking about it, praying about the right course of action, and I’ve discussed the right course of action with both Heidi and my dad, both of whom I love with all my heart," he said. "And all three of us have decided to forgive the past and my focus in making this decision was on trying my best to do the right thing for the country."

Let’s also not forget that Trump and Cruz had their own spat during the primaries. Is this endorsement too little, too late? For those who think that Cruz is a shameless opportunist, the timing is everything. Cruz decided to join Team Trump when the polls tightened, and it looked as if he could win with continued discipline. Guy noted that this endorsement probably means more to donors and the RNC, and that’s probably a safe bet. For many, especially Trump supporters, they have moved on, watching their candidate heavily chip into Clinton’s lead in the polls. The Cruz endorsement is a “meh” moment, a mere after thought.

Gary Johnson is Losing It—Or Maybe He Never Had It

Editor's Note: This piece was authored by our new contributor Erika Haas.

The former Governor of New Mexico and the Libertarian presidential candidate was once seen as a potentially viable alternative to Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Fiscally conservative, socially liberal; not a perfect candidate, but it seemed like a medium voters in the upside down could deal with. However, then he went and bit his tongue—literally.

During an interview with MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt, Johnson was asked if thought he could pull even with Trump and Hillary if he had the opportunity to join them on the debate stage. Johnson started out with a rather professional response.

“I do,” he responded. “And it wouldn’t have anything to do with my debate performance, either. It would just be that people would recognize that there’s another choice and that there would be an examination of me and Bill Weld as who we are and what we’ve done and not based on that.”

But then things got weird. At first, you may have thought Johnson got stung by a bee, trying his best to carry on as his tongue swelled out of his mouth. “I think I could stand up there for the whole debate and not say anything,” he managed to mumble. And then, as Kasie Hunt struggled not laugh, you realize he’s just being odd. Really, really odd. 

The fumble didn’t come at the best time, as Johnson is still trying to recover from the Aleppo blunder earlier this month. During another interview with MSNBC, Johnson was asked what he would do about Aleppo to which he responded, “What is Aleppo?” Johnson was utterly clueless about the war-torn city, which has become the focal point of the Syrian conflict. Foreign policy is clearly not Johnson’s area of expertise. Then again, neither are environmental issues. 

Mother Jones resurrected a video of Johnson at a 2011 National Press Event in which he discusses his “long-term view” on climate change. A very long-term view. “In billions of years the sun is going to actually grow and encompass the Earth, right? So global warming is in our future.” In other words, why worry about climate change when the Earth is going to end in a few billion years anyway?

It seems Johnson has taken the Bobby McFerrin approach to politics—“Don’t worry. Be Happy. Cause every little thing is gonna be alright.” 

Well, Johnson may want to start worrying because his campaign may no longer be alright.

NAACP Announces DOJ Investigation into Charlotte Shooting, Video Could Be Released Today

UPDATE (6:49 p.m. ET): The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department has released the body camera footage.

UPDATE: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Chief Kerr Putney has confirmed his force will release the body camera video and dash camera video of the fatal shooting of Keith Lamont Scott. In a press conference on Saturday, Putney said Scott was "absolutely in possession of a handgun."

***Original Post***

At a press conference in Charlotte, North Carolina on Saturday, the NAACP and members of the clergy announced that the Department of Justice is launching an investigation into the police shooting death of an African-American male named Keith Lamont Scott.

The NAACP leaders also called for the authorities to release the tape of the shooting in order to be as transparent as possible. 

"We're pleading for transparency," they noted.

The video, a local reporter notes, may be released as soon as today.

While protests in Charlotte started off violent and even resulted in one civilian death, the past two nights have been largely peaceful.

Trump Threatens to Bring Controversial Guest to Debate

UPDATE: It appears she has accepted his invitation.

***Original Post***

One of Hillary Clinton's most outspoken surrogates, Mark Cuban, will be sitting front row center at Monday night's first presidential debate between her and GOP nominee Donald Trump. Cuban is a successful businessman who owns the NBA's Dallas Mavericks and is known for his show "Shark Tank." Since endorsing Clinton, Cuban has consistently insulted Trump and questioned his business record.

His presence at Monday's presidential head-to-head, pundits surmise, is meant to distract or perhaps even intimidate the Republican. But, Trump indicated on Saturday that he's not afraid of Cuban and threatened to invite a controversial guest of his own to be his neighbor.

Flowers, you may recall, was revealed to have had an affair with former President Bill Clinton in the 1990s.

If the Twitter wars are any indication, Monday night's debate will be pretty entertaining, to say the least. The first debate takes place at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York and will air on CNN at 9 p.m. ET.

'A Great Nation Does Not Hide its History': Presidents Bush, Obama Celebrate Opening of African-American History Museum in DC

The National Museum of African American History and Culture officially joined the Smithsonian collection on Saturday. The museum, which has been over a decade in coming, boasts 37,000 objects from the contributions of generations of African-Americans. 

Three U.S. presidents were in attendance at the museum's opening ceremony. George W. Bush and wife Laura joined President Obama and the First Lady on stage, while Bill Clinton enjoyed the festivities as an audience member. 

Bush, who authorized the construction of the museum in 2003, said he was "honored" to be there. 

"I hope all our fellow citizens come and look at this place," he said. "It is fabulous." 

Bush, like many of the day's speakers, saved special recognition for the museum's Founding Director Lonnie Bunch. Bush said that Bunch's "drive, energy and optimism" were key in making the ambitious project a reality.

Bush said that while he and Congress had many points of contention during his presidency, "this is one issue where we strongly agreed." The museum, he said, is a national treasure that "now stands where it has always belonged - on the National Mall."

The significance of the museum, the former president said, is three-fold. One, it shows a "commitment to truth." 

"A great nation does not hide its history," he said. "It faces it's flaws and corrects them."

"The price of our union was America's original sin," he added. 

Two, the museum proves America's capacity to change. "The journey to justice is not yet complete," he noted. 

Thirdly, Bush said the new museum showcases the talent of some of our finest Americans, sharing that he's drawn some personal inspiration from guitarist Chuck Barry and baseball player Willie Mays.

"No telling of American history is neither complete or accurate without acknowledging" these Americans, Bush concluded.

President Obama echoed many of Bush's sentiments in his remarks. 

The museum, the president explained, does not just represent our most obvious triumphs, but how we’ve “wrested triumph from tragedy.”

The museum’s story, he surmised, needs to be told now more than ever.

While the building and the history it tells “cannot solve gun violence” or discrimination, “it has shown us America has moved forward.”

