Television and Violence

link

JAMA, June 10, 1992--Vol 267, No. 22

Special Communication
Television and Violence
The Scale of the Problem and Where to Go From Here
Brandon S. Centerwall, MD, MPH

IN 1975, Rothenberg's Special Communication in JAMA, "Effect of Television Violence on Children and Youth," first alerted the medical community to the deforming effects the viewing of television violence has on normal child development, increasing levels of physical aggressiveness and violence.¹ In response to physicians' concerns sparked by Rothenberg's communication, the 1976 American Medical Association (AMA) House of Delegates passed Resolution 38: "The House declares TV violence threatens the health and welfare of young Americans, commits itself to remedial actions with interested parties, and encourages opposition to TV programs containing violence and to their sponsors."²

Other professional organizations have since come to a similar conclusion, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association. In light of recent research findings, in 1990 the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a policy statement: "Pediatricians should advise parents to limit their children's television viewing to 1 to 2 hours per day." Rothenberg's communication was largely based on the findings of the 1968 National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence⁵ and the 1972 Surgeon General's report, Television and Growing Up: The Impact of Televised Violence.⁶Those findings were updated and reinforced by the 1982 report of the National Institute of Mental Health, Television and Behavior: Ten Years of Scientific Progress and Implications for the Eighties, again documenting a broad consensus in the scientific literature that exposure to television violence increases children's physical aggressiveness.⁷ Each of these governmental inquiries necessarily left open the question of whether this increase in children's physical aggressiveness would later lead to increased rates of violence. Although there had been dozens of laboratory investigations and short-term field studies (3 months or less), few long-term field studies (2 years or more) had been completed and reported. Since the 1982 National Institute of Mental Health report, long-term field studies have come into their own, some 20 having now been published.⁸


In my commentary, I discuss television's effects within the context of normal child development; give an overview of natural exposure to television as a cause of aggression and violence; summarize my own research findings on television as a cause of violence; and suggest a course of action....
All Canadian and US studies of the effect of prolonged childhood exposure to television (2 years or more) demonstrate a positive relationship between earlier exposure to television and later physical aggressiveness, although not all studies reach statistical significance.⁸The critical period of exposure to television is preadolescent childhood. Later variations in exposure, in adolescence and adulthood, do not exert any additional effect.^23,24 However, the aggression-enhancing effect of exposure to television is chronic, extending into later adolescence and adulthood.^8,25 This implies that any interventions should be designed for children and their caregivers rather than for the general adult population....

No President has ever made a long-term arms control agreement on his own authority.

link
"... this deal may represent the single worst policy outcome of all of Obama’s illegalities.

Mike Ramsey has set forth the case that the Iranian deal is unconstitutional both under the original meaning and under modern law.  Under the original meaning, the Constitution’s provides the way to make major international agreements – through supermajority approval in the Senate, as set forth in Article II, Section 2.  Moreover:

Making major international agreements in the way the text prescribes is not just an eighteenth-century relic; it is the usual course for the United States today (subject to some exceptions noted below).  And the usual course is that if an agreement cannot get two-thirds approval in the Senate, there is no agreement.

What then are the possible justifications for it?  First, the “deal is an executive agreement, done on the President’s independent authority.”  But under the original meaning, there is a strong argument that executive agreements must relate to temporary and minor matters.  Moreover, a similar result obtains under modern law:

the agreements made by prior Presidents under this power have been minor and typically limited to settlements of claims, arrangement of military affairs, diplomatic recognition, and other matters within the President’s military and recognition powers.  No President has ever made a long-term arms control agreement on his own authority.

Second, “The deal is a nonbinding “political commitment” rather than a treaty.  Ramsey claims such nonbinding actions are legitimate under both the original meaning and modern law.  But the Iran deal:

doesn’t look like a nonbinding agreement.  Iran appears to understand it as a binding agreement.  And at least some of its terms appear to (purportedly) constrain U.S. action in the future, beyond the end of President Obama’s term.  It’s likely that a vocal defense of the agreement as nonbinding would substantially undermine the deal.

