Skip to content


Iran lawmakers shout ‘death to America,’ burn U.S. flag after Trump nixes nuclear deal



Iranian lawmakers shouted “death to America” and set fire to a paper U.S. flag during angry scenes at the country’s parliament in Tehran, a day after President Trump pulled out of the nuclear deal.

The protest came as Iranian officials, including parliament speaker Ali Larijani and President Hassan Rouhani, said Wednesday they hoped European leaders will work with them to preserve the deal between Tehran and world powers — without the U.S. — but stressed that the nation could now decide to resume its nuclear program.

“If necessary, we can begin our industrial enrichment without any limitations,” the Iranian leader said. “Until implementation of this decision, we will wait for some weeks and will talk with our friends and allies and other signatories of the nuclear deal, who signed it and who will remain loyal to it. Everything depends on our national interests.”

Iran’s supreme leader, who has the final say on all state matters, struck a more defiant tone. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei directly challenged Trump, saying “you cannot do a damn thing” after Trump announced he was renewing sanctions on Iran.

During the demonstration in parliament, lawmakers held up the flaming U.S. flag as their fellow parliamentarians joined in anti-American chants. They also burned a piece of paper representing the nuclear deal and stomped on the papers’ ashes. Larijani, according to the Iranian Students’ News Agency, said Trump lacked “mental capacity.”

Later Wednesday, Trump warned Iran against resuming its nuclear weapons program.

“I would advise Iran not to start their nuclear program,” Trump told reporters when asked about the potential consequences. “I would advise them very strongly. If they do there will be very severe consequence.”

European diplomats meanwhile insisted that the 2015 accord would not suddenly collapse despite the U.S.’s withdrawal. Hans Dietmar Schweisgut, the European Union’s representative to China said Wednesday during a press briefing in Beijing that the EU strongly believes “that this is an agreement which belongs to the international community. This is not an agreement that will fall apart if you just walk away.”

France’s foreign minister Jean-Yves Le Drian told French radio that the deal “wasn’t dead yet” and that European countries would hold talks over how to keep it alive.

Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia were all signatories to the 2015 accord under which Iran pledged to limit its stockpile of enriched uranium for 15 years and its number of centrifuges for 10 years. Both are needed to make nuclear weapons. The EU, U.S. and United Nations lifted economic sanctions as part of the deal.

There’s no good alternative to building more homes in expensive cities


People can live elsewhere instead, but we’ll all be poorer if they do.



The sweeping land use reform bill introduced recently by California state Sen. Scott Weiner, a San Francisco Democrat, died in committee this week, bringing to an end an ambitious plan to change zoning in broad swaths of the state by allowing four- to five-story buildings near all rail transit stations and major bus corridors.

Without it or some comparably sweeping reform, California will continue to suffer from exorbitant housing costs that contribute to the highest poverty rate in the nation when judged by the Supplemental Poverty Measure. A natural reaction to this on the part of many people who are either comfortable, reasonably affluent California homeowners or else enjoying life in the South or the Midwest, is to wonder what all the fuss is about. Sure, California — and the entire Boston-to-Washington corridor — may be expensive, but if people don’t want to pay the price, there are plenty of other places in the country to live.

Even many Californians who are struggling with rent burdens may wonder why the state should bother trying a supply-side solution. After all, if you already live in California, then by definition you already have a place to live. Stricter rent control and eviction protections could be as good or even better for you than rolling the dice on the consequences of a construction boom.

But these complacent arguments miss significant downsides to forcing the most in-demand places in the country to remain underpopulated — downsides that impoverish the country and will continue to do so until we treat land use policy as a topic of broad national concern.

Wages are higher in certain places

The median fast-food cook in America earns about $10.12 per hour, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And since this isn’t a field characterized by a high degree of inequality, the mean fast-food cook’s wage is similar, $10.39 an hour. But in California, the median fast-food cook earns $11.18 — 10 percent more.

This is the critical problem with suggesting that if California doesn’t add housing, it’ll be okay because people can just move to the Atlanta area ($8.95 an hour) or Greater Boise ($8.70) or just stay in the great state of Ohio ($9.38).

These are not princely wages that fast-food workers are earning in the Bay Area. But they are more than 10 percent higher than the national average and about 25 percent higher than the Greater Atlanta average. And the differences are even bigger for higher-skilled occupations. The median registered nurse in America, for example, earns about $33 an hour, which is a good wage. But in the New York metro area, it’s $43.88, and in the San Francisco metro division, it’s a staggering $69.63.

Obviously it’s well-known that elite professionals can earn superstar wages in superstar cities. But the fact of the matter is that everyone earns higher wages in affluent cities, for basically the same reason that everyone from Mexican day laborers to Indian computer programmers can greatly increase their earnings by immigrating to the United States — places matter. The problem is that for a lot of people, it’s too expensive to make the move.

Expensive homes make it not worth it to move

This is really great news for you if you’re a nurse who bought a house in California 25 years ago. But what everyone knows about San Francisco and New York is that while the salaries may be higher there, so is the cost of living. And as Peter Ganong and Daniel Shoag showed in a paper published last year, that higher cost of living outweighs the higher salary for most people, and that didn’t used to be the case.

This chart shows how much extra money in your pocket you’d end up with, net of housing costs, of moving to a state where incomes are $1 higher than in your home state over the decades. They break it out to show the difference between skilled and unskilled households and find that from 1940 to 1990 or so, the gains of moving to a higher-income state were large regardless of your skill level — but in the 21st century, that ceased to be the case.


By 2010, making the move to the high-income state still makes a lot of sense for the highly skilled worker. But the fast-food cook actually may be better off taking the $8.70 in Boise over the $11.43 in Los Angeles purely because of the LA real estate market.

This is where a solution that focuses exclusively on the price of housing in California falls down. You could help out LA’s existing population of fast-food workers with price controls, but for the much larger population of Americans who might benefit from moving to California if only the prices were more reasonable, you need to simultaneously address the price of housing and the overall quantity of dwellings.

