Allegheny College Defends Their 'Kill Cops' Art Display As A Call For Peace

Allegheny College administrators said the student's painting with the words "KILL COPS" was actually a call for peace.

Meadville, PA – Administrators at a private college in Pennsylvania have said that a student’s painting emblazoned with the words “KILL COPS” was not an endorsement for violence against police.

Allegheny College officials claimed the painting was taken out of context.

The vibrantly-colored painting was prominently displayed in a hallway at Allegheny College, the Meadville City Fraternal Order of Police said in a Facebook post.

“It is known that some employees of Allegheny asked administrators for the picture to be removed because of the Kill Cops portion,” the FOP explained. “Their request was ignored even with a warning that the depiction could be inflammatory.”

The FOP also posted two photos of the painting, so that viewers could “judge the ‘context’ of this work” for themselves, the post read.

The purpose of the painting was to depict urban street art and to call for an end to violence, the anonymous 20-year-old student who created the painting told WJET

I believe that my piece has been taken completely out of context, specifically the one that contains the words 'kill cops,'” he said. “They were stripped away of the totality of the rest of the competition [and] the meaning behind it.”

The student did not explain how the painting could be interpreted differently.

READ ON  

I don't know about you guys, but every time I have bought a rifle, shotgun or pistol at a "store", I have had to fill out paperwork. Not a background check but, "SOMEBODY" knows I bought that firearm. I'm on a list somewhere of OWNING that gun. Pistols...I have a state background check, and in my state, I have to re-apply every 5 years...not renew, but re-apply, so I have a backround check every 5 years....!!!

SO...WHAT ELSE DO THEY WANT...???

Democrats Again Chase the Holy Grail of “Universal” Background Checks By Kelly - Feb 21, 2019

While establishment Washington remains focused on the growing scoreboard of Democratic presidential wannabes, and the media frets about whether actor Jussie Smollett is a victim of a hate crime or of double-reverse racism, the gun control crowd on the Hill is once again striking out in search of the Holy Grail of gun control – closing the “gun show loophole” and mandating “universal background checks.”

Earlier this month, Democrats in control of the House Judiciary Committee approved H.R. 8, the “Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019.” With only a very few exceptions, such as the gifting of firearms between immediate family members, H.R. 8 would mandate all firearm sales and transfers be subject to federal background checks – the “universal background check” long sought by gun control zealots. Of course, as with all zealots, reality plays little role in their crusade.

The notion of mass murder and gun violence fueled by shady transactions in gun show parking lots would be hilarious if not for how deeply embedded this delusion is in the psyche of gun control advocates. The so-called “gun show loophole” has given rise to a generation of mostly Democrat lawmakers (joined by a few Republican outliers like Rep. Peter King of New York) who apparently believe that mandating government-run background checks for every gun transfer not now subject to such requirement, will quickly dry up the pool of firearms available to mass murderers. The ease with which this notion has been debunked repeatedly, however, is lost on these fear merchants.

For starters, there is no such thing as a “gun show loophole.” 

HIDDEN CAM: "Gun Show Loophole" Exposed!

Buzz words like the "gun show loophole" seem to be all the rage these days. But is there any truth to it at all? Does the myth hold water? We go undercover to find out...

READ ON

THE NAACP NEEDS TO MIND THEIR MANNERS...HOW BOUT WE WHITES TEAR DOWN M.L.K.s STATUE TO START....Lots more we could do as well....!!!

Always show the protesters....How about some videos showing all the TRUMP SUPPORTERS for a change. Or would there be TOO many ??

Highlights Of The National Emergency Protest
Jessica Kramer | Contributor   02/22/2019 

Highlights Of The National Emergency Protest

Protesters of President Donald Trump gathered in Lafayette Park outside the White House on Monday protesting his declared National Emergency at the border.

When asked who the new refugees should vote for, one male protester responded “whoever can beat Trump.”

A female protester from Code Pink holding a sign that said “From Palestine To Mexico, All The Walls Have Got To Go” told DCNF reporters that “our support for Israel’s occupation is a real emergency.”

GOOD OLE ERIC "FAST AND FURIOUS" HOLDER as president...??...America will be SCREWED BIG TIME..!!!

Obama Launches Advocacy Campaign 02/22/2019  American Action News AAN Staff 

Ex-President Barack Obama is joining forces with his former Attorney General to launch a campaign to end gerrymandering.

Fox News' Andrew O'Reilly has more:

The “All On The Line” campaign - which will also work to protect the Affordable Care Act, reduce gun violence, and expand voting rights – is part of a push in recent years by high-profile Democrats to curtail the use of gerrymandering across the country.