The president weighed in on current race relations, especially the relationship between police officers and civilians. He acknowledged we have far to go to heal that relationship, but that it is possible for an activist to wear an “I Can’t Breathe” t-shirt while still grieving for fallen cops.  

Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), a former civil rights icon, also spoke, noting he hopes museum visitors will come away with a greater understanding of the dignity and worth of every human being.

Other notable guests included actors Samuel L. Jackson, David Oyelowo, and Robert De Niro, producer Shonda Rhimes, singer Patti Labelle, and Oprah Winfrey, who donated millions to the museum as it was being constructed.

Members of the Bonner family helped the Obamas ring in the museum with the Freedom bell from the First Baptist Church of Williamsburg, VA.

Patti Labelle Sneaks in Hillary Endorsement During Performance at African-American Museum Opening

At the end of her performance of "A Change is Gonna Come" at the opening ceremony of the National Museum of African American History and Culture, singer Patti Labelle snuck in a presidential endorsement.

Most of the event, however, was beyond politics. President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama joined each other onstage and acknowledged each other's efforts to ensure the museum's presence on the National Mall. 

The museum opened its doors on Saturday, officially joining the Smithsonian.

Military Leaders: No One Asked Our Advice on Iranian Hostage Payment

The Obama administration had no intention of seeking the military's advice when they sent that controversial $1.7 billion payment to Iran the same day four American hostages were released back to the States, it would appear. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) made the discovery at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Thursday. At the meeting, he asked both Defense Secretary Ashton Carter and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Joseph Dunford about any information they may be able to provide about the payment, only to find they apparently had never been briefed on the reported ransom. 

Cruz's office provided the relevant exchanges in a press release.

Sen. Cruz: General, in your judgment, was flying $1.7 billion in unmarked cash to give to the Iranian government incentivizing positive behavior from Iran?

Gen. Dunford: Senator, I’m not trying to be evasive, but I don’t know the details of that arrangement, and it really was a political decision that was made to provide that money…

Sen. Cruz: Does it concern you, if the United States is now in the business of paying ransom to terrorist governments for releasing Americans, the incentive that we face for future terrorists and future terrorist governments to attempt to kidnap and hold for ransom Americans?

Sec. Carter: …I don’t know all the details of it, and the Chairman and I were not involved in that. It is a decision that was taken by the law enforcement and the diplomatic community…

Cruz slammed the White House for its history of "neutering" itself and "ignoring one transgression after another from our enemies." Congress is making the effort to prevent ransom payments to Iran in the future, with the House passing the Prohibiting Future Ransom Payments to Iran Act (H.R. 5931) on Thursday night.

Oh, Obama Was Emailing Clinton Using A Pseudonym…So He Knew About Her Private Server Then, Right?

Well, there was another Friday document dump, this time the FBI’s notes on interviews they conducted with Hillary Clinton’s aides. Nearly 200 pages worth of notes included interviews conducted with Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan, and Huma Abedin. Cheryl Mills, who served as Clinton’s chief of staff at the State Department, was recently offered partial immunity for her interview with the FBI. The move drew criticism from Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), chair of the House Oversight Committee regarding how the FBI dealt with these interviews, noting the disturbing instances in which immunity deals were handed out like candy. Furthermore, there’s a glaring conflict of interest: Mills was interviewed as a witness in the investigation into Clinton, while simultaneously serving as her lawyer.

Yet, the latest detail with this document dump is that President Obama was corresponding with Clinton on her private, unsecured, and unauthorized email server using a pseudonym, while she was secretary of state (via Politico):

The 189 pages the bureau released includes interviews with some of Clinton’s closest aides, such as Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills; senior State Department officials; and even Marcel Lazar, better known as the Romanian hacker “Guccifer.”

In an April 5, 2016 interview with the FBI, Abedin was shown an email exchange between Clinton and Obama, but the longtime Clinton aide did not recognize the name of the sender.

"Once informed that the sender's name is believed to be pseudonym used by the president, Abedin exclaimed: 'How is this not classified?'" the report says. "Abedin then expressed her amazement at the president's use of a pseudonym and asked if she could have a copy of the email."

The State Department has refused to make public that and other emails Clinton exchanged with Obama. Lawyers have cited the "presidential communications privilege," a variation of executive privilege, in order to withhold the messages under the Freedom of Information Act.

The report doesn't provide more details on the contents of that particular email exchange, but says it took place on June 28, 2012, and had the subject line: "Re: Congratulations." It may refer to the Supreme Court's ruling that day upholding a key portion of the Obamacare law.

T. Becket Adams at The Washington Examiner noted that this little nugget raises questions about whether President Obama was truthful when he said he found out about Clintons’ email server when it was first reported in the news last year:

The latest revelation from the FBI adds to a growing list of questions about Obama's claim in 2015 that he didn't learn of Clinton's private email server until it was on the news.

"My emails, the Blackberry I carry around, all those records are available and archived," the president said in an interview with CBS News' Bill Plante. "I'm glad that Hillary's instructed that those emails about official business need to be disclosed."

Asked when he learned of Clinton's private emails, Obama responded unequivocally, "the same time that everybody else learned it through news reports."

The White House and the State Department have yet to explain why the FBI believes the president used a pseudonym in emails to Clinton. Further, neither the White House nor the State Department have ever said anything about former secretary of state notifying the president's team that she had "changed her primary email."

Katie wrote in February that the story at the time was Obama did correspond with Clinton, but was unaware that her email server was private. Now, we know that the Obama White House knew full well about the server’s existence due to the change in her primary email.

The White House was apparently aware that Hillary Clinton was using a private email account because her staff said so. When Clinton changed her "primary email address," the White House was informed so that Clinton could still send emails directly to President Obama, Clinton aide Huma Abedin told the FBI during its investigation into Clinton's use of a private email server. Obama could only receive emails from designated accounts, and Clinton's was one of them, Abedin said. Accounts that weren't authorized would be rejected by the White House server.

Okay—so many thought this was true from the get-go probably, but now we have documented evidence that the president might have known about this a lot sooner than when he spoke about this matter with CBS News, even going so far as to deploy some secrecy of his own by using a fake name over an unsecure server. At what point did the president know about the private server? Why did he use a fake name, did he know the server was unsecure? Did the email from June of 2012 deal with the Supreme Court decision on Obamacare? There are a lot of questions with these latest documents, which will be answered in due time, but not immediately since these notes were released to the public at a rather odd time: when all of the press left for the weekend.