There is plenty of room for more population density in California without the entire state turning into a valley of skyscrapers — San Francisco is less dense than Queens is in New York City, while Los Angeles is about as dense as Staten Island (and considerably less dense than Providence, Rhode Island).

The state overall has about one-third the population density of Connecticut. And while of course more density would mean change, and people for understandable reasons tend to be mildly averse to seeing communities they have roots in changing, there’s good reason to believe looking at the simple wage comparisons undercounts the benefits of more density.

Denser cities would be (even more) productive

A lone person on an island by himself will struggle to get by even if he is surrounded by natural abundance. A small band would live at a subsistence level. To achieve true affluence, people need to be able to specialize and trade with one another. To an extent in the modern world, that means access to global markets — grain can be shipped to Europe and timber to Japan. But for most people, it means direct access to other people, who serve as customers and co-workers and suppliers.

Lionel Fontagné and Gianluca Santoni find that heavily populated areas offer higher labor productivity and higher pay because “denser commuting zones seem to offer a better match between employers and employees.” The more people there are around, the more kinds of businesses you can have and the more finely specialized they can be, making it more likely that any given person would be well-suited to work at someplace or other in town.

This is in some ways most obvious at the routine retail level — big cities have specialty shops and very focused restaurants rather than general stores and generic diners — but research by Jason Abel, Ishita Dey, and Todd Gabe finds that the positive impact on density on productivity is especially true in knowledge-intensive industries.

In other words, while you might fear that an influx of new people would drive down wages and undo the benefits of cheaper housing, the academic literature suggests the reverse.

Just as immigration from abroad increases domestic prosperity (a point that tends to be well appreciated in liberal coastal jurisdictions), internal migration from other parts of the United States does the same thing and for roughly the same reasons. The modern economy is made of people, and places with more people feature deeper and more competitive markets with more productivity, higher wages, and more options for both workers and consumers.

Importantly, the economic benefits of higher labor productivity are going to exist broadly and not just for people who move. Farmers in Iowa, autoworkers in Michigan, and virtually everyone else in America would be better off living in an overall richer, higher-productivity country. And to get a country like that, there’s simply no good substitute for building more places for people to live in areas that are expensive.

Muddling through leaves huge gains on the table

The political rhetoric around this topic is inherently difficult because most people are proud of where they live and somewhat skeptical of big changes. So people who live in parts of the country where land is expensive and unmet demand for new homes is severe worry about the consequences of unleashing development. And people who live in parts of the country where land is cheaper and demand for development is either low or being somewhat adequately met by sprawl think it sounds snobby to be harping about the benefits of greater density in Palo Alto and Nassau County.

But there is a reason the population of the country isn’t spread perfectly evenly across the landscape and why, in fact, no country’s population distribution looks like that.

Economic opportunities vary from place to place. Companies participating in national or global marketplaces benefit from being able to locate near existing pools of workers with relevant skills who they can hire. Workers benefit from being able to live in places where multiple employers need to compete for their labor. People who work in service-providing industries benefit from living near affluent potential clients and successful businesses. The deeper labor markets provided by density allow people to find jobs they are better at and that make them happier, while people being in proximity to one another allows them to be more innovative and productive.

There’s simply no good alternative to increasing the quantity of dwellings available in the expensive parts of expensive metropolitan areas. Whether that’s done purely by re-legalizing market-rate construction, by reviving public housing, or with a mixed strategy like inclusionary zoning, there’s no getting around the fact that the raw number of units and their location matters a lot.

When America had a primarily agricultural economy, giving ordinary people access to arable farmland was a key driver of economic opportunity. Now that we have a primarily services-based economy, giving ordinary people access to prosperous cities is a key driver. If we don’t do it, people will still find a place to live, but their life prospects will be permanently the worse for it.


The Latest

Van strikes Toronto pedestrians, kills at least 9

Picking candidates based on a strong speech signals a weak party

Confederate Memorial Day: when multiple states celebrate treason in defense of slavery

5 books making the case that American democracy is in trouble

How Natalie Portman became the latest Israel-Palestine flashpoint

Meet Trump’s new legal team

Mexican Senate Takes Aim at the US!

In response to President Trump’s decision to send National Guard troops to the border, the Mexican Senate convened and showed their true colors. They seem to think that America trying to protect her borders is an “offense” against Mexico!?!?!?

Reports state from El Universal:

“Despite everything that is at stake in the relationship between our two countries, the way in which President Donald Trump has behaved is, for the Mexican people, unacceptable and intolerable.

The resolution demands that President Trump respect the people of Mexico, and notes the Senate “condemns the unfounded and offensive expressions about Mexico and Mexicans and the treatment that is needed for a relationship between neighboring countries, partners, and allies.”

Among their “solutions” are the ideas to stop helping the US with Cartels crossing the border, and to stop helping deal with illegal immigrants from crossing the border. Are they serious?

If the Mexican government had truly been helping with these aspects anyway, there would not be a need to send the National Guard down there. And if we do have the national guard on the border…It WILL reduce the number of illegal crossings and drugs crossings.

How can we know this for sure? Because when Presidents Bush and Obama did the exact same thing, border crossings and drug traffic went down. It works, we know it works, and here’s the kicker…Mexico knows it works too…And that’s why they don’t want it.

Jews and gun control

Jews and gun control

If necessary, it is moral to kill an aggressor in defense of innocent life

“…the act of self-defense may have two effects, one is the saving of one’s life, the other is the slaying of the aggressor. Therefore this act, since one’s intention is to save one’s own life, is not unlawful, seeing that it is natural to everything to keep itself in ‘being,’ as far as possible. And yet, though proceeding from a good intention, an act may be rendered unlawful, if it be out of proportion to the end. Wherefore if a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful, because according to the jurists [Cap. Significasti, De Homicid. volunt. vel casual.], ‘it is lawful to repel force by force, provided one does not exceed the limits of a blameless defense.’ Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense in order to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Q. 64 murder, Article 7

Disarming the goyim

After you understand who disarmed and then killed over 60 million Christians, notice who is promoting gun bans in the USA.


