Connect with us

News

Congressman Just Pulled Out A Loaded Gun And Yelled He REFUSED ‘To Be A Gabby Giffords’

He WASN’T A Victim Today!

Published

on

As the battle to disarm America rages on between those of us that choose to personally defend ourselves by carrying a personal firearm and those that would choose to disarm Americans rages on, one South Carolina congressman stepped up to the plate to make his point in bold fashion.

U.S. Rep. Ralph Norman (S.C.-R) chose to pull out his own loaded .38-caliber handgun and sat it on a table for several minutes during a scheduled “coffee with constituents” meeting about gun violence prevention with his constituents at a Rock Hill restaurant. Norman was attempting to make a very valid point that inanimate objects do not commit crimes to those of his constituency that were calling for gun control. Yet many are accusing Norman of everything from brandishing a weapon to committing a felony.

While making the point that guns are only dangerous in the hands of criminals with his personal firearm sitting on the table in front of him, Norman then made the statement – “I’m not going to be a Gabby Giffords.” Norman was referring to the former Arizona congresswoman who was shot outside a grocery store during a constituent gathering in 2011 in Tucson, Arizona. Norman went on to state – “I don’t mind dying, but whoever shoots me better shoot well or I’m shooting back.”

Republican congressman Ralph Norman

Since the statement, the husband of former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords chose to respond to Norman’s comments, stating Norman is “no Gabby Giffords” and noting his wife’s dedication to ending the gun violence. Rather than focusing on education and training, Giffords and Kelly have chosen to advocate for gun control laws aimed at reducing gun violence. Kelly also called Norman an extremist who relies on intimidation tactics and perpetuates fear.

Trending: First Video of Latest Trump Star Vandal Swinging Pickaxe Shows What Happened – Spread Like Wildfire

Kelly said in a statement – “Americans are increasingly faced with a stark choice: leaders like Gabby, who work hard together to find solutions to problems, or extremists like the NRA and Congressman Norman, who rely on intimidation tactics and perpetuating fear.”

Giffords and Kelly have campaigned and continue to actively campaign for full firearm confiscation believing that universal background checks are not enough. Meanwhile, Norman is a noted Conservative with the voting record to prove it.

Norman states he intends to display his personal firearm at future constituent meetings in an effort to make his point that people kill people, guns are simply tools. Norman states – “I’m tired of these liberals jumping on the guns themselves as if they are the cause of the problem.”

Naturally, some were quick to condemn Norman’s actions.  School teacher Lori Carter of Charlotte, North Carolina stated she thought Norman’s move was contradictory in that Norman has no idea if someone at the meeting might have had mental health issues or concerns. Carter stated – “What was to prevent me from leaning across the table to take that gun?” Another woman said Norman’s actions upset her greatly as she felt “unsafe” by her representative’s actions.

The Charleston City Paper reports

“Lori Freeman, a volunteer group leader with Moms Demand Action in Fort Mill, said she found out about the meeting on the congressman’s Facebook page and decided to go after he rebuffed a previous meeting request on the heels of the February shooting of 17 people at a high school in Parkland, Fla.

Freeman thinks Norman might have been encouraged to take out his weapon by another constituent who was at the table Friday morning.

‘This gentleman offered up that he was concealed carrying, and he asked if we felt safer because he was concealed carry,’ Freeman said in a phone interview with CP. ‘Once the gentleman said he was concealed carry, that’s when [Rep. Norman] reached into his blazer. He pulled his gun out, told us it was loaded, put it on the table, and let it sit there for five to 10 minutes.’

‘Honestly, it was just a strange feeling,’ Freeman said about Friday’s meeting. ‘I don’t know that I felt scared. I was trying to figure out if he was using it as an intimidation factor or to have some kind of bravado. I kind of felt angry more than I felt scared, I felt very angry that he was doing that to us. I felt that he didn’t know our history, if any of us were survivors of gun or domestic violence, if anyone may have also had a criminal history.’

Freeman maintains that both of her encounters with Rep. Norman have been mostly pleasant and that he even expressed support for a ‘red flag law,’ which would allow family members or law enforcement to temporarily restrict gun purchases to anyone deemed to pose a danger to themselves or others.”

The left was also quick to jump on the train of condemnation for Norman’s actions accusing him of committing a felony by simply setting a loaded firearm on the table as well as calling to have his permit to carry a personal firearm revoked. South Carolina Democratic Gubernatorial Candidate Phil Noble released a statement in response to Norman’s actions claiming that sitting a loaded firearm on a table in a public setting should require a mandatory, 24-hour psych evaluation.

Noble stated –

“Let’s be clear on what happened today: Ralph Norman pulled out a loaded gun, waved it around in a crowd of strangers, and then started ranting about former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords who was shot in the head in 2011 at a similar event. The fact is, if he didn’t have the word ‘Congressman’ in front of his name, he’d be undergoing a mandatory, 24-hour psych evaluation right now — and, frankly, that’s exactly where he belongs.”