Washington State: Gunman Kills At Least Three People In Mall Shooting; UPDATE: Now Four People

UPDATE (11:30 a.m. ET): Lt. Chris Cammock of the Mount Vernon Police Department provided an update on the manhunt for the shooter who killed five people in the Cascade Mall Friday night.

The suspect, Cammock said at a press conference on Saturday, appears to be in his late teens and early twenties. His whereabouts are unknown. The authorities do not have an identity and are asking for the community’s help.

There is no evidence to point to terrorism at this time, authorities said.

UPDATE: The death toll is up to five, according to Washington State Patrol. A manhunt for the gunman is currently underway. He was last seen leaving the mall and walking toward Interstate 5.

UPDATE: USA Today reports the death toll is now four people.

UPDATE II: Suspect is a Hispanic male (via AP):

Police searched Saturday for a gunman who opened fire in the makeup department of a Macy's store at a mall north of Seattle, killing four females, authorities said.

Washington State Patrol spokesman Sgt. Mark Francis said police were seeking a Hispanic man wearing black and armed with a rifle last seen walking toward Interstate 5.

"We are still actively looking for the shooter," Francis said at a news conference. "Stay indoors, stay secure."

UPDATE III: Gov. Inslee reacts to the shooting:

***Original Post***

Last night, a gunman opened fire at the Cascade Mall in Washington State, killing at least three people and injuring two others. Authorities have a picture of the suspect who opened fire in the Macy’s store inside the complex. Authorities have no motives and this doesn’t appear to be a terrorist-related incident. The shooter, a Hispanic male, remains at large. 

The FBI and ATF are currently assisting local law enforcement as well. The mall is 434,000 square feet. Police have been searching the shopping center with multiple teams to full secure the area. The original death toll was originally reported to be four people, but it's since been revised down to three (via NBC News):

A gunman remains at large after killing at least three people in a shooting at a mall in Washington state on Friday night, Washington State Police said.

Authorities initially said four people had died in the shooting, but later revised the number to say that three women had been killed and one man was critically injured. One other woman suffered non-life threatening injuries.

[…]

Reports about a shooting started coming in around 7 p.m. local time, Washington State Trooper spokeswoman Heather Axtman said.

There is no motive at this time and no indication that the event was terror related, Axtman said.

Bernie Sanders' Brother Is Running For David Cameron's Old Seat In Parliament

Bernie Sanders' brother Larry, who was a DNC delegate for the Democrats Abroad, is running for David Cameron's old seat in the British Parliament. Larry Sanders is a member of the Green Party and is a retired social worker.

Cameron resigned from Parliament on September 12, saying that his presence had become a distraction. Cameron stepped down from his position as prime minister following the successful "Brexit" vote.

Larry Sanders moved to the U.K. in the late 60s when he married his late wife, Margaret. He formerly was a councillor for the Green Party. He currently works as the Green Party's spokesperson on health.

From The Guardian:

Now his brother Larry, 82, a retired social worker and former Green party councillor, plans to attempt a similar feat for the Greens in the byelection for the rock-solid Conservative constituency of Witney.

It will be a tall order. “It hasn’t always been the richest turf for the Green party,” a party spokesman said. To become MP for Witney, he would have to overturn Cameron’s 22,700-vote majority in a seat where the last Green candidate won just 5.1% of the vote.

But as Sanders points out, he has branding on his side. “Because of Bernard, I’ve become famous, and I will get more attention from the media, and that’s to be used to get the Green party’s policies across,” he told the Guardian.

Granted, Larry Sanders' chance of winning Cameron's seat aren't great--roughly about the same chance Bernie Sanders had of winning the Democratic Party's nomination. The last Green Party candidate won just over five percent of the vote in Cameron's old constituency.

The War On Guns: Your Guide To Fighting False Media Narratives And Anti-Second Amendment Rhetoric

Dr. John Lott is the go-to expert when it comes to crime data and Second Amendment rights. His studies from the Crime Prevention Center have been cited in numerous pieces, including ones published here on Townhall, about the Left’s incessant, and often ridiculous, efforts to strip Americans of their Second Amendment rights. His studies have proven that contrary to what the anti-gun Left says about concealed carry holders, they’re actually more law-abiding than law enforcement. It proved to be useful data when the Violence Policy Center, an anti-gun outfit, decided to push the narrative that concealed carry holders were killers by fudging the data between convictions and trials pending. The VPC combined the two to cook the books. As any lawyer would know, there’s an explicit difference between a conviction and a pending trial. He’s also taken a stab at the whole myth about background checks, which isn’t the magic bullet to creating safer communities.

In Oregon, Christopher Harper-Mercer was able to kill nine people at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg last year. Oregon has a universal background check law for all gun purchases. Yet, Lott took this talking point to task in 2013, when Congress was mulling a universal background check bill by Sens. Pat Toomey (R-PA) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) post-Newtown. For starters, the media was blitzing the scene, rehashing the 40 percent myth—the false claim that 40 percent of all gun sales are performed without a background check—and delved into the realm of private purchases. Lott noted that the 40 percent myth is based on very old data, with a sample size that isn’t worth considering for any serious academic review. Also, the sales in the 251-person survey from which the 40 percent myth is derived were based on sales before the Brady bill mandated background checks on gun sales. Second, most private sales where background checks aren’t performed are mostly relegated to family purchases and fall within the low single digits overall. Other than that, there’s really no hard data on private sales.

Yet, for everything that Dr. Lott has done in various publications and studies over the years, he’s now compiled in one simple book: The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies. It’s one massive triggering event for any pro-gun control liberal. It details how expanding background checks doesn’t cut down on gun violence; how gun free zones leave innocent Americans vulnerable, thus making them prime targets for mass shooters; how the federal government and the institutional left are funding bogus health studies to undercut our Second Amendment rights; why women concealed carry holders are surging; and how the media is a total disaster when it comes to gun laws and the lexicon within the firearms industry that could prevent egregious mistakes in reporting gun crimes. For example, how many times have you heard a news organization demonize semiautomatic weapons, which are really quite readily available for civilian use? In fact, the vast majority of gun owners in America probably own a semiautomatic firearm.

Here are some excerpts from his book relating to the media spin and the failure of gun registries, which is one of the main courses served by anti-gun liberals as some way to help make communities safer. In actuality, it sends the message that gun owners are criminals in waiting, and that to exercise one’s right to own a gun requires them to submit their personal information to the government. It’s atrocious:

The Media Spin

The media not only ignores positive examples of defensive gun use; news reports about the scientific side of the gun control debate are just as unbalanced. Coverage generally focuses on interviewing pro-gun control academics and questioning a gun shop owner or an NRA spokesperson for the other side of the argument. Of course, the New York Times will never run a news article on studies that find that guns save lives. Even when they write about studies supporting gun control, newspapers choose only to present comments by academics who support gun control. These articles give the impression that objective, qualified scientists are concerned about using gun control to save lives, while those with a profit or some other ulterior motive are willing to say anything to keep selling these lethal weapons. One of my books, The Bias Against Guns (2003), went through example after example of these one-sided reports in the media.