“For too long, politicians have been able to pick their voters, instead of allowing voters to choose their representatives,” Eric Holder said in a statement. “Gerrymandering rigs our elections so the party in power can't lose and it moves our policy debates away from rational solutions to the extremes.”

Gerrymandering has become a hot topic in recent years. State legislatures in Wisconsin and Michigan have been heavily criticized after Republicans have moved to curtail the powers of Democrats elected in November.

“Our mission is to restore fairness to our democracy and ensure every American has an equal say in our government,” Holder said.

Insiders have long whispered about Holder's presidential aspirations. He is the current chair of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, which is focusing on redistricting reform in key battleground states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida. 

Maxine Waters Reaction To Jussie Smollett being arrested…Priceless... Posted  February 23, 2019 by T.LaDuke

There comes a time in a story that is as fast-moving as the Jussie Smollet one, that you need to slow down, take a deep breath and look for that one nugget of humor that helps keep the crazy at bay.

Enter Representative Maxine Waters.

Now before we get to the Marvelous Maxine, Red State writers have been all over this story from the beginning. Here are just some samples.

* Jussie Smollett Tells Cops He Has A Drug Problem.

* The Daily Show Savages Jussie Smollett (No, Really)

* VIDEO: Charles Barkley Can’t Stop Laughing At Jussie Smollett

From Real Clear Politics …

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) said President Trump is responsible for the attack on gay ‘Empire’ actor Jussie Smollett in an interview with ‘The Grio.’ Waters said Trump’s “dog whistling” is “emboldening” people.

“It’s coming from the president of the United States. He’s dog whistling every day. He’s separating and dividing, and he’s basically emboldening those folks who feel 

this way,” Waters said.

READ ON

PRAGER: Explaining The Left, Part VI: Do Leftists Believe What They Say?   By Dennis Prager February 23, 2019 

Truth is not a left-wing value. 

I first discovered this as a graduate student studying the Soviet Union and left-wing ideologies at the Russian Institute of Columbia University School of International Affairs. Everything I have learned since has confirmed this view.

Individuals on both the left and right lie. Individuals on both the left and right tell the truth. And liberalism, unlike leftism, does value truth. But the further left one goes, the more one enters the world of the lie.

Why does the left lie?    READ ON

Of course there's bias....The 13% black population has become much more prominate than the 60.7% of whites. Especially in the entertainment field. It seems now that a white goes off of a show and is replaced by a black person.

Roseanne vs. Jussie Smollett: The Two Cases Show a Clear Liberal Bias in Hollywood   lifezette.com
By Zachary Leeman | February 22, 2019

If there is any doubt that there’s an aggressive left-leaning political bias in Hollywood, all one needs to do is look at the Jussie Smollett case — and compare it to the 2017 firing of Roseanne Barr.

Barr, an outspoken supporter of President Donald Trump, was abruptly fired from her own show “Roseanne” — which had just been brought back to television and earned monster ratings — after she put out a tweet that some deemed to be racist.

The tweet targeted former Obama aide Valerie Jarrett.

Barr said Jarrett was a cross between the “Muslim brotherhood and ‘Planet of the Apes.'” Considering Jarrett is black, there was immediate backlash against the tweet. Barr apologized multiple times for the tweet and insisted she did not know Jarrett’s race at the time.

She said her tweet was more of a criticism of Jarrett’s foreign policies.
Yet ABC fired Barr from the successful, and politically unbiased, show despite her apology. Barr eventually even signed away all financial and creative rights to the very show she had created. Still, this was not enough. The media and fellow celebrities smeared her as a racist. Her apologies and reparations meant nothing to anybody.

READ MORE

Not my choice of singers (I always leaned COUNTRY) ....With all his TALENT with all his MONEY, Michael Jackson still thought he was DISCRIMINATED against and looked down upon....??

Institutional racism in US explained through a Michael Jackson song   Published on Apr 11, 2018   TRT World

Segregation officially ended with the civil rights movement. However, as Michael Jackson pointed out, the legacies of segregation are still alive in US institutions including housing, education and the criminal justice system. This is how institutionalised racism keeps people of colour down in the US.
Institutional racism
Institutional racism (also known as institutionalised racism) is a form of racism expressed in the practice of social and political institutions, as distinct from racism by individuals or informal social groups. It is reflected in disparities regarding criminal justice, employment, housing, health care, political power and education, among other things.
Institutional racism - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism

Tim Scott Highlights the Real Hate Crime That Happened This Week    Cortney O'Brien Posted: Feb 22, 2019 

Jussie Smollett's fake hate crime may have done real damage to actual victims. Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson shared that concern during Thursday's press conference.

Thanks to the actor's false police report, in which he reportedly pretended to be attacked by two President Trump supporters, actual hate crimes may "now be met with a level of skepticism," Johnson feared. Or, they may be overlooked by the media, who flocked to the Smollett story.