The South Carolina Democratic Party (SCDP) has called on the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) to investigate Norman and revoke his permit to carry. SCDP Chairman Trav Robertson accused Norman of committing a felony, stating – “This is a felony offense and punishable by up to five years in prison. That’s why I will be sending an official request to SLED to investigate Congressman Norman’s dangerous actions. Rep. Norman only did this because he barely got elected the first time and needs votes. He’s worried about his campaign. This was a stunt and he should be punished for violating the law. I hope law enforcement moves swiftly to resolve the matter. It didn’t work for Roy Moore and it won’t work for Ralph Norman.”

Norman is a former state lawmaker and real estate developer from Rock Hill and he defeated Democrat Archie Parnell, a former tax attorney and business manager for Goldman Sachs from Sumter, in a special election due to Republican Mick Mulvaney’s appointment as budget director for the Trump administration.

Join the conversation

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.

News

Dem Candidate Pushing ‘Irresponsible Breeder’ Tax On Certain Parents Because Of ‘Privilege’

Published

on

Scott Wallace is a multimillionaire running in Pennsylvania’s 1st Congressional District against current incumbent Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-R). Considered an elite, even amongst the wealthy, he boasts a net worth of between $127 million and $309 million, according to his financial disclosure statement. This would make him the third-richest member of Congress if he were elected to the House today.

From a hardline leftist pedigree, his grandfather was Henry Wallace, the “New Deal visionary” and one-time vice president under former President Franklin D. Roosevelt. His wealth is inherited, stemming from a seed company his grandfather founded that was purchased by DuPont for $10 billion in the 1990s, along with a large number of stocks with the largest being DowDuPont.

His campaign is largely self funded with Wallace claiming he is “putting a significant amount of my own assets into this because this is the most important thing I can imagine doing for America at this point in my life — this is a very expensive district to run in, but it is crucial in the Democrats’ efforts to retake the House.”

But just why this is so incredibly important to Wallace goes beyond the typical party lines of Republican and Democrat. Receiving endorsements from both Planned Parenthood and the National Organization for Women (NOW), Wallace is a population control zealot who believes families who choose to have more than two children are “irresponsible breeders” and should be taxed. Wallace has donated nearly $7 million dollars to various population control groups over the past 20 years, with the majority going through his own Wallace Global Fund.  In addition to its efforts towards population control, the foundation has also reportedly donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to anti-Israel groups that support a boycott of the Jewish State.

Fox News reports:

“Zero Population Growth (ZPG) was among the organizations that received the money from the fund. According to public records, it received $420,000 between 1997 and 2003.

The group, shortly after being founded in 1968, released a brochure advocating abortion to stabilize population growth and claimed that “no responsible family should have more than two children.” To deal with larger families, it also called for families to be “taxed to the hilt” for “irresponsible breeding.”

It also blamed the overpopulation on the ‘white middle-class’ that ‘use up more than their share of resources and do more than their share of polluting‘ and urged them to ‘voluntarily limit their families to two children.’

Paul Ehrlich, who co-founded the ZPG, once called abortion “a highly effective weapon in the armory of population control.” The goal of the organization, which changed its name to Population Connection in 2002, has remained the same since its inception, arguing that the world needs to contain population growth with particular emphasis on American families.

The organization’s political arm, Population Connection Action Fund, publicly endorsed Wallace for Congress, saying his support for their cause is “exactly the kind of dedication we need in Congress.”

Wallace’s fund also gave $20,000 in 2010 to the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy (CASSE), a group that sees the economic growth as undesirable and instead supports an economy with ‘stable or mildly fluctuating levels’ and a society where birth rates equal death rates.

The organization openly supports zero population growth and its executive board member, Herman Daly, advocated issuing reproduction licenses, allowing women to have only two children unless they buy the license for more children from other women. Daly called it the ‘best plan yet offered’ to limit population growth.”

The group advocates strongly for abortion and along with taxing families “to the hilt” for having more than two children, as noted in a Yale Law School publication about the “voices that shaped the abortion debate before the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court’s ruling.”

The group advocates that –

  1. That no responsible family should have more than two children. Any family wanting to care for more than two children should adopt further children. Adopting children does not increase the population.
  2. All methods of birth control, including legalized abortion, should be freely available—and at no cost in poverty cases.
  3. Irresponsible people who have more than two children should be taxed to the hilt for the privilege of irresponsible breeding.

Fox News continued:

Zoe Wilson-Meyer, communications director for Wallace’s campaign, didn’t answer Fox News’ questions on whether Wallace still supports the ideas expressed by the groups.

“The Wallace Global Fund has for decades been a leader in helping women gain access to family planning. Former Co-Chair Scott Wallace is proud of the work of grantees like Planned Parenthood in empowering women and protecting reproductive rights and will stand up for Pennsylvania women,” she said in an email.

“In Washington, Brian Fitzpatrick voted to defund Planned Parenthood and supports Donald Trump’s effort to take away a woman’s right to choose,” she added.

Largely reminiscent of Nazi Germany who exercised eugenics to its full and most horrific potential, this policy of so-called “irresponsible breeders” also resembles the one-child policy from China that saw forced abortions or other forced invasive birth control procedures. Yet eugenics practices had their roots in America as well. American newspapers frequently offered praise for eugenics just prior to WWII and The Holocaust …. that is until Adolf Hitler revealed the true horrors of what eugenics really looked like. They avoided the subject for decades thereafter.