Unfortunately, little has changed. In January 2016, CNN ran a lengthy news story on studies that found gun control to be effective in preventing suicides. It wasn’t just my academic research that reporters ignored on this topic; there was also no mention of the National Research Council’s research showing that suicidal individuals had merely “substituted other methods of suicide.” Nor did the studies mentioned by CNN give any consideration to research which found that firearm suicides are not so much the product of higher gun ownership as factors related to rural areas (e.g., older men in rural areas are more likely to commit suicide because of the large male-to-female imbalance).

Consider a December 2015 Deseret News article on how to curb mass shootings. The only academics interviewed were gun control advocates, namely Garen Wintemute of the UC-Davis Violence Prevention Research Program and Mark Rosenberg of the Task for Global Health. The only opposing perspective came from National Rifle Association spokeswoman Catherine Mortensen. Likewise, a January 2016 story in the New York Times on Obama’s new proposed gun control regulations balanced discussions with a pro-gun control professor and Bloomberg’s Everytown with some federally licensed gun dealers and gun owners.

[…]

Registration Failures

Whether in Canada, Hawaii, Chicago, or Washington, D.C., police are unable to point to a single instance of gun registration aiding the investigation of a violent crime. In a 2013 deposition, D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier said that the department could not “recall any specific instance where registration records were used to determine who committed a crime.”

The idea behind a registry is that guns left at a crime scene can be used to trace back to the criminals. Unfortunately, guns are very rarely left at the scene of the crime. Those that are left behind are virtually never registered—criminals are not stupid enough to leave behind guns registered to them. In the few cases where registered guns were left at the scene, the criminal had usually been killed or seriously injured.

Canada keeps some of the most thorough data on gun registration. From 2003 to 2009, a weapon was identified in fewer than a third of the country’s 1,314 firearm homicides. Of these identified weapons, only about a quarter were registered. Roughly half of these registered guns were registered to someone other than the person accused of the homicide. In just sixty-two cases—4.7 percent of all firearm homicides—was the gun identified as being registered to the accused. Since most Canadian homicides are not committed with a gun, these sixty-two cases correspond to only about 1 percent of all homicides.

We must always be vigilant. Hawaii became the first state to require its gun-owning residents to be entered into a federal database. California keeps adding more anti-gun measures on its books as well. Lott’s book serves as a how-to guide in fighting these pernicious narratives that seek to undercut one of our most vital civil liberties. At the same time, liberal Democrats, especially Obama, have been the best sales team for guns over the past eight years, with over 100 million sold since 2009. We’ve seen gun sales break records consistently for months, as talk of new gun control measures from the Hill send law-abiding Americans flocking to their local FFL. Now, everyone has the ultimate guide to knowing facts about guns, the laws, the studies, and the politics to fight these left wing narratives about firearms wherever they may appear. Support for gun rights is at its highest point in 25 years, but you can never let your guard down against those who keep pushing these lies about the Second Amendment—looking at you Hillary Clinton.

Yes, South Korea Does Have a Plan to Assassinate Kim Jong Un

After Kim Jong Un and North Korea conducted their biggest nuclear test yet, South Korea is bolstering its plan to "eliminate" the dictator should they feel threatened by nuclear weapons, according to CNN.

South Korean Defense Minister Han Min-koo revealed the information in parliament on Thursday, saying that a special forces unit is already on standby.  

"South Korea has a general idea and plan to use precision missile capabilities to target the enemy's facilities in major areas, as well as eliminating the enemy's leadership," he said.

North Korea has spent months aggressively building up its nuclear missile program, launching bout sea and and land-based test runs.

Following South Korea's comments about eliminating Kim Jong-un, North Korea has hit back, accusing the US and South Korea of driving the situation in the Korean Peninsula "to the uncontrollable and irreversible phase of the outbreak of a nuclear war."

Earlier this week, the U.S. Air Force flew B-1B strategic bombers over the region, closer than any U.S. strategic bomber had ever flown.  Pyongyang said it was a "vicious scenario to make a preemptive nuclear strike at the DPRK," according to state-run news agency KCNA.

John Lewis Not Concerned About Punishment for Dems' Gun Control Sit-in

Earlier this summer, House Democrats refused to leave the House floor for nearly 26 hours in a protest over inaction on gun control legislation. 

After the spectacle, House Speaker Paul Ryan denounced their action as a politically motivated fundraising scam. 

They also happen to be hypocrites. Matt made the intriguing discovery that over two dozen of the liberal protesters were gun owners.

The Democrats who staged the sit-in were in violation of chamber rules, interrupting the business schedule and unlawfully using their cell phones on the House floor. GOP leaders suggested they may hit the Democrats with fines.

Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), however, is not scared. At a Politico Playbook event earlier this week, he said bring it on.

“My feeling is, I’ve been punished before. If they want to punish us, bring it on,” Lewis (D-Ga.) said. “If we violated the rules, the tradition of the House, the order of the House, punish us. We’re ready to be punished and then we’ll see what happens.”

There you have it. Democrats are willing to risk it all in order to enforce gun control.

Video Footage Of Fatal Charlotte Police Shooting Taken By Wife Of Keith Scott Released

Video footage of Keith Lamont Scott being shot and killed by Charlotte police was released today, the footage taken by Scott’s wife, Rakeyia, on her phone. The images are shaky and there is no definitive angle to see what Scott was doing the moment he was shot by police. You can hear Scott’s wife pleading with officers that he isn’t armed, that he has a traumatic brain injury, and that he just took his medication. He wasn’t going to harm them. At the same time, you can hear officers give clear commands for Scott to drop his firearm. One officer asks for a baton to presumably smash the window of Scott’s vehicle. The footage was in the possession of Scott’s family lawyer, who then turned it over The New York Times. When police fired upon Scott, his wife, shocked, says that he better not be dead while continuing to record the officers securing the area, with Scott’s body laying on the pavement [Warning: graphic content and strong language]:

OFFICER: Hands up!

RAKEYIA SCOTT: Don’t shoot him. Don’t shoot him. He has no weapon. He has no weapon. Don’t shoot him.

OFFICER: Don’t shoot. Drop the gun. Drop the fucking gun.