Finally, Congress will approve the deal.  While the original meaning does not allow a majority of each house of Congress to approve a treaty, in modern times sometimes Congress has done so.  But Congress is very unlikely to approve the deal.

Not only is the deal unconstitutional, its unconstitutionality is essential to it occurring.  If the President had to secure two thirds of the Senate or a majority of both houses, this deal almost certainly would not be approved.

Thus, once again, this President is taking illegal action to make an end run around the Congress to do things that are extremely problematic.  But this time, I fear, the consequences of his action may be worse than in the other cases.  The Iran deal is dangerous."

Abercrombie & Fitch

History link

As early as 1913, A&F had adopted the slogan, "The Greatest Sporting Goods Store in the World".^[9]

That was THEN:

"Founded in 1892 in the Manhattan borough of New York City, New York, by David T. Abercrombie and Ezra Fitch, Abercrombie & Fitch was an elite outfitter of sporting and excursion goods, particularly noted for its expensive shotguns, fishing rods, fishing boats, and tents. In 1976, Abercrombie & Fitch filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, finally closing its flagship store at Madison Avenue and East 45th Street in 1977.^[5]     

^{[We used to spend many pleasant lunch hours in that store marvelling at the excursion, safari, expedition, and exploration gear and wonderful merchandise that they sold.  They regularly outfitted Teddy Roosevelt.  They had a shooting range in the basement and a pool on the roof.   In 1938, 40% of sales at the great flagship Madison Avenue store was guns.  There was a gorgeous collapsible 4-man wooden boat with canvas cover that could be back-packed anywhere that a man could walk or hike.  Twelve floors, we loved that place.]}

Shortly thereafter the name was revived in 1978, Oshman's Sporting Goods, a Houston-based chain owned by Jake Oshman,^[6] bought the defunct firm's name and mailing list for $1.5 million^[7] ($5.2 million in 2013 dollars).^[8]Oshman's relaunched A&F as a mail-order retailer specializing in hunting wear and novelty items. It also opened shops in Beverly Hills, Dallas, and (by the mid-1980s) New York City. Finally, in 1988, Oshman's sold the company name and operations to The Limited, a clothing-chain operator based in Columbus, Ohio.^[9] "

And this is NOW:

"Product criticism[edit]

In 2002, A&F sold a shirt that featured the slogan "Wong Brothers Laundry Service – Two Wongs Can Make It White" with smiling figures in conical Asian hats, a depiction of early Chinese immigrants. The company discontinued the designs and apologized after a boycott started by an Asian American student group at Stanford University.^[82] That same year, abercrombie kids removed a line of thong underwear sold for girls in pre-teen children's sizes after parents mounted nationwide storefront protests. The underwear included phrases like "Eye Candy" and "Wink Wink" printed on the front.^[83]

More T-shirt controversies occurred in 2004. The first incident involved a shirt featuring the phrase, "It's All Relative in West Virginia," a jab at alleged incestuous relationships in rural America. West Virginia Governor Bob Wise spoke out against the company for depicting "an unfounded, negative stereotype of West Virginia", but the shirts were not removed.^[84] Later, another T-shirt that said "L is for Loser" next to a picture of a male gymnast on the rings gathered publicity. The company stopped selling the shirt in October 2004 after USA Gymnastics president Bob Colarossi announced a boycott of A&F for mocking the sport.^[85]

In 2005, the Women and Girls Foundation of Southwest Pennsylvania launched a "Girlcott" of the store to protest the sale of T-shirts displaying sexist messages such as "Who needs brains when you have these?", "Available for parties," and "I had a nightmare I was a brunette." The campaign received national coverage on The Today Show, and the company pulled the shirts from stores on November 5, 2005.^[86] Five days after this media coverage, A&F pulled two of the shirts off of its shelves, released an apology to girls for producing the T-shirts, and agreed to have corporate executives meet with the "Girlcott" girls at the company's headquarters.^[87]

Bob Jones University, a non-denominational Protestant university located in Greenville, South Carolina, and its affiliated pre-collegiate schools, along with other Christian schools have prohibited A&F and Hollister clothing from being "worn, carried, or displayed" on its campuses because of "an unusual degree of antagonism to the name of Christ and an unusual display of wickedness" in the company's promotions.^[88]

