Muslim Man Cartoon

Muslim man files lawsuit against Oklahoma gun range for refusing him service

A Muslim man, who is also a U.S. Army reservist, filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the owners of an Oklahoma gun range after they allegedly told him to leave when he identified himself as a Muslim.
Raja’ee Fatihah’s lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Muskogee against the owners of Save Yourself Survival and Tactical Gun Range in the town of Oktaha.
A sign posted on the business declared the range a "Muslim-free" establishment, and is similar to signs that have been placed at businesses in Florida, Arkansas, Kentucky and New York, said Brady Henderson, legal director for the Oklahoma chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the suit.
"Whether the sign in question says 'no Muslims' or whether it says 'no coloreds' or whether it says 'no women' or 'no Christians' or 'no Buddhists' ... it is just as un-American and fundamentally it is just as wrong," Henderson said.
Fatihah is a board member with the Muslim advocacy group Council on American-Islamic Relations’ Oklahoma chapter. He said he went to the gun range after learning about the signage. He said the owners of the gun range were warm and welcoming until he told them he was a Muslim.
"At that point, they started treating me with suspicion," Fatihah said.
The lawsuit also alleges that the owners asked Fatihah if he was there to murder them, The Oklahoman reported.
Robert Muise, with the American Freedom Law Center, is representing Chad and Nicole Neal – the owners of the gun range – in the case. Muise said Fatihah was denied service because he was being belligerent, not because of his religion. Muise also said the sign declaring the shop a “Muslim-free” business is protected free speech. Fatihah denies he acted belligerently.
"The only thing the law prohibits is if somebody denies services strictly on the basis of religion, and that didn't happen here," Muise said.
Muise previously represented a Florida gun shop owner in a similar case.
Claims of discrimination by business owners against Muslims have been reported in numerous states, and formal complaints have been filed with the U.S. Department of Justice regarding incidents in Arkansas, Florida and New Hampshire, said CAIR's national director, Ibrahim Hooper.
"It's one of those issues that's tied to the overall rise of anti-Muslim bigotry in our society," Hooper said.
A similar lawsuit was filed by CAIR last year against a gun shop in Florida, but that case was dismissed by a federal judge who determined CAIR could not prove its members were harmed by the store's Muslim-free policy, Henderson said.

Gun-rights battle heats up in GOP primary

NORTH CHARLESTON, S.C. –  The gun-rights debate has returned to the forefront of the Republican presidential battle as the candidates charge into Saturday’s South Carolina primary, going to great lengths to prove their steadfast support of the Second Amendment.
Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are locked in a nasty fight over the issue, as Cruz effectively argues the billionaire businessman would, if elected, abolish gun rights.
“If Donald Trump becomes president, the Second Amendment will be written out of the Constitution, because it is abundantly clear that Donald Trump is not a conservative,” Cruz told ABC News on Sunday, the morning after a GOP debate in Greenville.
Trump claims Cruz is blatantly misrepresenting his positions and has demanded Cruz retract his statements.
“Cruz does lie,” Trump said Wednesday at a South Carolina rally, after earlier declaring, “I’m the strongest person on the stage for the Second Amendment.” He also said Wednesday that he and his sons are “proud” National Rifle Association members.
Jeb Bush, meanwhile, drew considerable attention this week for tweeting a picture of a personalized gun with his name etched into it. Next to the photo was a single word: “America.”
While he faced Twitter ridicule for it, Bush defended the tweet on Fox News’ “America’s Newsroom,” explaining that the gun was given to him by a manufacturer during a visit.
“It was to say that I’m for the Second Amendment,” Bush said, touting his NRA rating. “It meant nothing more than that. It was an appreciation for receiving a gun at a manufacturer that makes the gun, and a lot of jobs are created because of that.”
It’s no accident that gun rights are surging back as a debate topic in the GOP race.
Roughly 44 percent of South Carolina residents own guns, according to a study published in June 2015 in the journal Injury Prevention. The state allows residents and non-residents to carry a concealed firearm, with some exceptions.
The state’s eastern seaboard is populated largely by military and retired military, while gun rights are also a big part of the culture in the state’s rural communities – and beyond. Even in the tourist hub of Charleston, the indoor shooting range Quickshot is a popular entertainment spot where customers can select a gun and shoot at paper targets, like renting a ball and shoes at a bowling alley. The range offers specials for couples on a date and attracted a steady crowd this past Valentine’s Day weekend.
While the GOP 2016 candidates are sparring over gun rights, the debate is likely to heat up more when the eventual Republican nominee engages with either Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders in the general election.
Those in the GOP field who have served in public office -- Cruz, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Ohio Gov. John Kasich and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush -- all have a high rating from the NRA. Trump and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson are first-time candidates, and have no NRA rating.
Cruz’s campaign, in challenging Trump’s record, has tried to tie Trump to former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, one of the most vocal gun control advocates in the country.
But the Trump campaign has pushed back.
Still, the GOP candidates are mindful of striking the right tone on guns, at least in South Carolina.
They must stay in good standing with the powerful gun lobby while being sensitive to the fact that, last year, a white police officer fatally shot an unarmed black man in North Charleston and a gunman killed nine black parishioners inside a downtown Charleston church.
South Carolina residents and political leaders from across the political spectrum appear to have found some common ground on the related issues of police body cameras, better mental-health care and improving FBI background checks. The alleged shooter in the church massacre, Dylann Roof, was allowed to purchase the handgun despite having previously admitted to a felony drug-possession charge.
Joe Desilet, a partner at the D.C.-based political consulting firm 21st & Main, doesn’t see the GOP candidates easing on their defense of the Second Amendment as a result of the Charleston shootings.
“However, as Sen. Marco Rubio and others have already done, you may see the candidates advocate for mental-health reform and other common-sense reforms alongside their defense of the amendment,” he said.
James Overby, a district director with NRA-affiliate Gun Owners of South Carolina, downplayed the notion that Trump would, if elected, try to weaken Second Amendment rights, despite him giving money to the political campaigns of gun-control advocates and Democrats Clinton and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo.
“I don’t believe it,” said Overby, adding the NRA would have already alerted members in South Carolina and elsewhere if that were the case.
Clinton and Sanders, by contrast, support tighter gun laws and mandatory body cameras for police officers.
State Democratic Sen. Marlon Kimpson, who backs Clinton, said Clinton’s “immediate” call for tougher gun laws in the aftermath of both killings was a deciding factor in him choosing Clinton over Sanders.