Government-Sponsored Domestic Terrorism Targets American Public Schools

State of the Nation, February 18, 2018

Zionist Jews Are At The Forefront Of Advancing Gun Control In The United States

by Lee Rogers, Blacklisted News, May 12, 2013

Jews and Jewish organizations lead the gun control campaign

by Kevin MacDonald, The Occidental Observer, January 1, 2013

Jews and Gun Control: A Reprise

by Andrew Joyce, The Occidental Observer, August 2, 2014

Jews as a Hostile Elite

Bloomberg gun-control group targets more than 12 states

by Fredreka Schouten, USA Today, December 2, 2014

Report: Gun-Grabber Michael Bloomberg Willing to Spend $1 Billion to Win White House

by AWR Hawkins, Breitbart, January 25,2016

Soros-funded ‘National Gun Control Movement’ is all about starting an American civil war

State of the Nation, February 21, 2018

Democratic Financier George Soros Invested In Firearm Companies While Backing Gun Control Groups

by Andrew Perez, International Business Times, January 25, 2016

Soros, Bloomberg & Planned Parenthood Funding David Hogg’s Anti-Gun Student Protests

Steven Spielberg and Jeffrey Katzenberg each pledge $500,000 to gun control march by Florida students [North American Federation of Temple Youth] Teens Are Leading the Way on Gun Violence Prevention

by Zachary Herrmann , 2/27/2018

“We are mobilizing in a wide variety of ways, both locally and nationally, for sensible gun laws. This is a moment unlike any in recent memory – and all over the U.S., Reform Jewish teens are leading the way. We take pride in this remarkable leadership, but pride is not enough. We need teens, young adults and the entire Movement to join NFTY, the Reform Jewish Youth Movement, and participate in powerful initiatives on the local, state and national level.”

…but this same “NFTY” Jewish teen group that lobbies nationally to disarm goyim, funds trips to Israel to teach Jewish teens to shoot machine guns. Master Race hypocrites!

I Learned To Shoot An Assault Rifle — At My Jewish Youth Group

by Madeline Winard, March 19, 2018

‘I’ll Speak for My Lost Friend’ Teens Who Survived Parkland Shooting Prep for Gun Control Rally in Israel

Three survivors of the high-school massacre will be in Israel on March 23, at a demonstration calling for stricter gun control in the U.S. ‘I hope a lot of people come so we can share what we need to share,’ says Eden Hebron, 14…

This Jewish Lawmaker’s Speech Helped Pass Florida’s New Gun Law

March 18, 2018 By Ron Kampeas

Dem Rep Wasserman Schultz Introduces Legislation Requiring Background Checks on Ammunition Buyers

by Pam Key, Breitbart News, March 26, 2018

U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz introduces Ammunition Background Check Act of 2018

Senator Chuck “Shomer Yisrael” must be Replaced by a Senator who will “Shomer” the U.S.

Jews and U.S. Gun Control Legislation, 1968-2018, partial list

  • 1968: The Gun Control Act of 1968 comes from Jewish Rep. Emanuel Celler’s House bill H.R. 17735. It expands legislation already attempted by the non-Jewish Sen. Thomas Dodd. America’s biggest and most far-reaching gun law came from a Jew.

  • 1988: Senate bill S. 1523 is sponsored by Jewish Senator Howard Metzenbaum. It proposes legislation turning every violation of the Gun Control Act of 1968 into a RICO predicate offense, allowing a gun owner to be charged with federal racketeering offenses.

  • 1988: Senator Metzenbaum co-sponsors a bill — S. 2180 — to ban, or limit/restrict, so-called “plastic guns.”

  • 1990: Jewish Senator Herbert Kohl introduces bill S.2070, the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which bans gun possession in a school zone. The law will later be struck down in court as unconstitutional.

  • 1993: Senate bill S.653 is sponsored by Sen. Howard Metzenbaum. It bans specific semiautomatic rifles, but also gives the Secretary of the Treasury the power to add any semiautomatic firearm to the list at a later date.

  • February, 1994: The Brady Law, which requires waiting periods to buy handguns, becomes effective. Senator Metzenbaum wrote the Brady Bill. Metzenbaum sponsored the bill in the Senate. The sponsor of the bill in the House was Jewish Rep. Charles Schumer.

  • 1994: Senator Metzenbaum introduces S.1878, the Gun Violence Prevention Act of 1994, aka “Brady II.” Rep. Schumer sponsored “Brady II” sister legislation [H.R. 1321] in the U.S. House of Representatives.

  • September, 1994: The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 goes into effect, including a provision that bans the manufacture and possession of semiautomatic rifles described as “assault weapons.” [Note: true assault weapons are fully automatic, not semiautomatic]. That gun-ban provision was authored in the Senate by Jewish Senator Dianne Feinstein and authored in the House by Congressman Schumer.

  • 1995: Jewish Senators Kohl, Specter, Feinstein, Lautenberg and others introduce the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995, an amended version of the 1990 school-zone law which was struck down in court as being unconstitutional.

  • February 1995: Sen. Dianne Feinstein announces her goal of “…an outright ban [of all firearms], picking up every one of them — Mr. and Mrs. America turn ’em all in.…”

  • September, 1996: The Lautenberg Domestic Confiscation provision becomes law. It is part of a larger omnibus appropriations bill. It was sponsored by Jewish Senator Frank Lautenberg. It bans people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence from ever owning a gun.

  • 1997: Senate bill S. 54, the Federal Gang Violence Act of 1997, proposes much harsher sentences for people violating minor gun laws, including mandatory prison sentences and forfeiture of property. It was introduced by Dianne Feinstein and a non-Jewish Senator [Hatch], among others. It returns the idea of turning every violation of the Gun Control Act of 1968 into a RICO predicate offense.

  • January, 1999: Jewish Senator Barbara Boxer introduces bill S.193, the American Handgun Standards Act of 1999.

  • January, 1999: Senator Kohl introduces bill S.149, the Child Safety Lock Act of 1999. It would to require a child safety lock in connection with transfer of a handgun.

  • February, 1999: Senator Frank Lautenberg introduces bill S.407, the Stop Gun Trafficking Act of 1999.