After A&F raised its price points in 2004, its products have been described as overpriced.^[81] After the company opened its flagship store in London, England and Paris, France, the brand was criticized in the United Kingdom and France because the merchandise that was offered to the customers cost double (or a direct $/£ - $/€ swap) compared to prices found in the U.S.^[89]

A T-shirt controversy arose again over A&F's Back-to-School 2009 collection of "humor tees".^[90] One shirt proclaims "Show the twins" above a picture of a young woman with her blouse open to two men. Two other shirts state "Female streaking encouraged" and "Female Students Wanted for Sexual Research".^[90] The American Family Association disapproved of the influence of the "sex-as-recreation" lifestyle shirts, and asked the brand to remove its "sexualized shirts" from display.^[90]"

^{You've come a long way, baby.}

More of the Same from the NYTimes

Now, over 100 years of tradition:

link

Unfortunately, this kind of behavior isn’t new to Andrew Rosenthal, the man who runs the editorial page for the New York Times. Rosenthal has a long history of deliberately misstating facts in order to make his enemies — people who aren’t hardcore liberals — look bad. Rosenthal was the individual who falsely reported in 1992 that President George H. W. Bush had never before seen an everyday supermarket scanner. Rosenthal’s lie was so blatant that even his fellow reporters thought it was a “cheap shot.”

Then there’s the deceptive headline Rosenthal’s team added to a Mitt Romney op-ed about Detroit’s financial troubles: “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt.” Romney never said that or anything close to it, but properly reporting facts has never really been Rosenthal’s forte. He is not a reporter; he is a liberal activist with a soapbox and a megaphone.

Sadly, today’s faceplant by Rosenthal and the New York Times editorial board should really come as no surprise. They don’t care about facts. They don’t care about accuracy. And they certainly don’t care if their lies about guns and the NRA have no basis in reality. The New York Times has an agenda, and that agenda has nothing to do with reporting the truth."

Mr. Rosenthal is the son of Abe W. Rosenthal, former reporter, city editor, managing editor, executive editor, and chief architect of the modern Times.    He famously fabricated a story as rooky city editor that made his name and his career.  

"One article assigned by Mr. Rosenthal, focusing on New Yorkers' fear of involvement in crime, recounted the murder of Kitty Genovese, a Queens woman whose screams were ignored by 38 neighbors while her killer stalked and attacked her repeatedly on a street for 35 minutes. The article shocked New York, and Mr. Rosenthal later wrote a short book on the episode, "Thirty-Eight Witnesses."   http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/11/nyregion/11rosenthal.html?pagewanted=6&fta=y>

Focusing on thoughtless, cruel, selfish urban sensibilities to not "get involved" in fellow citizens lives and victimization, the article became the basis for psychology textbooks teaching psychology students that this "urban apathy" is a real thing and a feature of our decadent society.

The REAL story missed by Abe the elder, an overzealous young reporter on the make was that New York's foolish and evil Sullivan Law alone brought about Kitty Genovese's stabbing murder in front of her apartment because even as a gay bar manager, transporting cash, even as a lesbian subject to all sorts of hate and threats, coming home alone daily at the wee hours of 3 AM, she was not able to obtain a handgun permit from the City of New York.  THAT's the story!  

The same could be said for John Lennon and countless other innocent, law abiding New York City residents murdered defenselessly.

Of course, further aggravating is that the NYTimes was a major driving force behind enactment of the Sullivan Law in 1911, jumping on a bandwagon launched by an assistant medical examiner after a Gramercy Park murder with a handgun.  Similarly, the REAL story was the corruption and criminality of state assemblyman Sullivan.

=========================================

Books MARCH 10, 2014 ISSUE

A Call for Help

What the Kitty Genovese story really means.

BY NICHOLAS LEMANN

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/03/10/a-call-for-help

Colt Python

link

Why is the Colt Python So Popular?