RAKEYIA SCOTT: Don’t shoot him. Don’t shoot him.

OFFICER: Drop the gun.

RAKEYIA SCOTT: He didn’t do anything.

OFFICER: Drop the gun. Drop the gun.

RAKEYIA SCOTT: He doesn’t have a gun. He has a T.B.I. (Traumatic Brain Injury).

OFFICER: Drop the gun.

RAKEYIA SCOTT: He is not going to do anything to you guys.

RAKEYIA SCOTT: He just took his medicine.

OFFICER: Drop the gun. Let me get a fucking baton over here. [muffled]

RAKEYIA SCOTT: Keith, don’t let them break the windows. Come on out the car.

OFFICER: [muffled]

OFFICER:Drop the gun.

RAKEYIA SCOTT: Keith! Don’t you do it.

OFFICER: Drop the gun.

RAKEYIA SCOTT: Keith, get out the car. Keith! Keith! Don’t you do it! Don’t you do it! Keith!

OFFICER: Drop the gun.

RAKEYIA SCOTT:Keith! Keith! Keith! Don’t you do it! [SHOTS]

RAKEYIA SCOTT: Fuck. Did you shoot him? Did you shoot him? Did you shoot him? He better not be fucking dead.He better not be fucking dead. I know that fucking much. I know that much. He better not be dead. I’m not going to come near you. I’m going to record, though. I’m not coming near you. I’m going to record, though.He better be alive because ...I come You better be alive. How about that?Yes, we here, over here at 50 ... 50 ...9453 Lexington Court. These are the police officers that shot my husband, and he better live. He better live. Because he didn’t do nothing to them.

OFFICER: Is everybody good? Are you good?

RAKEYIA SCOTT: He good. Nobody ... touch nobody, so they’re all good.

OFFICER: You good?

RAKEYIA SCOTT: I know he better live. I know he better live. How about that I’m not coming to you guys, but he’d better live. He better live. You all hear it, you see this, right? He better live.

OFFICER: [muffled]

RAKEYIA SCOTT: He better live. I swear, he better live. Yep, he better live. He better fucking live. He better live. Where is...He better fucking live, and I can’t even leave the damn...I ain’t going nowhere. I’m staying in the same damn spot. What the fuck. That’s O.K. did you all call the police? I mean, did you all call an ambulance?

Now, the alternate narrative is that Scott had a book, not a gun. This is false. There is no doubt that Scott had a gun, according to Police Chief Kerr Putney. Police say that Scott had the weapon in his hand at the time he was shot, but Putney said that there is no "definitive visual evidence that would confirm that a person is pointing a gun,” nor is there clear shots that he was brandishing the firearm. Because there is no definitive angle with the official police footage, Chief Putney has decided to withhold releasing it to the public (via WaPo):

Putney suggested that his department has no imminent plans to release the video footage to the public, and the Scott family’s attorneys made no promises to reveal its contents once they had seen it.

“Transparency is in the eye of the beholder,” Putney told reporters. “If you think I’m saying we should display a victim’s worst day for public consumption, that is not the transparency I’m speaking of.”

Putney said his department would release the video only “when we believe it is a compelling reason,” but the footage — which, he noted, doesn’t definitively show Scott pointing a gun — probably would not do much to calm the city anyway.

“I can tell you this: There’s your truth, my truth and the truth,” Putney said. “Some people have already made up their minds.”

The officer who shot Scott, Brentley Vinson, was undercover and did not have a body camera on him, but several other officers were wearing them and there is multiple dash cam footage as well. The question is what will this do to bring clarity to the situation? If the official video is vague, this footage taken by the victim’s wife is even hazier. If anything, it could exacerbate the string of protests that have engulfed the city, with some nights becoming increasingly violent. Last night’s protests were considerably less intense, with police allowing protestors to remain on the streets past the newly mandated 12 a.m.-6a.m. curfew imposed by Mayor Jennifer Roberts because they were orderly. Wednesday night was a total disaster, with looting, beatings, and one person, 26-year-old Justin Carr, being shot. Carr has since passed away from his injuries.

That night prompted Gov. Pat McCrory to declare a state of emergency, which prompted the deployment of the State Highway Patrol and the National Guard. Let’s see what happens tonight.

Scott was killed on Tuesday after officers encountered him sitting in his car near The Village at College Downs complex near the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. They were looking for someone else in the vicinity with an outstanding warrant.

Trump Announces Group of Catholic Advisors

In an effort to counteract his floundering poll numbers with Catholics, Trump has announced a new advisory group of 33 prominent Catholics, including members of Congress and businessman Tom Monaghan. This group also includes Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the pro-life organization Susan B. Anthony List and chairwoman of the Trump campaign's pro-life coalition.

Among the released names of advisers are former Republican Sen. Rick Santorum, who ran for president in 2012 and 2016. When he left the race in February, Santorum originally endorsed Sen. Marco Rubio. When Rubio left the race in March, Santorum endorsed Trump, citing the vacant Supreme Court seat as a key reason.

Another key person reported as a new Catholic adviser for Trump is Joseph Cella, founder of the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast who reportedly will be the chief liaison to the Trump campaign for Catholic affairs.

Trump has been doing very poorly among Catholic voters, with polls in late August showing him trailing Hillary Clinton by a casual 27 points. Comparatively, Romney lost the Catholic vote 50 to 48. Many Catholics are concerned if voting for Trump is a permissible action given his past support of abortion rights and other morally questionable endeavors.

Back in March, many prominent Catholics signed a letter saying that Trump is "manifestly unfit" to be president.

New Hillary Ad: Trump Insults Women, As Adolescent Girls Listen

At first blush, this ad strikes me as effective and cutting. It intersperses clips of Donald Trump insulting women with shots of tween and teenaged girls looking at themselves in the mirror. The target audience, aside from voters who value personal decency, are married women with kids -- who typically vote Republican. If Hillary can tamp down Trump's margin, or beat him outright, among married women and white college-educated voters, she wins. Hence commercials like this, in which the only voice in the entire spot is Trump's:

The counter-argument to whether this an ad that will have an impact is that it's the third of this genre that Clinton's campaign has produced. They've aired one commercial depicting young children watching Trump's insults and excesses on television, and another one with veterans and military families doing the same. Those were centerpieces of Hillary's August huge advertising blitz, which did nothing to prevent her collapse in the polls over the same period of time.  Third time's a charm?  Meanwhile, since polling guru Nate Silver threw cold water on the Democratic storyline that Hillary is storming back in the polls after a very rocky stretch.  The evidence, he correctly noted, has been mixed.  But over the last 24 hours, three separate national polls give Clinton a six-point lead in four-way polling.  We mentioned the NBC/WSJ poll yesterday, but now add surveys from the Associated Press and McClatchy/Marist into the mix.  In five of the last six nationwide polls, Trump's support hasn't reached 40 percent.  Top lines aside, this data set demonstrates Trump's problem:

This is why Monday's debate is so important, especially vis-a-vis that last number.  He has three more big opportunities to mitigate these negative perceptions, with the biggest one coming first.  Again, he doesn't need a dramatic turnaround; he just needs eat away at the 'unacceptability' margin.  Because even with Hillary's apparent polling bump and his fundamental flaws, this race is still within the margin of error nationally.  Given the high stakes, this behind-the-scenes report from Politico should be reassuring to Republicans concerned that Trump has done nothing to match Hillary's assiduous preparation for Monday's forum:

Donald Trump’s team has created a detailed analysis of Hillary Clinton’s debate style — including her body language and verbal tics — with the goal of helping the GOP nominee exploit weaknesses during Monday’s debate, according to three sources familiar with Trump’s preparations. The “psychological profile,” as the analysis is being called, is based on a statistical analysis of videos from 16 years’ worth of Clinton’s debates, dating back to her 2000 campaign for Senate in New York, according to the operatives...The advisers believe that the profile proves that Clinton has significant weaknesses and that they have identified her ‘tells’ — words, phrases or gestures she uses when she’s unsure of an answer, or is trying to deflect her way out of an uncomfortable question, according to the operatives familiar with the preparations...The goal, said the operative, is to get Trump to recognize the tendencies, “so when he hears her say ‘X’ he knows what is going on, and can respond accordingly.”

If course, if this Hillary shows up next week, Trump might win the election right on the spot.  I'll leave you with just the latest reminders of Hillary's well-deserved, perennial vulnerability: 

Pelosi Among Several Dems Ready to Override Obama's 9/11 Bill Veto

UPDATE: President Obama vetoed The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act on Friday, offering the following explanation.

“I recognize that there is nothing that could ever erase the grief the 9/11 families have endured," Obama wrote in his veto message. "Enacting JASTA into law, however would neither protect Americans from terrorist attacks nor improve the effectiveness of our response to such attacks."

***Original Post***

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has just proven that the September 11 bill that allows victims' families to sue Saudi Arabia is truly a bipartisan effort. In one of her few moments of opposition to President Obama, she will join many of her Republican colleagues in voting to override his veto of the bill.

"I've worked with these families for a very long time, and I think they should have their day in court," Pelosi told reporters in the Capitol.

Not only will she vote for the override, but Pelosi is confident it will be successful.

"[It] was the mobilization of the families," Pelosi said, predicting that the vote to override Obama's expected veto would succeed for the same reason.

"I think it's going to happen," she said. "The families will have the votes."

Many of those votes will come from her fellow Democrats.

Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT), for instance, represents a district that lost many people on 9/11. Their families, he argues, deserve some "accountability." Reps. Joseph Crowley (D-NY) and Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA) have also expressed support for the bill.

Saudi Arabia is alleged to have supported the terrorists who hijacked planes on September 11, 2001 and flew them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Hence why the victims' surviving family members are so supportive of the above legislation.

The White House opposes the bill because they believe it will create hostility between the States and Saudi Arabia and leave diplomats and service members vulnerable to lawsuits in the future. Lawmakers, however, argue that is not a strong enough argument to deny 9/11 families their due justice and closure.

Won’t Be Prey: 43 Percent Of Handgun Owners Are Women, Almost A Quarter From Urban Areas

The demographics of gun ownership are changing. They have been for quite some time—and it’s all stemming from women becoming more involved in shooting sports and gun ownership. The gun market sees female participation as the next frontier in their industry. Women from across the country are lining up for their concealed carry permits, with a 270 percent increase since 2007. Yeah, women packing heat are the fastest growing demographic of new gun owners, who are dispelling many stereotypes about the soccer mom/city woman’s aversion to firearms.

Meet Carrie Lightfoot of Well Armed Woman, a nonprofit dedicated to helping women become trained and well versed in the world of firearms. They’re now in 49 states with 280 active chapters. Lightfoot told The Guardian that the reason the rate for female gun ownership has spiked is due to the fact that information and training for women is now more accessible. The data on gun ownership from the Harvard/Northeastern survey on gun ownership shows that 43 percent of handgun owners are women; almost 25 percent live in urban areas. The reasons vary, but it’s mostly because they want a firearm for self-protection due to recent urban unrest; they support the Second Amendment; and because they want to protect themselves, they see firearms as an equalizer against would-be attackers, mainly from sexual predators.

The first time Jenny Hildebrand went shooting, she screamed each time she pulled the trigger. She was shaking and wanted to cry as she fired off dozens of rounds.

Bang. Bang. Bang. By the end of her first session, she felt more confident around guns and returned to the range a few days later to check out the Well Armed Woman club.

[…]

She did not learn to shoot for self-protection, but that is why the Baltimore city resident ultimately decided to buy a gun. When the city erupted in protests after the police killing of Freddie Gray, she bought a shotgun.

And since acquiring a handgun license, she has purchased two more firearms. She also carries a knife.

“Women need to be able to protect themselves no matter what, whether it’s with a gun, with a knife, or their own body,” Hildebrand said. “I think everybody needs to be able to do that.”

[…]

Andrea Hunt dreams of moving from Howard County, Maryland, to Texas, where she can “truly enjoy the Second Amendment”.

[…]

…Hunt, who is originally from Brazil, the right to bear arms is an essential part of the American experience – one that she fears Democratic politicians are going to take away.

[…]

“I grew up in a military regime and socialism, and the government will not protect you, they can’t,” Hunt said. “The police cannot protect you. You have to protect yourself and your family.”

[…]

The leader of Well Armed Woman’s Central Maryland chapter, Stephanie Stockman, said her favorite part of volunteering is helping women overcome their fear of guns.

“It’s incredibly empowering when you know that when you go out there that you don’t have to worry, you don’t have to be afraid,” Stockman said.