  • February, 1999: Senator Lautenberg introduces S.443, the Gun Show Accountability Act of 1999.

  • March, 1999: Senator Lautenberg introduces bill S.560, the Gun Industry Accountability Act of 1999.

  • March, 1999: Senator Feinstein introduces bill S.594, the Large Capacity Ammunition Magazine Import Ban Act of 1999.

  • May, 2000: Senate bill S. 2515, Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2000, is submitted by Senators Feinstein, Senator Barbara Boxer, Sen. Lautenberg and Sen. Schumer. It is a plan for a national firearms licensing system.

  • January, 2001: Senate bill S.25, Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2001, is sponsored by Feinstein, Schumer, and Boxer. It is a nation-wide gun registration plan [apparently there were two versions of that Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act bill].

  • May, 2003: Senators Feinstein, Schumer, Boxer and others introduce legislation that would reauthorize the 1994 federal assault weapons ban, and, close a loophole in the law that allows large-capacity ammunition magazines to be imported into the U.S. The ban is scheduled to expire in September, 2004.

  • October, 2003: Senators Feinstein, Lautenberg, Levin [also Jewish] and Schumer co-sponsor bill S.1774, designed to stop the sunset [ending] of the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988.

  • March, 2005: Senator Lautenberg introduces bill S.645, “to reinstate the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act,” in other words, to reinstate the 1994 assault-rifle ban [also known as the “Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994″] which expired in late 2004.

  • March, 2005: Senator Feinstein introduces bill S.620, “to reinstate the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act,” in other words, to reinstate the 1994 assault-rifle ban [also known as the “Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994″] which expired in late 2004.

  • July, 2005: Senator Dianne Feinstein introduces bill S.A.1621 – Fifty-Caliber Sniper Weapons. This amendment would convert all .50 BMG firearms to NFA weapons.

  • July, 2005: Senator Dianne Feinstein introduces bill S.A.1622 – Fifty-Caliber Exclusion to S.397. This amendment would modify S.397 to allow suits when the firearm involved was a .50 caliber weapon.

  • July, 2005: Senator Barbara Boxer introduces bill S.A.1633 – BATFE Safety Standards. This amendment allows law suits to continue/be brought if the product did not meet the safety standards as defined by the BATFE.

  • July, 2005: Senator Barbara Boxer introduces bill S.A.1634 – ‘Sporting Use’ on Domestic Handguns. Applying ’sporting use’ clause requirements to domestic handguns could, almost completely, dry up the handgun availability in the United States.

  • November 2017: Senator Dianne Feinstein introduces “Assault Weapon Ban of 2017,” S. 2095, the most far-reaching gun gun ban ever introduced in the US Knesset…er, Congress. Among the cunningly expansive definitions of “assault weapon,” the definition of pistol grip even implicates traditional wooden hunting rifle stocks.  Shortly after introducing her ban, she leaked classified information and, when exposed, blamed her crime on “slow mental facilities” [sic] due to a cold.

  • March 2018: U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz introduces Ammunition Background Check Act of 2018

  • etc., etc., etc.

sourced from

So who is really behind gun control? Liars!

Jeremias 8:7-10; Osee (Hosea) 4:1-2; John 8:44, 55; Apocalypse 3:9, 22:16; Titus 1:13-14

osh SugarmannFounder, Violence Policy CenterCommunications Director, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

Josh Sugarman is the Founder of the Violence Policy Center, notorious for producing sensational “factoids” (factoids sound like facts, but are carefully crafted deceits). Consistent with Judaism’s encouragement of lying to gentiles, Sugarmann confessed the utility of his deceit: “The public’s confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons — anything that looks like a machine gun is presumed to be a machine gun — can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.” Josh Sugarmann, Violence Policy Center,

Brazen in using such bold lies, it is no surprise that Sugarmann’s group also uses more subtle deceits, such as statistical cherry-picking. When a long-term trend shows a decrease in gun violence, Sugarmann’s group and others like him, will use a short-term reversal of the trend to craft a sensational “increase in gun violence.” A recent example: Cherry-Picking Statistics: How the Violence Policy Center Manipulates Data to Advance their Cause

NRA-ILA, January 26, 2018

The peer-reviewed professional literature is not spared such hasbara deceits. Though not outed as Jews, several of the most high-profile Jewish gun ban proponents have been justly and severely criticized in the professional literature for their Pandemic of Propaganda and the related Failure of Peer Review. Junk science, errors of fact, design, and interpretation, crafting sensational statistical factoids, and outright lying are their stock in trade—and of course the Jewish media are accomplices in disseminating the lies—just iterations of lying to Gentiles.

So who is really behind gun control? Hypocrites!

Matthew 6:2, 5; 15:7; 22:18; 23:13, 14, 15, 23, 25, 27, 28, 29; Mark 7:6; Luke 13:15


Watch: President Trump "We are one nation under God (not Allah) – Liberals are outraged!!



President Trump addressed the 66th annual National Prayer Breakfast. He gave a great speech about the importance of faith and religious freedom.
This powerful and patriotic speech by President Trump provoked outrage among Liberals who claim it was not “inclusive” enough.
He did not mention “Allah” he did not mention “atheism” he only referred to the Judeo-Christian values on which this great nation was founded.
“In God We Trust” he said no one can take our God given rights away.
“Our rights come from our creator…No matter what no earthly force can take those rights away”
“That is why the words praise be to God are etched on top of the Washington monument.”
“Today we praise God for how truly blessed we are to be American.”
What do you think about this powerful speech? Leave your thoughts in the comments below.





They are offended.
Do you care? Yes or No

Posted by ‎Support Israel – תמיכה בישראל‎ on Saturday, April 7, 2018

Everyone Who Participated In Massive Anti-Gun March Just Woke To WORST News Of Their Lives Today!



SAY HELLO TO KARMA!!!! Hhhhhhh…….!!!



One of the top news stories of the month is the issue of Second Amendment rights. While it’s an ongoing issue, it was sparked to life by the tragic Parkland Florida shooting that claimed the lives of 17 individuals just over a month ago. This very important issue that affects us all, is taking hold with students now. Despite the fact that it’s a heavy load for kids to bare, to make them responsible for what adults decide to do with guns, that’s just what’s happening around the country.