Around Rock Island Auction Company, collector firearms are a way of life.  Whether it's guns from the Old West, Class III machine guns, or the firearms used in any number of wars and conflicts, they tend to enjoy a perpetual popularity.  Their place in history is significant if not downright important, and people will always be fascinated by that.  It's rare then that a genre of firearms or a particular model would enjoy a sudden upswing in popularity.  New historic events, by their very nature, don't happen frequently.  So when a firearm or class of firearms experiences a rapid rise in popularity, collectors take notice.

This Colt Python is blue with a 4" barrel and was manufactured in 1968.  It is Lot #1
in our February 2015 Regional Firearms Auction.

Of course, saying that the Colt Python is experiencing a "rapid upswing" is a bit of an understatement.  It's been more of a rocket ship for these trusty wheelguns.  We covered some of their growth back in October 2013 in an article entitled, "Stocks, Bonds, or Barrels?"  In that story was the table below, which showed the steady increase of the gun in recent years.

Those figures were obtained from sale averages achieved by Rock Island Auction Company and they are a direct representation of what the market will support (because it did).  Finding the upward trend is not difficult.  What's more astonishing is what happened in 2014.  Our December 2014 Premiere Firearms Auction contained a good selection of Colt snake guns and our auction hall absolutely came alive when it was time for them to cross the auction block.  We wrote about it in a post-auction article which described the events as,

"The end of Saturday was quite a surprise to everyone in attendance. As Colt “Snake Guns” began to cross the block, the auction hall began to buzz. Every phone line was filled and online bidders began to make their presence felt as numerous collectors scrambled to own one of the popular revolvers. Bids couldn’t be taken quickly enough as the values soared and jaws dropped while the numbers reached previously unheard of heights. A feeding frenzy had begun. An R. L. Wilson special order Colt Python in lot 1789, with a high estimate of $4,500, would see a sale price of $11,500. Another Python, this time a scarce, inscribed, three-inch barrel Combat Python with its original box in lot 1792, would go even higher and sell for $12,650. These numbers were not rare! Numerous Pythons, Anacondas, Cobras, and Diamondbacks would exceed the $5,000 mark and many surpassed the $10,000 mark. It could indicate an extremely interesting trend for those who seek or collect these revolvers."


If we included 2014 on the table shown above, it would have an average sale price of $3,805.88, and that even includes an adjustment for a cased set of "Snake Eyes" Pythons to be counted as two separate guns.  So what gives?  Why has the Python, a revolver that's been around since 1955, all of a sudden seeing some pretty explosive growth in the last three years?  Let's take a look shall we?

Quality

The issue of high quality has not been an issue for the Colt Python.  If anything, there is the rumor that later quality Pythons fell away a bit from their initial high quality.  That said, there certainly wasn't any revamping of the Python that would've increased its quality and therefore popularity among collectors.  In fact, when it was introduced in 1955 it was done as a premium revolver, designed to compete with the finest double actions available.  It succeeded. A number of its design aspects such as its balance, weight, smooth trigger, and small tolerances gave the gun a refined feel, high accuracy, and reliability that few have matched.  Colt Historian R.L. Wilson has a well-cited quote, calling the Python the "Rolls-Royce of Colt revolvers" and the well-known British author and firearms expert Ian V. Hogg called it the "best revolver in the world."  High praise from reliable sources indeed, but the superior quality is hardly a recent development and cannot account for the surge in prices and popularity.

This Python, manufactured in 1956, sold in our December 2014 Premiere Firearms Auction for $11,500.

Looks

To put it simply, the Colt Python just looks like a big, powerful, classic revolver.  It's fat, simple grip, beefy snout, and swing out out cylinder make it baddest man in the room that never has to tell anyone for them to know.  There's no over-sized, unmanageable caliber.  No ostentatious advertising campaigns.  Just a simple, well-made revolver that's not a design fad.  Well, OK.  Maybe there used to be some pretty gaudy ads, but it's safe to say that those were before their meteoric rise.

Yikes.  You probably shouldn't try to take this Burmese python's Python.