Nine out of ten eugenicists in the 20th Century were also Progressives or Socialists, and the most central component to the eugenic creed is the desire to engineer and centrally plan human reproduction, weeding out the unwanted or undesirable, according to a report on eugenics by PBS.

Yet where does that end? Who determines who is undesirable? Is it the unborn child conceived at an inconvenient time? The elderly mother? The child with cerebral palsy? Those with PTSD? Autism? Blue eyes? White skin? You cannot get to genocide without first visiting identity politics and they say the propagandist’s job is to effectively make the people forget his “enemy” is, in fact, a human being just as he is. It seems we never really do learn from history, do we?

Continue Reading

News

Trump Issued Major Warning: ‘We Will Look Into Discriminatory and Illegal Practice’ – It’s On!

Huge problems and everyone needs to know!

Published

on

President Donald Trump voiced his concerns over “discriminatory and illegal practice” when he posted about the alleged controversy going on with Republicans being censored on Twitter. The tactic is sometimes referred to as “shadow banning” and it seems to be a strategy that social media platforms use to limit the visibility of some people. For example, ever wonder why someone who is genuinely popular might have tons of followers but their posts don’t seem to get many responses? It could be one of several reasons. Either they have fake followers, the post is no good, or they are being censored. In many cases, it’s a form of censorship that’s the obvious result. When a social media user goes from getting a lot of replies and views on their posts, then all of a sudden there’s very little replies and it seems like no one has seen the post – then they were hit with that form of censorship or suppression.

Social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook have been called out for suppressing the content of certain Republican voices or those who support President Donald Trump. Well-known stars like Diamond and Silk have made it very public that they feel targeted for the views and opinions on their pages. That’s just the tip of the iceberg because the problem spans from targeting well-known mainstream people all the way down to the independent publishers. Censorship like this is affecting people’s careers and causing an unbalanced platform in which people with certain views are being limited. It might not be listed as a “ban” but it’s certainly limiting the viewership of certain people. The content that would once appear in people’s feed or timeline now requires a fine-tooth comb to find and it seems like people are realizing this more often and being upset with it.

Trump spoke about it on Twitter and Vice News completed a report on it.

Vice News reported: “Twitter is limiting the visibility of prominent Republicans in search results — a technique known as “shadow banning” — in what it says is a side effect of its attempts to improve the quality of discourse on the platform.

The Republican Party chair Ronna McDaniel, several conservative Republican congressmen, and Donald Trump Jr.’s spokesman no longer appear in the auto-populated drop-down search box on Twitter, VICE News has learned. It’s a shift that diminishes their reach on the platform — and it’s the same one being deployed against prominent racists to limit their visibility. The profiles continue to appear when conducting a full search, but not in the more convenient and visible drop-down bar. (The accounts appear to also populate if you already follow the person.)

Democrats are not being “shadow banned” in the same way, according to a VICE News review. McDaniel’s counterpart, Democratic Party chair Tom Perez, and liberal members of Congress — including Reps. Maxine Waters, Joe Kennedy III, Keith Ellison, and Mark Pocan — all continue to appear in drop-down search results. Not a single member of the 78-person Progressive Caucus faces the same situation in Twitter’s search.

“The notion that social media companies would suppress certain political points of view should concern every American,” McDaniel told VICE News in a statement. “Twitter owes the public answers to what’s really going on.”

Presented with screenshots of the searches, a Twitter spokesperson told VICE News: “We are aware that some accounts are not automatically populating in our search box and shipping a change to address this.” Asked why only conservative Republicans appear to be affected and not liberal Democrats, the spokesperson wrote: “I’d emphasize that our technology is based on account *behavior* not the content of Tweets.”

Twitter directed VICE News to a May 15 blog post that explained the company’s new approach to combating “troll-like behaviors.” After making changes to its platform, the company said that “[t]he result is that people contributing to the healthy conversation will be more visible in conversations and search.”

Twitter did not respond to a follow-up question.

Twitter’s troll hunt, however, has ensnared some of the most prominent Republicans in the country. Type in the names of McDaniel, conservative members of Congress like Reps. Mark Meadows, Jim Jordan, and Matt Gaetz, and Trump Jr.’s spokesman Andrew Surabian, for example, and Twitter’s drop-down search bar does not show their profiles. The search menu also does not display the verified profile of Rep. Devin Nunes of California, only his unverified one that he seldom uses to post.

That limits their visibility and the ease of finding their profiles compared to their liberal counterparts.

UPDATE: July 26, 10:00 AM: Twitter appears to have adjusted its platform overnight to no longer limit the visibility of some prominent Republicans in its search results.”

At what point do social media platforms give the control back to the people? Users should not have to worry about their views being censored by the machine.

Censoring any content that is not illegal should not be tolerated by the users.

Continue Reading

Like Us on Facebook

Recent

Trending

No trending posts found at this time.