The culmination of the campaign to restrict gun usage was just days ago when those who feel that the country would be safer without the right to bear arms came together in what they called a “March for our Lives.” The idea seemed to be to show a united front and tell the world that students, and the adults that trained them, didn’t want guns to be a part of everyday American life.


Unfortunately for the anti-gun marchers, the attention that they brought to the possibility of guns being taken away had the opposite effect on Americans. Daily Wire reports that interest in NRA memberships skyrocketed as people began to realize that if they keep silent, they might be silenced forever:

Over this past weekend, thousands of activists marched in Washington D.C. demanding radical gun control measures and vilifying the NRA and Republicans. However, if Google search trends are any indication, the efforts of the activists may be backfiring.


As the Daily Caller first noted, Google searches for the term ‘NRA membership’ spiked during the March For Our Lives gun control rally.

According to Google’s explanation of the numbers to the left of the chart, they “represent search interest relative to the highest point on the chart for the given region and time. A value of 100 is the peak popularity for the term. A value of 50 means that the term is half as popular. A score of 0 means there was not enough data for this term.’

In other words, Saturday’s “March For Our Lives” demonstrated rocketed interest in NRA membership to “peak popularity.

In fact, membership in the NRA and other pro-gun groups have been spiking ever since the Parkland shooting, as more and more Americans seek to protect their Second Amendment rights.

For his part, newly minted gun control poster child David Hogg doesn’t seem to be too concerned.

‘Honestly, it’s alright that people are buying more guns,’ Hogg said last week. ‘I just care that they are being safe individuals. And they can practice their Second Amendment rights all they want. I don’t give a f*ck about that. I just want to make sure that a crazy-ass individual doesn’t get an AR-15 or any weapon at all.’”



Data for the search term ‘NRA membership’ dating back to 2004 reveals that searches for the phrase spiked higher over the weekend than it did even in response to the gun control push and campaign against the NRA after Sandy Hook.



What was no doubt meant to be a visual display of a heartfelt plea to stop gun violence, only served to remind the silent majority just how little anti-gun lobbyist understand about freedom. Their theory is that if there are fewer guns on the streets, there will be less chance of shootings.

The reality is that the gun laws were put in place by people who saw first hand that only those in power having firearms ends in tyranny.

“As can be seen in the graph, the baseline interest in the NRA elevated at the start of the Obama-era and has remained at about the same level since, except after major school shootings.


The first major school shooting that pops up on the graph is the Sandy Hook massacre, which happened after former President Barack Obama was re-elected and the Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress.

The second major school shooting that shows up on the graph is the Parkland shooting, and, as can be seen, searches for the term ‘NRA membership’ smashed Google’s all-time records for searches for that specific term.

It’s worth noting that the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history, the Virginia Tech massacre, occurred in 2007, but, as can be seen on the graph, there is no spike for the search term “NRA membership.’ This is likely because the shooter used two handguns, rather than an ‘assault-style rifle,’ when he murdered 32 people, discouraging the Democrats and leftwing activists from mounting much of a gun control campaign.”


The “march for our lives” started out as a plan to inspire people who might be on the fence about giving up their guns. However, the end result was that more and more people who were apathetic before are realizing that they don’t want their rights taken away, even if they had never felt the need to exercise them before. Taking away the option is taking away the right to disagree.


Please share and leave a comment below if you’re proud of POTUS!
we have to pray that more and more people realize this President wants to help all of us.










The Supreme Court Confronts California’s Craziness



On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments for NIFLA vs. Becerra, the case which focuses on the “law that requires pregnancy centers to notify women that the state offers subsidies for abortion.” In other words, pro-life pregnancy centers, which exist to offer women alternatives to abortion, would be required by law to tell their clients that the state can subsidize their abortions. But that hardly tells the story of how absurd this law is.

Certainly, it’s bad enough that the state thought it had the right to require pro-life pregnancy centers to inform their clients about abortion opportunities. The whole reason for the existence of these centers, many (or almost all?) of which are faith-based, is to tell pregnant women that they don’t have to kill their babies. To talk to them about the humanity of that child in the womb. To inform them about adoption. To share stories with them about other women who chose not to abort.

How on earth can anyone require them to say as well, “However, in case you’re interested, the state will help you terminate your pregnancy and snuff out that precious life in your womb.”

But, to repeat, that is only part of the story.

As became evident when the justices questioned the California attorneys, the law goes far beyond that simple requirement. Instead, it mandates that equal space be given to advertise the pro-abortion language. What’s more, it mandates that the pro-abortion announcement be made in 13 languages to be sure that all bases were covered.


Hank Berrien explains that the “law was adopted in California in 2015, and forced the pregnancy centers to post a prominent notice if they had ‘no licensed medical provider’ available. If the centers were licensed, they were forced to notify clients that the state offers ‘free or low-cost’ contraception, prenatal care and abortion.”
And, what, exactly would this look like?

The requirement would be so absurd that even ultra-liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had a problem with it.

As Berrien notes, “After Michael P. Farris, a lawyer for the centers, said advertisements, including billboards, would have to offer the information in large print and in 13 languages, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg turned to the lawyer for California and stated, ‘If you have to say that, those two sentences in 13 different languages, it can be very burdensome,’ she said.”

And exactly how “burdensome” is “very burdensome”?

The Los Angeles Times reports this enlightening dialogue:

“What would happen if an unlicensed center just had a billboard that said, ‘Choose Life.’ Would they have to make the disclosure?” [Justice Anthony] Kennedy asked.

“Yes, your honor,” Farris replied.

“It would be 29 words, in the same size font as ‘Choose Life’?” Kennedy continued.

Yes, Farris said, “and in the number of languages required by that county.”

Kennedy said he had heard all he needed to hear. “It seems to me that means that this is an undue burden. And that should suffice to invalidate the statute,” he said.

Kennedy, of course, is absolutely right, although calling this requirement “an undue burden” would be the equivalent of saying that it would be “an undue burden” to require a man to carry an elephant on his back.