Practicality

It's difficult to argue against the practicality of a well-made gun.  After all, if a firearm isn't well made and in turn doesn't perform reliably, how truly practical can it be?  Not only is the Colt Python built to do what it does very well, but it has been proven to be a practical tool in the hands of many police officers.  The Python was a fine option for law enforcement officers before the shift to semi-automatics began to grip the land.  In any case, the time the Python spent in service gave it a "field test" that many firearms do not receive.  If it had performed poorly in the field, that would not escape its history.

Also attesting to the practicality of the gun is its choice of caliber.  In its standard configuration of .357 Magnum, the gun packs plenty of power for nearly any law enforcement group, some fun range time, or even defending one's castle.  The caliber has been around since 1934, is a standard cartridge for most stores to carry, has excellent power, and shows no sign of going anywhere.

Politics

Granted, a portion of the Python's rise in price and popularity is the same rise enjoyed by nearly every other type of firearm.  Talk of legislation against firearms drove sales like none other.  People want to make sure they have the guns they want in their possession should the worst occur.  Part of the Python's price may have risen due to this, but if this were the sole cause we would similar rises across the majority of firearms and not this particular model.  It was easy to see a rise in price of "black rifles" and AR platform semi-automatic rifles because those were in the most danger of having legislation passed against them.  Modern sport rifles were unquestionably targeted the hardest (despite handguns being the weapon of choice for criminals, but that's another story).  Meanwhile this solid wheelgun received almost NO attention from the media or anti-gun groups because it's not a semi-automatic, its price doesn't make it attractive to criminals and it is therefore unlikely to be used in crimes (high profile or otherwise), and it only carries six rounds, a temporarily acceptable number for anti-gunners.  The Colt Python would not have been on anyone's radar for anything other than being a handgun, so while it may have enjoyed a small bump from potential legislation, it's nothing that would push it anywhere close to its current prices.  Besides, modern sport rifles have already seen their bubble burst.  If Pythons were riding that same bubble, they would have fallen right along side them.

Media Appearances

Maybe here is where we start to get to the meat of things.  First of all, let me say that I'm well aware that the use of Colt Pythons in TV and movies extends back decades.  While popular trivia may let us know that the Colt Python was the sidearm of choice for Hutch on 1970s TV show "Starsky & Hutch," it is not well known that its use can be traced back as far as 1969 according to the Internet Movie Firearms Database. The gun's classic, tough looks allow to be an "every pistol" in a number of TV shows and movies - always looking the part for some lawman in the 60s, 70s, and even 80s.  That said, why wasn't the Python more popular than this before now if it was featured so frequently?

The Colt Python as seen on AMC's "The Walking Dead"

        1.  Movies  Several factors could be at play, any of which would require more research to confirm or refute.  The first is that more people go to the movies today than ever before.  Modern box office numbers are untouchable even when counting for inflation.  More people watching means more people see these guns being used and possibly falling in love with this big, sturdy-looking revolver.  This is likely the weakest of the hypotheses.

        2.  Streaming TV could also be a factor.  For example, the Colt Python is featured prominently in the current television series "The Walking Dead."  Wielded by lead character Sheriff Rick Grimes, the gun is being seen by record numbers of people who tune in to see this wildly popular show.  The show initially airs on AMC, a premium cable network.  However, previous seasons of the show are also available on streaming services such as Netflix or Amazon Instant video for a comparatively modest price, as low as $7.99 for a single month.  Enjoying the current popularity wave of zombie culture, the success of Walking Dead, and widespread availability of both means the Python is being seen almost weekly by record numbers of people.  You can't buy that kind of advertising.

Here is how the Python appears in the video game
Call of Duty: Black Ops

        3.  Video games. I know, I know... video games get blamed for everything from bad grades, to obesity, to any number of crimes, both the benign and the violent.  However, the popularity of video games is not something to be overlooked.  Most notable of video games sparking an interest in firearms is the Call of Duty series.  Stretching back all the way to 2003, the COD series of games has featured real life weapons in nearly every single title.  Since its inception COD has over $10 BILLION in sales, each one teaching a player the appearance and gross characteristics of say, an M1 Garand, an MP5, a G36C, a BAR, a P90, a G11, a Type 99, and even what different shoulder launchers look like.  Many are quick to poo-poo the knowledge of COD players, which if based solely on gameplay would be admittedly thin, but would be hard pressed to find a more effective  tool for teaching rudimentary knowledge (appearance, action type, caliber) and spurring enthusiasm.

