Gay Patriot Header Image

The Guns of Europe

The last few years, amidst Europe’s ongoing terrorist attacks and Muslim-influx crisis, European gun sales have surged. Article from January 2016:

Gun sales have jumped 350 per cent in Austria amid ‘unease’ over increasing numbers of migrants following the Paris terror attacks…

The final months of 2015 showed increases in gun permit applications, while dealers reported huge demand for self defence weapons such as tasers, pepper spray and blank firing-guns.

It comes just months after shotguns were reported to have sold out across the country as residents became increasingly paranoid about refugee numbers.

Article from August 2016:

Applications for gun permits have gone up significantly in Switzerland, Austria and the Czech Republic. In places with stricter gun laws, such as Germany, non-lethal guns and pepper spray have become alternatives.

“There’s no official explanation for the rise, but in general we see a connection to Europe’s terrorist attacks,” Hanspeter Kruesi, a police spokesman in the Swiss canton of St. Gallen, told Reuters.

Czech Republic’s President saw the light:

President Milos Zeman used to advocate gun control, but called for easier access to guns in July [2016] following the terror attack in Nice.

“Earlier I spoke against possession of large amounts of weapons [in the hands of the people],” Zeman said in a July interview with newspaper Blesk. “After those attacks, I do not think so any more.”

And last week, the Czech Republic began to create their own version of our 2nd Amendment:

Czech lawmakers have passed legislation in the lower parliament that would see the right to bear firearms enshrined in the country’s constitution…

The legislation was passed with 139 deputies agreeing to the amendment to the constitution with only nine deputies voting against. The amendment will now be considered by the Czech Senate where it will require a supermajority of three-fifths…

…the Czech legislation reads: “Citizens of the Czech Republic have the right to acquire, retain and bear arms and ammunition.”

It’s rare to have that right in a country’s Constitution. Hopefully, it’s about to become less rare.

Unfortunately, Germany is busy turning its guns against its own People’s free speech:

German lawmakers approved a bill on Friday aimed at cracking down on hate speech on social networks…

Among other things, it would fine social networking sites up to 50 million euros ($56 million) if they persistently fail to remove illegal content within a week, including defamatory “fake news.”

“Freedom of speech ends where the criminal law begins,” said Justice Minister Heiko Maas, who was the driving force behind the bill…

Social networks also have to publish a report every six months detailing how many complaints they received and how they dealt with them.

This is fascism: the merger of Business and State, in which the State commandeers Business to achieve the State’s aims – such as, in this case, the enforcement of political purity and consensus. Looks like Mark Zuckerberg has no problem with it.

Are the Germans going to target ordinary citizens’ protests against Germany’s insane Muslim refugee policy? Sadly, yes:

By “right wing extremist” what German authorities really mean is anyone who questions the immigration policies of the Europe, or thinks differently than the general population.

The article cites the relevant sections of Germany’s criminal speech code – that sound good on paper, except they are so subjective that the authorities can, will and do use them to punish any speech they don’t like.

I’m not sure – my German is quite rusty – but I think that in this clip, Germany’s Vice Chancellor is saying that Muslim refugees are more German than the Germans who would object to their presence, and who should therefore be locked up.

The Left is violent

This keeps coming up.

  • Despite (or maybe because of) the fact that left-wing protestors actually smash and burn things in riots and try to shut down Free Speech and injure people by swinging heavy-duty bike locks at them…
  • and despite (or maybe because of) the fact that a Bernie bro was out to kill Republicans – and some Democrats cheered him for it…
  • and despite (or maybe because of) the fact that the Left endlessly engages in inflammatory rhetoric to convince people that conservatives must be killed because they are Nazi Putin-loving fascists who want to push Grandma off the cliff in her wheelchair…
  • and despite (or maybe because of) the fact that the Left now does death threats on an unprecedented scale and blatant “assassination porn” from its artists…

Despite (or maybe because of) those things, lefties still claim to feel threatened by the Right and wring their hands over the possibility of right-wing violence.

Relax, lefties! You’re the violent ones. Breitbart has a roundup for you.

It’s worth reading in full. The short version is: Most – not all, but most – of the serious political violence in America, like assassinations and explosions, comes from the Left. Enjoy!

By the way: I haven’t seen a Steve Scalise update since June 22, when he was transferred out of Intensive Care. Hopefully, “no news is good news”.

UPDATE: Julian Assange’s Twitter stream around June 30 is full of examples of lefties making death threats on him or explaining why he should be ‘droned’. (Plus examples where CNN approved of violence against journalists.)

Death of the “17 intelligence agencies” canard

It’s worth noting officially. NYT Finally Retracts Russia-gate Canard.