In practical terms (and using hypothetical language, not even as cumbersome as what California requires), a billboard ad would look like this (relying on Google translate, and just sampling some of the state’s top 12 foreign languages):

Choose Life

But if you choose to abort, you should know that the state can help subsidize your abortion

Pero si elige abortar, debe saber que el estado puede ayudar a subsidiar su aborto


Nhưng nếu bạn chọn hủy bỏ, bạn nên biết rằng nhà nước có thể trợ giúp việc phá thai của bạn

그러나 낙태를 선택하면 낙태에 보조금을 지원할 수 있다는 것을 알아야합니다

Բայց եթե հրաժարվեք, ապա պետք է իմանաք, որ պետությունը կարող է նպաստել ձեր աբորտի սուբսիդավորմանը

Но если вы решите отказаться, вы должны знать, что государство может помочь субсидировать ваш аборт

ولكن إذا اخترت الإجهاض ، يجب أن تعرف أن الدولة يمكن أن تساعد في دعم الإجهاض

ແຕ່ຖ້າທ່ານເລືອກທີ່ຈະຍົກເລີກ, ທ່ານຄວນຮູ້ວ່າລັດອາດຈະຊ່ວຍໃຫ້ການເອົາລູກອອກ

Yes, this is what California required, as completely ridiculous as it seems. (And note again: This was not the 29-word announcement that Justice Kennedy referenced, nor did I post it in 13 languages.) And what message would get out most to the public? “Choose life” or, “The state is here to help pay for your abortions”?

For many reasons, this ridiculous law is not only burdensome. It is not only an infringement of individual and corporate freedoms. It is the imposition of state-endorsed speech, in strict violation of the conscience of many of its citizens. In short, it is an absolute outrage.


That’s why major media outlets, like the Los Angeles Times, stated that, “The Supreme Court sounded ready Tuesday to strike down a California disclosure law that requires pregnancy centers — including those that are faith-based — to notify women that the state offers subsidies for abortion.”

It’s about time. Time to push back against some of California’s craziness.





Dr. Michael Brown

Dr. Michael Brown ( is the host of the nationally syndicated Line of Fire radio program. His latest book is Saving a Sick America: A Prescription for Moral and Cultural Transformation. Connect with him on Facebook or Twitter.






Posting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.






Commenting shows here and on the Source website….



Trump is better for Britain than Sadiq Khan the Muslim mayor of London



WATCH | Piers Morgan with a message to protesters of President Trump’s visit to Britain.
“He’s said every time we need him militarily he’ll be there. On trade, he’s going to do a great new trade deal with us. Hold your nose if you don’t like him and put Britain’s interests first!”

Are you listening Sadiq Khan?
Trump will visit Britain, and the British people will welcome him, whether Muslim mayor of London likes it or not.

The Muslim mayor of London constantly attacked Trump and demanded that the British government cancel his visit to Britain.

The Mayor of London repeatedly went to the media and declared “Trump is not welcome in the UK”.




Here is why Western countries should adopt Trump’s Travel Ban:

Trump, as a candidate, called in 2015 for a ban on refugees from terror-laden countries.
Trump is correct, Just look at what has been happening to Europe in recent years since the beginning of the immigration crisis.

Here are only few examples:
3 June 2017 – London: Eight people were killed when three Muslim terrorists drove a van into pedestrians on London Bridge.

22 May 2017 – Manchester: Suicide bomber Salman Abedi detonated a bomb at Manchester Arena as fans were leaving an Ariana Grande concert, killing himself and 22 others.

7 April 2017 – Stockholm: Muslim terrorist drove stolen truck into a crowd in the Swedish capital, killing four people and wounding 15 others.

19 December 2016 – Berlin: Muslim terrorist drove a truck into a crowded Christmas market in central Berlin, killing 12 people and injuring 56 others.

Hundreds of innocent people have been killed in terrorist attacks in France, Germany, Britain, Finland and even Sweden.

After Millions of illegal immigrants and refugees have infiltrated into Europe thanks to the EU’s open borders policy.

According to British media, London is now more dangerous than New York City. According to crime statistics, crime across the U.K. was up 13%, with much of it in London.

Rape, robbery, Acid attacks, honor killings and violent offenses have surged dramatically. Figures like these have risen in many European countries, with Sweden becoming “Europe’s rape capital,” Germany’s steep rise in violent and crimes, and Paris’s frequent terror attacks.

EU, Australia, US, UK, and even Canada must close their borders.
A country without borders is a country without security.

If you support Travel Ban, Share this post!

Multiculturalism has failed in Europe.
Most people are unaware of the consequences of the illegal mass immigration into Europe that lead to the changing face of Europe.

The British have become a minority in their Own capital city.
In Sweden the situation is even worse, Swedish majority will live long enough to see themselves becoming a minority in their own country.

More and more countries are taking steps against the immigrants’ culture.
France, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Austria have banned the burqa.
Switzerland passed an anti-mosque law which bans preaching in Arabic and mosque’s minarets.

Austrian passed a law which restricts foreign funding for Austrian mosques and Islamic communities

All these measures were taken by these countries to force immigrants to integrate into Western society.

But there are Western countries that do not even acknowledge that there is a lack of integration within the immigrant communities.

The Western world must close the borders before it is too late.




Watch: Burqa women screaming and crying as they forced to remove it !!



Egypt destroys mosques in Cairo campuses to fight against religious radicalization, and bans the burqa and the niqab for security reasons.

Egypt has a long history of Islamic terror attacks by extremist jihadists who want to impose sharia law in the country.

The Muslim Brotherhood is a banned organization in Egypt.

The Egyptian president is investing enormous efforts to prevent his country from ending like Syria.

The Islamic state wants to subjugate all the people of the world to Sharia law. They treat Muslims as “infidels” if they do not want to live under Sharia law.

There is intelligence information that ISIS terrorists are planing to use the full Islamic veil to introduce explosives in public places.