The Colt Python has been featured in video games where it is mostly listed as a ".357 Magnum" or "revolver," but the appearance in unmistakable.  The video game Call of Duty: Black Ops, the seventh of the series, featured the Python by name (without mentioning Colt).  It sold a total 5.6 million units in the U.S & U.K. in the first 24 hours.  That's $360 million in sales in 1 day, and $650 million in 5 days worldwide!  Even the acclaimed American Sniper movie released last week "only" landed a record $105 million opening-week box office.  Granted, video games are more expensive than movie tickets, but the numbers are still staggering.  Plus, while someone might only see a movie once in the theater, players are literally dumping days of time into these video games, playing them over and over again.  That's a lot of eyeballs learning that the Python, typically programmed in games to be more powerful than its semi-automatic counterparts, is for lack of better term, one mean mother.

This Python, manufactured in 1968, will also be appearing in our February 2015 Regional Firearms Auction.
It is Lot 73.

So with its popular appearances, and more media than ever being available to more people than ever, does that all translate into more sales?  Do those sales help diminish the supply and raise the price?  After all, how many kids playing these video games can legally buy a Python, let alone afford one?  That is true, and a large portion of those playing the video games will be under the legal age to purchase a handgun,  However, there are still millions playing that can buy a handgun.  Many of the children who grew up playing video games are now adults or young adults that play video games and those adults have adult sized  pocketbooks.

However, what all these mediums and popularity accomplish is to introduce a powerful, glamorized, and beautiful gun to an extremely large group of novices.  Even a small number of purchases by this newly enthusiastic group would have a large effect on the hundreds of thousands of Colt Pythons available.  This in turn, has a snowball effect.  Collectors see the supply of Pythons getting slimmer.  It's harder to find a Python for anyone that wants one.  Better snap one up before they're gone, right?  Now collectors are buying Pythons too, further depleting the available supply and also contributing to increased prices.  Casual gun buyers also find out how desirable they are and look for good deals on Pythons, further driving demand and price and it just keeps going.  Pretty soon, folks that can't get Pythons turn to Anacondas, Cobras, Vipers, Diamondbacks, and other Colt "snake guns."  Can't get a snake gun or afford one?  There are some attractive, fat-gripped Smith & Wesson revolvers that just might do the trick!  The popularity and demand for the Python is truly astounding, not only does it affect its own price and availability, but also guns similar to it.

What Does It All Mean?

But who cares right?  Why should we care about the price of a single model of revolver enjoying a bit of a renaissance?  Well, for folks who want one, it can be somewhat important, but for collectors and folks using firearms as their retirement fund, the ramifications can be even more important.  Even if you have no desire to own one, you may stumble across one at an excellent price and stand the opportunity to make some profit, but you have to know the opportunity exists in the first place.  That would potentially be a pretty quick turnaround for some profit, but the other two groups mentioned have some larger questions in mind.  For example:

• Is this another bubble like we just saw happen to the AR platform rifles?  If so, casual purchasers as well as collectors and investors could probably stand to wait for the price to come down if they still want one.    
• Is this the ground floor?  How many years can Pythons experience consistent growth?  If your experience tells you they're not slowing down anytime soon, this would be a great time to invest in multiple Pythons.  
• Will they plateau?  Instead of falling as in a bubble or rising over decades like Colt percussion revolvers or antique Winchester lever actions, could the guns simply be adjusting to a new market value where they will eventually stabilize?

There are all sorts of possibilities of what could happen to Pythons, snake guns, and the revolver market in general.  No one can say for certain what the end result will be, but two things are certain.  It's going to be a heck of a ride to find out, and I still want one in my collection.


-Written by Joel Kolander

This Python Hunter sold in our December 2014 Premiere Firearms Auction
for an impressive $4,600.

THE SYMBOL for fighting terrorists.