We already have an example in California. As Matt reported Thursday, a conservative student at UC Berkeley was attacked on campus while trying to recruit members for the group Turning Points USA. Campus Reform captured the moment Hayden Williams, a Leadership Institute field representative, was punched on campus multiple times.

Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) was outraged that the media isn't dedicating even a quarter of the coverage to this incident as they did to Smollett's tale.

"Can you imagine that happening to an African-American or to someone else on that campus?" Scott asked. "The kind of uproar that would have happened because of that hateful act would have had national attention, and yet only Fox News is covering it thoroughly."

Scott called on the university to act because their initial response was not good enough. The senator also took the opportunity to defend President Trump and his supporters. The president's policies, he noted, have actually been pretty beneficial for the African-American community.

"The MAGA hat has nothing to do with inciting racism," he said. "It's the Left that wants to demonize Donald Trump, even though we have the lowest unemployment rate we've seen in 50 years, even though we have the lowest African-American unemployment rate that we've had in the history of the country, even though we keep moving in the right direction."

SCOTUS to Hear First Second Amendment Case in Years  

By: Teresa Mull     Jan24 2019

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is set to hear the first case involving the Second Amendment it’s heard since District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 and a follow-up case in 2010.

National Review explains what the case is all about:

At issue is what appears to be a draconian, one-of-a-kind New York City law that prohibits any person who possesses a license to own a gun in their home from transporting that gun (even in a locked container, separate from its ammunition) anywhere except for one of the seven shooting ranges within the city.

Under this law, if you want to transport your gun to a shooting competition outside the city, you can’t. If you’re fortunate enough to own a second home, you can’t even take your own weapon to your own home. You can’t take it to any other shooting range. If you leave your house for an extended period, your gun has to stay in your vacant home. If you’re going to another location — where you have the right to possess or even carry the gun — the weapon can’t travel with you.
What’s at Stake?
The Cato Institute reports:

With N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol, the Court can start checking the massive resistance of many states and cities to this important constitutional right. And it can start instructing the lower courts, many of which have treated the right as second-class, how the law works in this area. For law-abiding gun owners and others who wish to exercise their fundamental right to armed self-defense – particularly those who live in places with high crime and woeful policing – this is most welcome news.

Of course, the justices could end up deciding this case on Commerce Clause grounds – interfering with access to another state’s markets – or the Fourteenth Amendment right to travel, to avoid a possibly controversial Second Amendment ruling. But it’s hard to see that there would be more consensus on those grounds. The real fear is that the Court will simply throw out this categorical ban – as in Heller, which involved a complete ban on possession of handguns – without advancing the larger jurisprudential ball. We’ll see if Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who has a strong Second Amendment record, can convince Chief Justice John Roberts to use higher caliber legal analysis.

SCOTUS agreed to hear New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. New York City, this week, and the case is scheduled for October 2019.

Kamala Harris Daddy not black; Descendant of Jamaican slave plantation owner

 Harris daddy was not black. He' the direct descendant of jamaican plantation slave owner

The U.S. military and the southern border  

21 February 2019

The last three U.S. presidents have deployed military personnel to the southern border region. The stated purpose is to help maintain border security. But there are a number of legal barriers preventing the armed forces from performing what are, at root, police functions.

As we learn here, a newly updated Army manual makes clear what those issues are, and how field commanders should respond:

The use of military forces to perform domestic functions — such as constructing barriers along the US-Mexico border — could pose fundamental legal, policy and administrative challenges.

“Military forces operating freely within civilian jurisdictions risk upsetting the constitutional balance between civil authority, the military, and the private sector,” the Army said this week in a newly updated manual.

Therefore, “Army leaders must ensure that even in a catastrophic event, Army support remains within the boundaries of constitutional principles, U.S. laws, DOD policies, and Army regulations,” the manual said. See Defense Support of Civil Authorities, Army Doctrine Publication 3-28, February 11, 2019.

As a practical matter, the Army publication said, “Commanders should begin by viewing each domestic operational environment as an assortment of civil authorities, each with primacy in its jurisdiction.”
Fair enough. But what about proposals for using Defense Department funds to help build a physical wall along the border? The Congressional Research Service offers some insights. A key finding? Presidents Bush and Obama used national emergency declarations to "carry out otherwise unauthorized construction with military construction funds."
The entire CRS report is worth reviewing to get a sense both of the legal issues involved with the border, as well as a history of the U.S. Army's activities along the Mexican border.

Petition demands immediate resignation of Dem Rep. Ilhan Omar for anti-Semitic agenda, questionable ties ⋆…

About this website

conservativefiringline.co

READ MORE