This makes the politics of gun control harder for Democrats, as one of their main groups is starting to pack heat and might worry that their anti-gun policies might leave them defenseless. It also appears that the rather weak argument that firearms don’t make women safer, therefore women shouldn’t own guns, is being outright ignored by these ladies. With more urban-based gun owners dotting that map, it’s starting to look like it’s no longer a rural vs. urban dichotomy anymore. Is that bad or good? In one area, we might lose a poignant argument that urban-based liberal elites hate rural voters, especially gun-owning rural voters, therefore torpedo any gun control attempts as it only infringes on our constitutional rights. On the other hand, we can now say that gun control is such an abject failure that more people in the liberal elite’s backyard, especially the women, are beginning to pack heat for protection and for the sake of exercising their individual right to bear arms, even in the most anti-gun states in the country, like Maryland. Anti-gunners have lost rural America on gun control. It seems the concrete liberal bastions of America’s cities might be next.

The study has an odd point of noting that the percentage of Americans owning guns settles around 22 percent, whereas Pew Research said it was 44 percent. Don't put too much stock in either of these figures, as gun owners are apt to not respond truthfully to these surveys and for a good reason too; it's none of anyone's business. 

The interesting point in the Pew study concerning policy is the fact that Millennials were the generation that really weren't all that receptive to bans on so-called assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Both measures didn't break 50 percent in the survey. 

NRA Ad On Clinton's America: 'Don’t Let Hillary Leave You Protected With Nothing But A Phone'

The National Rifle Association is taking no prisoners in their attacks against Hillary Clinton, with this new ad showing a hypothetical home invasion, where a sleeping woman rushes to the phone on her dresser to dial 9-1-1, but the narrator notes the average response time for police and first responders is 11 minutes, which is too late. She then goes for her gun safe containing her firearm, but it disappears.

It’s an explicit ad showing how in Clinton’s America law-abiding citizens would be stripped of their Second Amendment right to own a firearm, which is used for self-defense by millions of Americans. It ends with the ominous warning that our Second Amendment rights are on the line should Clinton win the presidency and pack the Supreme Court with anti-gun jurists. As the woman turns around, shock is written across her face, indicating that her attacker is already in her room.

The ad closes by saying, “Don’t let Hillary leave you protected with nothing but a phone.”

CNN said that the ad campaign is part of a $5 million effort to turn out pro-Second Amendment voters this election cycle.

The NRA's Political Victory Fund is tasked with spending half the money on five swing states -- Ohio, Nevada, Virginia, North Carolina and Pennsylvania -- while its Institute for Legislative Action, its lobbying arm, is spending the second-half on national cable. All of the money is going to a harrowing ad that shows what the NRA says would happen if Hillary Clinton appoints her chosen justices to the Supreme Court.

Of course, liberals are crying foul over the ad, labeling it inaccurate—or saying that the NRA is just plain lying to the public. Right, because Democrats, or any politician for that matter, never lie to voters, right? Does anyone remember if you like your plan, you can keep it regarding Obamacare? That’s probably one of the biggest public policy lies we’ve seen in recent memory. Yet, back to guns, Hillary Clinton, like her talking points about her emails, is walking a waffled line. She’s a gold medalist in linguistic gymnastics concerning being pro-Second Amendment (for a Democrat), not wanting to take people’s guns away, and then supporting measures that would…lead to gun confiscation.

In July, during an interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace, Clinton probably shocked some people post-Philadelphia by saying that she doesn’t want to take people’s guns away, she doesn’t want to repeal the Second Amendment, and she doesn’t want to see the landmark 2008 D.C. v Heller decision overturned; it’s the decision that said that Americans have a individual constitutional right to own a firearm unconnected to a militia for the lawful purposes of self defense. The decision only dealt with federal enclaves, but it was expanded to the states in 2010 with McDonald v. Chicago.

Okay—so Clinton is no longer pro-repeal Heller, which wasn’t her original position at a private fundraiser in New York last year.

“…The Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get,” said Clinton at the time. 

Just before the 2016 election was warming up, she told a New Hampshire resident that Australian-style gun control measures were something to consider. Folks, keep in mind, that Australian-style gun control means bans and confiscation—and it’s been a total disaster, as it’s created a violent black market for criminals (shocker!).

In June, Clinton couldn’t definitively say that we have a constitutional right to own firearms during an interview with a former operative of her husband, George Stephanopoulos, on ABC’s This Week. And now she changes her tune? There’s a reason no one trusts her that goes beyond her email and Clinton Foundation issues. Clinton was against gay marriage, and then had a change of heart when 2016 was nearing. She says she’s a progressive, though she’s tried to pass off like a moderate, pragmatic centrist. She’s for a $12 minimum wage, now she’s a die-hard fighter for the fight for $15. She’s admitted to voting for border security measures that may have included a wall or fence. The point is that Clinton is going to say whatever needs to be said in order to get elected, or look palatable to the Democratic base. Even Barack Obama saw that in 2008.

Given Clinton’s history with the Second Amendment this cycle, it’s a wise choice not to trust her on this issue in any way, shape, or form. It’s a mirage. We all know it’s a mirage. And the fact that the more left-leaning news outlets cite the Wallace interview as definitive proof that she’s totally onboard with not banning, or taking away guns, even though she’s probably one of the most dishonest and untrustworthy candidates to ever run for the presidency. Also, let’s not forget that a Clinton delegate was caught saying how the Left would actually ban guns, which is a series of bait-and-switch moves, like saying you’re for “common sense gun control” policies, getting elected to Congress, and then passing draconian anti-gun measures.

Trusting Clinton on guns…please.

Ted Cruz To Support Trump, Potentially As Soon As Today UPDATE: Here It Is

UPDATE: Here it is:

"After many months of careful consideration, of prayer and searching my own conscience, I have decided that on Election Day, I will vote for the Republican nominee, Donald Trump.

I’ve made this decision for two reasons. First, last year, I promised to support the Republican nominee. And I intend to keep my word.

Second, even though I have had areas of significant disagreement with our nominee, by any measure Hillary Clinton is wholly unacceptable — that’s why I have always been #NeverHillary."

The full statement:

Politico is reporting that Ted Cruz will announce his "support" for Donald Trump in the near future, potentially as soon as Friday. It is unclear as to if "support" means "endorse," or if Cruz will admit that he is indeed voting for Trump.

Back in July, Cruz angered the crowd at the Republican National Convention when he declined to endorse Trump during his speech. Instead, Cruz urged people to "vote their conscience."

Stay tuned.

Grassley: Rush to Confirm New Citizens Before Election Puts National Security at Risk

Yesterday news broke Department of Homeland Security officials are encouraging employees to work expensive overtime hours to push through as many U.S. citizenship applications as possible before the November election. 

An internal Obama administration email shows immigration officials may be literally working overtime to swear in as many new “citizen voters” as possible before the Nov. 8 presidential election, a powerful lawmaker charged Thursday.