I just left a meeting with a Senior Congressman on Capitol Hill. The information I received from that meeting astounded me.  The first thing I've done is sit down and write you this email ... the information is that important. The Congressman and I were speaking about matters of national security.  The conversation naturally turned to the Islamic State (also referred to as ISIS or ISIL) and the threat it poses.  As we were talking, I explained the tragic use of the Arabic "N" on Christian houses ... and the Congressman had no idea what I was speaking about.  Once I was done explaining this, he told me he was positive few Americans are aware of this as well.  Today alone, Islamic State jihadists will kill 100 or more Christians in Iraq and Syria.  They are attempting to commit genocide against Christians.  Now, you know me.  I rarely discuss religion.  But this isn't about religion as you'll soon read. The Islamic State has an efficient method to their extermination practices.  They send "scout" troops into villages who identify and mark Christian homes with the Arabic letter "N" – which is shorthand for “Nasrani,” or Nazarene: a Christian.  The commando brigade follows shortly, and offers anyone who remains in these homes the choice of convert, submit or die.  If the jihadists opt for the latter, the usual methods include crucifixion or beheading – even of children! The symbol I’m speaking about looks like this:   When I asked the Congressman why he thought he hadn't heard about this practice, he said something to me that was startling in its simplicity.  "They're beheading journalists.  As a result no journalist will go into this area to report, for fear of meeting the same fate."  As much as I typically blame a left-leaning media for the lack of important information ... I realized he was right.  The Islamic State has ensured they can conduct their Christian genocide in secret. The reason:  Islamic State jihadists are headed here.  They do not want Americans to know what is in store for us. The point the Congressman left me with was this: If the media is too scared to report on, or lacks information to inform the public about these atrocities, it's up to CSP to get the message out.  He was adamant that the organizations who care most about America must inform Americans about this horror.  He wants to work with me to make sure that this symbol becomes THE SYMBOL for fighting terrorists. I've been wearing a pin (see below) with this symbol on it since we received them only days ago, to show solidarity with Christians and to indicate that I will not let America fall into the hands of terrorists. I know you're aware of the reports of Islamic State training grounds on the Mexican border.  I know you're probably aware of the reports of Islamic State sleeper cells that exist across this country.  I believe these reports are credible and the threat is real and imminent.  You and I are the exception.  The average American doesn't know and isn't prepared to fight. Please help me change that.  Wear this pin with me and use it as a way to start a conversation. Give this pin to others. Help me make this symbol a household name, and ensure Americans know the enemy we fight. This Congressman plans to wear one, and help me distribute the pin to other Members of Congress.  Given my full schedule, this is no small task.  But it's essential. For a small, tax deductible donation we will send you one or more pins.  Please use this link to connect to the donation page and see the options available.  It was expensive to get them made on short notice -- but frankly, we just couldn't wait.  Please donate to get one for you and a handful for friends.  Help us inform America of the terror that awaits if we don't take action.     With best regards and heartfelt thanks for your love of our country and your help in securing it. Frank Gaffney President and CEO Center for Security Policy   P.S.: Forward this email to a friend.

Be Careful out there...

Post by Brevard County Sheriff's Office, Florida (Official).

Post by Brevard County Sheriff's Office, Florida (Official).

The Roar of the Greasepaint and the Ironic Smell of Crime Detection...

HOW TO CALL THE POLICE WHEN YOU'RE OLD AND DON'T MOVE FAST ANYMORE..
George Phillips of Marsh Green, Wigan was going up to bed when his
wife told him that he'd left the light on in the garden shed, which
she could see from the bedroom window.

George opened the back door to go turn off the light but saw that
there were people in the shed stealing things.

He phoned the police, who asked 'Is someone in your house?' and he
said 'no'. Then they said that all patrols were busy, and that he
should simply lock his door and an officer would be along when
available. George said, 'Okay,' hung up, counted to 30, and phoned
the police again.

'Hello, I just called you a few seconds ago because there were
people stealing things from my shed. Well, you don't have to worry
about them now because I've just shot them.' Then he hung up.

Within five minutes three police cars, an Armed Response Unit, and
an ambulance showed up at the Phillips' residence and caught the crooks
red-handed.