The New York Times has finally admitted that one of the favorite Russia-gate canards – that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies concurred on the assessment of Russian hacking of Democratic emails – is false.

On Thursday, the Times appended a correction to a June 25 article that had repeated the false claim, which has been used by Democrats and the mainstream media for months to brush aside any doubts about the foundation of the Russia-gate scandal and portray President Trump as delusional for doubting…

…on Thursday, the Times…noted in a correction that the relevant intelligence “assessment was made by four intelligence agencies…The assessment was not approved by all 17…

The Times’ grudging correction was vindication for some Russia-gate skeptics who had questioned the claim of a full-scale intelligence assessment, which would usually take the form of a National Intelligence Estimate (or NIE), a product that seeks out the views of the entire Intelligence Community and includes dissents.

The reality of a more narrowly based Russia-gate assessment was admitted in May by President Obama’s Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Obama’s CIA Director John Brennan in sworn congressional testimony.

Clapper testified before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee on May 8 that the Russia-hacking claim came from a “special intelligence community assessment” (or ICA) produced by selected analysts…

Clapper further acknowledged that the analysts…were “hand-picked” from [3 agencies,] the CIA, FBI and NSA. [ed: and DNI would count as four]

Emphasis added. Translation: It was politicized “intelligence”. Deep State wanted a pre-determined answer that would help them to dominate President Trump; as opposed to the real answer.

As to what those “hand-picked” analysts worked from: It’s worth remembering that, whereas Watergate began with a real burglary and police reports, Trumprussia began with the DNC actually blocking FBI investigators from the alleged crime scene and forcing everyone to operate off of a shoddy report from CrowdStrike. James “Leaker” Comey didn’t quite admit that in his testimony, but he came close:

COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN RICHARD BURR: Did you ever have access to the actual hardware that was hacked? Or did you have to rely on a third party to provide you the data that they had collected?

COMEY: In the case of the DNC, and, I believe, the DCCC [i.e. the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee], but I’m sure the DNC, we did not have access to the devices themselves. We got relevant forensic information from a private party…

Via ZH; the article goes on to explain in detail why CrowdStrike’s report was bogus.

Per Breitbart, the Associated Press joined the NYT in withdrawing the fake “17 intelligence agencies” claim.

Are Trump’s Joe/Mika tweets strategic?

Donald Trump is a genius at branding people. I still think that his tweets about Joe and Mika are un-presidential and unhelpful. But I have to admit: From now on, whenever I see Joe and Mika’s faces, I will remember that they’re vain people who have had work done (or at least she has), and that the POTUS shares my view that the two of them say and do some pretty ridiculous things.

There’s also a notion making the rounds that President Trump may have created the controversy for strategic reasons.

…the President couldn’t care less about Mika’s face or ‘Morning Joe’s’ ratings. The sole motive behind the attack was to distract the media from reporting on the travel ban and ‘Kate’s Law’ passing the House. The ‘Muslim Ban,’ as the MSM has coined it, is the most controversial law Trump will likely put into effect during his Presidency.

As Joseph Curl, former Drudge Report editor and Daily Wire writer tweeted… “For those who don’t think Trump is the Master Tweeter, the travel ban is in place and everyone’s talking about — Mika and Joe. Well played.”

I get the point being made. But I don’t quite buy it.

I mean, so what if we talk about the President’s temporary travel ban on 6 countries where the citizens are unusually prone to terrorism – AND have unusually poor documentation (poor proof of identity)? Or if we talk about a new law that cracks down on criminals entering the U.S. illegally?

They’re both good things. Why not let the media talk about them? The more they’re talked about, or the more Antifa is out protesting them: the more Trump’s own stock goes up. He improves his brand among the Silent Majority.

The SCOTUS travel ban decision last week was especially cool. 9-0, baby! It wasn’t a perfect decision; but heck, they had to get Ruth Bader Ginsberg on board. And they did, thus slapping down some real nonsense from the lower courts.

So, my view is that Trump would have been better off letting the media focus on the travel decision, on Kate’s law, or even on Trumprussia – which is increasingly being recognized as Fake News (so that talking about it actually hurts Democrats now). No need for all this Twitter strategery.

As always, feel free to disagree or to express your thoughts, in the comments.

UPDATE: Overnight, Trump got his tweets on, including his re-tweeting a parody video of him punching down CNN. 🙂

UPDATE: CNN’s answer is… a high-brow form of whining to Mommy. In measured tones, they play the victim. Poor dears. There goes what was left of their glamour.

UPDATE: Scott Adams argues that it’s all a big trap for CNN. In particular, CNN must cover – that is, re-broadcast – the parody “CNN smackdown” video. It’s like forcing CNN to advertise their own position of weakness.