The list of European countries adopting Burqa and Niqab bans has gained a new member.
Countries that already had such a ban include

– France
– Belgium
– Netherlands
– Bulgaria
– Austria
– Denmark.
– Switzerland

Face-covering veils includes traditional headdresses like the burqa or nikab and other items concealing the face.

In countries that banned the full face veils it won’t be allowed in schools, hospitals, inside admin buildings, on public transport and other public places or buildings.

The ban doesn’t prevent your head from being covered, just your face and identity.

Violators of tes ban could be fined up to 177 US dollars in Austria and up to €405 fine in the Netherlands.

In Muslim countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan The Islamic veil symbolizes oppression of women under Sharia laws.

There is no mention of an Islamic veil or burqa in the Koran. There are moderate Muslims who call to ban the burqa in the West.



Watch: Finnish people took to the streets calling to destroy mosques “terrorists infiltrate our society”



In the wake of plans for a new Mosque to be built in the centre of Helsinki, an anti-immigration rally was held. Protesters held banners and chanted slogans denouncing the plan.

The Finnish people are fed up with mass Islamic immigration into their country.
Every country has the right to defend itself by closing its borders and deporting illegal immigrants back to where they came from.

Multiculturalism has failed in Europe.

Finland like any other country has the right to defend itself and preserve its culture.



The German government expects to spend around 93.6 billion euros by the end of 2020 on costs related to the refugee crisis.

The only solution to the immigration crisis is to close the borders and deport illegal immigrants back to where they came from.

Most of the immigrants who arrived in Germany are not refugees from Syria. They are Muslim immigrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East who exploited the flow of immigrants from Syria to invade Europe as “refugees.”
Multiculturalism has failed in Europe.

Most people are unaware of the consequences of the illegal mass immigration into Europe that lead to the changing face of Europe.

The British have become a minority in their Own capital city.

In Sweden the situation is even worse, Swedish majority will live long enough to see themselves becoming a minority in their own country.

More and more countries are taking steps against the immigrants’ culture.

France, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Austria have banned the burqa.

Switzerland passed an anti-mosque law which bans preaching in Arabic and mosque’s minarets.

Austrian passed a law which restricts foreign funding for Austrian mosques and Islamic communities

All these measures were taken by these countries to force immigrants to integrate into Western society.

But there are Western countries that do not even acknowledge that there is a lack of integration within the immigrant communities.

The Western world must close the borders before it is too late.




In Tragic Circumstance, Trump’s Trained Teachers is Proved Correct!!

Yesterday we saw another tragic shooting at a school. A deranged student decided that it would be ok to begin shooting at students (in this case it seems likely that the first victim had a prior relationship with the attacker).

Austin Wyatt Rollins, 17, first shot a young girl and then a 14-year-old boy. At this point school officer, Deputy First Class Blaine Gaskill, stepped in and fired at the assailant. It is not yet clear whether Rollins died from being shot by the officer or shot himself after the gunfight. Either way…He is dead…and other people are not.

Trump has been calling for more school security, and in the wake of this attack, it appears he is right to do so. A trained professional with a firearm managed to engage the shooter and potentially stop what could have been another massacre.

Gun free zones are known as soft targets. Those wishing to cause murder and mayhem know that in a gun free zone, the first response will take time and as such will be free to carry out the crimes they wish.

It is truly sad that an event like this took place at all…But the parents of those kids that WERE NOT killed must be thinking that Donald Trump has a point. As they embrace their children tonight and perhaps feel a pang of guilt as they think “Thank God it was not MY child”, will they move a little further to Trump’s position on this? Will they be thinking that the only reason they have their child safe at home is that a good guy with a gun was there to intervene?

Yesterday we saw another tragic shooting at a school. A deranged student decided that it would be ok to begin shooting…

Posted by I Support The Police, Not Criminals on Wednesday, March 21, 2018


Imagine if you spent your entire working life catching criminals who jump the border, only to have them released by…

Posted by I Support The Police, Not Criminals on Wednesday, March 21, 2018


Schools Begin Falling To Islam, Muslim Citizens Want Closures For Their Holidays

One school board meeting featured Muslim students asking for these holidays off.

by April Horning

Schools all over the United States have stepped back from celebrating or even acknowledging any religious holidays. Calendars have been stripped of the word “Christmas” in the name of diversity and to not offend anyone that does not celebrate the holiday. It seems this was done to quietly accept the fact that more and more immigrants coming into the states are not Christians.

With a line drawn to separate church and state, it seems odd that in the state of Iowa there is a movement to force everyone that attends public school to celebrate Muslim holidays. The Iowa City Community School District (ICCSD) moved towards making Islamic holy holidays mandatory while glossing over the fact that they are not allowed to celebrate Christian based holidays. This means tax dollars will go directly to supporting Islam in classrooms.

The issue tied to the Muslim holidays came to light at a school board meeting on February 8thof this year. Young Muslim students were organized to make a presentation to the board.

They made their demands pretty straightforward, the area is changing, and the school needs to reflect this change. It was obvious the children were used by their parents and members of the community in a well-rehearsed public speech.

As they stood to speak at microphones that had to be lowered to meet the short stature of the children, their logic was simple.

The school should be closed on days that are important to the Muslim faith because more and more Muslims are moving into Iowa.

When most people think of Iowa, the Muslim population is probably not the first thing that comes to mind. Islamic residents of the ICCSD area want this to change.

They are pushing for the Muslim faith to be honored and acknowledged well beyond any other religion in the schools.

Even though the religion by no means is the most prevalent in the area, somehow the schools should close specifically for two holidays only celebrated by those who follow the Islamic faith.

A request to close for both Eid Al-Fitr and Eid Al-Adha seems a bit far-reaching for a public school. The school-aged visitors to the board meeting shared that closing for the holidays would benefit many people as the Muslim population moves in.

What they did not share is the fact that no other religion enjoys this type of treatment.

While most schools close for a winter break that includes Christmas and New Years, this is not a direct reason for students to take any particular day off.

For the most part, federal holidays like Christmas signal things like businesses being closed and vacation time for the majority of the population. This is not the case for Islamic holidays.

Having to close the schools to celebrate Muslim holidays puts many at a disadvantage.