One of the Policemen said to George: 'I thought you said that you'd
shot them!'
George said, 'I thought you said there was nobody available!'

I LOVE IT - Don't mess with old people!!

Brotherhood! Smotherhood!

Frank Gaffney, Jr.

What About Huma?

link

"Hillary Clinton is coming under scrutiny for serial fiascoes that occurred while she was Secretary of State. It’s about time.

These are among the decisions that Hillary made, or at least presided over, that are emerging as real liabilities – for the country, as well as for her future presidential prospects:

• Mrs. Clinton refused to designate Nigeria’s Boko Haram as a terrorist group when various other government agencies urged to do so, long before it grabbed international headlines by kidnapping hundreds of schoolgirls.
• She personally engineered the opening of formal relations with the Muslim Brotherhood before it came to power in Egypt. The latter was a strategic setback of the first order for U.S. interests, one that was facilitated by the Obama administration’s recognition and empowering of this jihadist group and by its undermining of our ally, Hosni Mubarak.
• The Clinton State Department insisted that nothing be done to challenge the narrative that everything was going swimmingly in Libya after its “liberation” by jihadists backed by U.S.-enabled NATO air strikes. This folly, in turn, led to State’s refusal at the highest levels to authorize requested security upgrades for our special mission compound and CIA facility in Benghazi.
• Hillary Clinton co-founded the so-called “Istanbul Process,” a multi-meeting “dialogue” with the European Union and the Islamists’ international front, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). This initiative has been used to advance the OIC’s agenda of curbing free speech in America and elsewhere in the West that might “offend” Muslims – something Mrs. Clinton said she would use “old-fashioned techniques of peer-pressure and shaming” to ensure.
• Such techniques, and worse, were evident in September 2012 when then-Secretary of State Clinton lied that a video that gave such offense was responsible for the attacks on U.S. missions and personnel in Egypt and Benghazi. She actually achieved her stated goal to have the person who made the almost-entirely-unseen internet film, “Innocence of Muslims,” arrested and prosecuted. In fact, to this day, that filmmaker,Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, is the only individual punished in connection with the Benghazi attacks.

Such policy malpractice – or outright malfeasance – has already cost four Americans their lives, and may lead to the loss of many more.

For that reason, the new House Select Committee on Benghazi must focus on the nature and consequences of Hillary Clinton’s conduct with respect to: the policies that led up to the attacks of September 11, 2012; what transpired that evening; and the cover-up that followed. To really get to the bottom of these matters, however, Chairman Trey Gowdy and his colleagues must also examine with care the role played by a top Clinton lieutenant who has, to date, been almost completely unmentioned in the reporting, leaking and congressional inquiries about Benghazigate: Huma Abedin.

This is all the more curious since Ms. Abedin has extensive family and personal ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. (See: Andy McCarthy’s rigorous analysis of those ties)

The question is: How many of the dubious decisions involving U.S. policy in the Mideast, especially the aforementioned ones – pursuant to which the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists were consistently advanced – were influenced by a woman long associated with the world’s preeminent jihadist organization sworn to our destruction?

A similar question was formally posed nearly two years ago by Reps. Michele Bachmann, Louie Gohmert, Trent Franks, Lynn Westmoreland (a member of the Gowdy select committee) and Tom Rooney in a letter to the Inspector General of the Department of State. They requested that the IG conduct “a formal investigation or evaluation of the extent to which Muslim Brotherhood-tied individuals and entities have helped achieved the adoption of [several enumerated] State Department actions and policies, or are involved in their execution.”

Rep. Bachmann was personally savaged by Senator John McCain and others for having raised such perfectly legitimate questions. And ever since there has been little evident appetite – on Capitol Hill, in the media or elsewhere – to pursue them and where they lead.

But now, the select committee has a mandate to get to the bottom of the Benghazigate scandal. If Rep. Gowdy and Company are to do so, they must examine with care the decisions about “State Department actions and policies” that led inexorably to that murderous attack – and that have the potential to threaten many more of us unless corrected. And doing that will require the select committee to establish precisely who the decisionmakers were, and ensure that they are held accountable, at last....

•