The email, from a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services field office chief and part of a chain of correspondence within the agency, urges the unnamed recipient to swear in as many citizens as possible “due to the election year.”

“The Field Office due to the election year needs to process as many of their N-400 cases as possible between now and FY 2016,” reads the email, which was disclosed to FoxNews.com by Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., who chairs the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

“If you have cases in this category or other pending, you are encouraged to take advantage of the OT if you can,” the email continues. “This will be an opportunity to move your pending naturalization cases. If you have not volunteered for OT, please consider and let me know if you are interested.”

Now, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley is accusing the Department of playing politics and is warning the move puts national security at risk.

"Your department seems intent on approving as many naturalization cases as quickly as possible at a time when it should instead be putting on the brakes and reviewing past adjudications, especially in light of this week’s Office of Inspector General report that found USCIS granted U.S. citizenship to at least 858 individuals from “special interest” countries (i.e. countries that are of concern to the national security of the United States) or countries with high rates of immigration fraud, who had final deportation orders under another identity," Grassley said in a letter to DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson. "Unfortunately, we have been down this road before.  In the year preceding the 1996 presidential election the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), the predecessor agency to USCIS, established the notorious “Citizenship USA” (CUSA) initiative.  Previously, the INS had been granting citizenship to 300,000 to 400,000 aliens per year, but under CUSA that increased to 1.1 million cases. The apparent push to naturalize as many aliens as possible in time for them to vote in the election resulted in cut corners that endangered national security and public safety."

"We sincerely hope history is not repeating itself," he continued. "Please explain what you are doing or will do to reassure adjudicators that naturalization applications should not be rushed for inappropriate political reasons.  Please also explain what steps you are taking or will take to assure our Committees and the American people that background and fingerprint checks will not be weakened, ignored, or completely eliminated." 

The election is 45 days away and some states have already started early voting.

Video: Pro-Life Ad Targets Democrats' Extremism on Abortion

The Left gets a lot of mileage out of portraying anti-abortion sentiment as the province of a relatively small group of benighted anti-women lunatics and religious nuts, often waving off their arguments as "extreme" and unworthy of serious consideration.  This attitude deliberately ignores the longstanding reality that Americans are divided on abortion, and that a large majority of voters favor increased legal restrictions on the practice -- with women and young voters often being more likely than other groups to back such measures. While the Republican Party's platform language on these questions is inarguably to the right of the average American's views, Democrats' official stance is far out of the mainstream. It is, empirically, quite extreme. Because liberals tend to dominate the country's taste-making institutions, including the media, GOP politicians often find themselves cornered into discussions of unhelpful questions, especially the perennial "exceptions" debate (which addresses a tiny fraction of abortions in this country). Such framing favors the pro-choice side and places pro-lifers on the defensive. In a new ad campaign airing in Ohio, Pennsylvania and the DC Metro area, March for Life Action highlights recent polling to underscore how radical the Democratic Party is on abortion-related legislative questions:

This ad is effective in several ways: (1) It features a diverse set of women making a strong case on an issue that the other side casts as all about women's rights. Adding the authoritative voice of a medical doctor into the mix is also smart. (2) The public opinion statistics in the ad turn the "extreme" narrative on its head. It wages the political battle on much more favorable terrain and shines a bright light on just how much control the fanatical abortion lobby exerts over the Democratic Party. (3) It adopts the language of "consensus," as if to say, "we may differ on abortion overall, but after many years of debate, here are some areas of broad agreement among the American people." The idea is to pressure Democrats to defend their hardcore stances against the established consensus. (4) It uses data to back up its core premises. The survey cited in the spot was released over the summer. It was commissioned by the Knights of Columbus, but carried out by Marist's respected pollster, which receives an 'A' rating from FiveThirtyEight.  I'll leave you with a flashback of Hillary Clinton engaging in "gutter politics" by comparing the tens of millions of women who affirm the emerging American consensus on abortion to radical Islamist terrorists:

Mrs. Clinton supports late-term abortion, on demand, for virtually any reason, funded by taxpayers.  Short of endorsing compulsory abortions, this is about as radical as it gets. 

DHS Memo: Refugee Fraud Is ‘Easy To Commit’

We have 10,000 Syrian refugees in the United States. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson issues temporary protective status to 8,000 Syrians, meaning that they’re eligible for permanent residency applications and work permits. That order also applied to Syrians who had over stayed their visas or entered the country illegally over the past four years. Resettling Syrian refugees has become a topic of concern within our national security policy, as ISIS is spreading “like a cancer” by blending in with these roving bands of migrants. Now, to make us all feel better, a DHS memo says that faking refugee status is quite easy to do, according to The Washington Times’ Stephan Dinan.

Refugee fraud is “easy to commit” and much tougher to detect, Homeland Security officials acknowledged in an internal memo made public by members of Congress Thursday that challenges the department’s own assurances as it seeks to increase the number of refugees from dangerous countries.

The U.S. has relaxed requirements for refugees to prove they are who they say they are, and at times may rely solely on testimony. That makes it easier for bogus applicants to conspire to get approved, according to the department memo, which was obtained by the House Judiciary and Oversight committees.

Refugee fraud is easy to commit, yet not easy to investigate,” the undated memo says.

The memo said there are clear instances where “bad actors … have exploited this program,” gaining a foothold in the U.S. through bogus refugee claims.

The revelation comes just a week after the administration said it was boosting the number of refugees it wants to accept next year to 110,000, up from 85,000 this year. Officials also said they’ll take more Syrians than the 12,000 they’ve accepted so far this year — and they are on pace to resettle as many as 30,000 in 2017.

[…]

“I have never seen this document before,” ICE Director Sarah Saldana said when shown the memo by Mr. Chaffetz at a hearing Thursday.

The FBI has admitted that there is no way to fully screen every refugee for ties to terrorism that enters the country. Former DHS Secretary Tom Ridge also conceded that we couldn’t vet every one of them. A majority of governors have symbolically said that they would not accept resettlement of these migrants within their state borders, citing security concerns. Texas tried to bar resettling these people by filing a lawsuit with the federal government; it was tossed out in court. Contrary to Obama and the Democrats, these concerns Republicans are bringing up are nothing to laugh at—and even some liberal bloggers have noted that their blasé attitude and mockery of the security question makes them look horrifically out of touch with most Americans. Keep in mind this issue gained attention after ISIS executed a terrorist attack in Paris, killing over 120 people. We just had a string of bombings in New York and New Jersey and an unrelated stabbing attack in a Minnesota mall, which ISIS has claimed responsibility. This new development is quite unsettling.