For the majority of students, the parents would more than likely need to go to work anyway. These are not federally protected holidays.

Forcing families to have kids out of school for a holiday only a few students celebrate seems a bit overwhelming for the masses. Parents would now need to figure out how to handle missing work or paying extra for a sitter.

It also seems unfair to not allow any mention of Christmas in most classrooms but force students to miss school for an Islamic holiday.

Beyond the hardship families would face having to deal with two days out of school that is not tied to anything most employers would understand, there were other issues with the two holidays in question.

Even though the schools have not yet decided to close for the two Muslim holidays, they have allowed celebrations for the holidays to occur on school grounds.

In May of 2018, at least one school in the ICCSD will celebrate Eid Al-Fitr with a party. The odd thing about this party is that the holiday will not occur this year during the school year.

Webber Elementary School in Iowa City will set aside a day in May to honor Eid Al-Fitr. This event was created by a group of students because they asked why they could not celebrate Islamic holidays as other students celebrated Halloween.

Webber principal Yaa Appiah-McNulty took the students request to heart and allowed the group to create a school-wide event based on the highly religious day.

According to report about the school celebration:

“Eid -ul -Fitr is a unique festival. It has no connection with any historical event nor is it related to the changes of seasons or cycles of agriculture. It is not a festival related in any way to worldly affairs. Its significance is purely spiritual. It is the day when the Muslims thank Allah for having given them the will, the strength and the endurance to observe fast and obey His commandment during the holy month of Ramadha.”.

Join the discussion…

  • Avatar

    Bill H3 minutes ago

    “Nunes said Clinton confidants at all three government agencies abused their power to take the dossier from former MI6 spy Christopher Steele and use it to trigger the Russia investigation.”

    This is false. The “Russia Investigation” would happen anyway for a number of other reasons.

    The article states:
    “With a line drawn to separate church and state, it seems odd that in the state of Iowa there is a movement to force everyone that attends public school to celebrate Muslim holidays.”

    This is false. They were “requesting” a day off – not forcing anyone to celebrate anything.

    The article states:
    “The Iowa City Community School District (ICCSD) moved towards making Islamic holy holidays mandatory while glossing over the fact that they are not allowed to celebrate Christian based holidays.”

    This is false, they are “requesting a day off – not forcing anyone to celebrate anything.

    The article states:
    “They made their demands pretty straightforward, the area is changing, and the school needs to reflect this change.

    This is false, it was not a “demand,” it is a “request,” and a normal part of how communities operate.

    The article states:
    “The school should be closed on days that are important to the Muslim faith because more and more Muslims are moving into Iowa.”

    If the community decides that, there’s nothing wrong with it.

    The article states:
    “They are pushing for the Muslim faith to be honored and acknowledged well beyond any other religion in the schools.”

    This is false. Other religions have days off on their holidays. Many schools have both Christmas and Hanukkah off.

    This is up to the local school board and community. That’s how America works. Trying to vilify people who “ask” for something and pursue it in a legal fashion is un-American.

    I’m a Christian. I know that Jesus Christ would reject lies.

  • Reply
  • Share ›


    Henry Sammy3 hours ago

    Obama’s million Muslims are on the job of making the Great Satan more Muslim. No wonder Obama said when push comes to shove, he stands with Muslims.

  • 4

  • Reply
  • Share ›
  • Show 2 new replies


    Jannette Dillingham3 hours ago

    islam is not a religion; it is an evil cult/ideology. allah is the moon god, among 300 other gods, that muhammed picked for his followers to worship/ pay allegiance. When a cult/ideology brainwashes their people to hate, to lie, and to murder anyone who isn’t “like them,” there is something seriously wrong. From the very beginning of islam, it used force and murder; there was never a choice given to people; millions have died because of this evil cult. Why would anyone in our free democratic, (mostly Christian) country give a minute of their time to this idiocy?

  • 3

  • Reply
  • Share ›
  • Show 1 new reply


    Granny2 hours ago

    Cut the taxes now, it’s your money funding these schools. The answer is noooooo. Stop it now. We can’t pray in schools, we cant read scripture, we can’t say merry Christmas. Get very real folks, you let this happen it will be the beginning of the end. No prayer rooms, none of it.

  • 2

  • Reply
  • Share ›
  • Avatar

    Marlow Mosier3 hours ago

    All schools should be privatised. Then each school could set its own rules and parents could send their children to schools that best reflected their values and no one would be forced to fund (via taxes) schools that taught things they don’t approve of. Privatization of schools would immediately end school conflicts over creationism vs evolution, sex education vs no sex education, multi gender vs traditional men/women only genders, mandatory sports vs no sports, Islamic holidays vs Christian holidays vs whatever holidays. Or, parents could arrange for homeschooling. Once again, in education as in everything else – freedom of choice is the best answer.

  • 2

  • Reply
  • Share ›


    Marlene Rearden2 hours ago

    They should do like any “normal” parent…pull your kid out of school if you need to observe a holy day. If you don’t like it…homeschool!

  • 1

  • Reply
  • Share ›


    Lacey10 minutes ago

    The more Muslims we let in our country the less freedoms we will have. Europe is almost lost. London is the acid attack capital of the world and Muslims are taking over Western Europe, at the invitation of the Globalists. How do I know? I talk to people from Europe and Britain everyday. It is heartbreaking to see what is happening.

  • Reply
  • Share ›


    Gyro Tyro10 minutes ago

    It’s almost to the point where I am fearing the invasion of muzzies as much as I fear the invasion of illegal alien from Mexico. When are we gonna stop the muzzies from taking over our country?

  • Reply
  • Share ›


    Lillyhammer Lip3 hours ago

    Muslims need to realize that when they come to America they are to become assimilated into our society with our laws and our way of life. If they like the way of life in their original country, then STAY THERE! Why should WE change just for you? So why do they want to bring those “HELL-HOLE” systems here that they are obviously trying to get away from? If they want an oppressive system to live under then don’t bring that system to
    America and don’t try to change us to your way of life. Embrace our way of life/laws or remain a citizen of the country you came from.

  • Reply
  • Share ›