Clinton suggests racial 'bigotry' behind Republicans' stance in Supreme Court fight

Hillary Clinton ratcheted up Democrats’ criticism of Senate Republicans in the debate over filling the Supreme Court’s sudden vacancy, suggesting Tuesday that those calling on President Obama not to nominate someone are motivated by race. 
Republicans fired back on Wednesday, calling Clinton's comments a "new low" in the debate.
The Democratic presidential candidate had accused Republicans of talking in “coded racial language” during remarks in Harlem, tying that to the ongoing battle over who should replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia – and who should nominate that replacement.
Many Republicans want Obama to defer to the next president to name a successor; Obama has rejected those calls and plans to nominate a replacement, he says, “in due time.”
Clinton, speaking about race issues in Harlem on Tuesday, lit into Republicans over their position.
“Now the Republicans say they’ll reject anyone President Obama nominates, no matter how qualified. Some are even saying he doesn’t have the right to nominate anyone. As if somehow he’s not the real president,” she said.
“You know, that’s in keeping with what we’ve heard all along, isn’t it? Many Republicans talk in coded racial language about takers and losers. They demonize President Obama and encourage the ugliest impulses of the paranoid fringe. This kind of hatred and bigotry has no place in our politics or our country.”
The conservative Newsbusters accused Clinton of playing the “race card.”
The Republican National Committee challenged Clinton’s comments on Wednesday, saying the debate is about the American people “having a say” and not about the president or the nominee.
“Hillary Clinton and President Obama set the standard for obstructing Supreme Court justices, by voting against Roberts and filibustering Alito. Invoking race to sweep her own hypocrisy on this matter under the rug is a new low,” RNC Director of Black Media Orlando Watson said in a statement.
Clinton’s comments come as she and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders battle for support from minority voters, ahead of the South Carolina Democratic primary.
In that same speech, Clinton took some implicit shots at Sanders, suggesting he only recently started paying attention to race issues. She said candidates “can't just start building relationships a few weeks before the vote."
Sanders, though, has been meeting with black leaders and discussing race issues frequently on the campaign trail and on the debate stage.

White House: Obama 'regrets' decision to filibuster Supreme Court Justice Alito

Supreme Court Justice Alito

The top White House spokesman said Wednesday that President Obama “regrets” his 2006 decision to filibuster the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court – after being accused of hypocrisy for blasting “obstructionist” Republicans now vowing to block his next high court nominee.  
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest was pressed on Obama’s 2006 vote, as a U.S. senator, at the daily briefing.
“Looking back on it, the president believes that he should have just followed his own advice and made a strong public case on the merits about his opposition to the nomination that President Bush had put forward,” he told reporters.
Earnest said that Republicans are going further than Obama did, with a pledge to not consider anyone the president nominates.
“There is a pretty stark difference here. What Republicans are advocating is wrong and is inconsistent with the requirements of the Constitution, primarily because the wording of the Constitution is unambiguous and does not provide an exception for election years,” he said.
Earnest also argued that the 2006 filibuster of Alito was different, because it was not likely to succeed since the votes already existed for him to be confirmed and was based on “substance.”
“What the president regrets is that Senate Democrats didn't focus more on making an effective public case about those substantive objections,” he said. “Instead, some Democrats engaged in a process of throwing sand in the gears of the confirmation process.  And that's an approach that the president regrets.”
Obama, in his most extensive remarks on the vacancy since the 79-year-old Scalia was found dead at a Texas ranch on Saturday, rejected widespread calls by Republican lawmakers and 2016 candidates to defer to the next president to fill Scalia’s seat.
“There is no unwritten law that says that it can only be done on off-years. That’s not in the constitutional text,” Obama said at a press conference Tuesday, blasting what he called an “obstructionist” Senate.
In 2006, then-Senator Obama tried to filibuster the nomination of Alito, who ultimately was confirmed.
When asked about that seeming discrepancy, Obama did not answer directly, noting that senators are sometimes worried about primary elections and a backlash from supporters, and take “strategic decisions.”
He also brushed off his own opposition to Alito, saying he’s on the bench now, “regardless of which votes particular senators have taken.”

Kim Jong Un Cartoon

Obama fires back at Senate Republicans in Supreme Court battle

President Obama fired back Tuesday at Senate Republicans pre-emptively threatening to block his eventual nominee to succeed the late Justice Antonin Scalia, saying at a press conference that the Senate has “more than enough time” to consider his pick and he intends to press ahead.
“The Constitution is pretty clear about what is supposed to happen now,” Obama said. “When there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court, the president of the United States is to nominate someone. The Senate is to consider that nomination.”
Obama, in his most extensive remarks on the vacancy since the 79-year-old Scalia was found dead at a Texas ranch on Saturday, rejected widespread calls by Republican lawmakers and 2016 candidates to defer to the next president to fill Scalia’s seat.
“There is no unwritten law that says that it can only be done on off-years. That’s not in the constitutional text,” Obama said, blasting what he called an “obstructionist” Senate.
The president has found himself in an awkward position, though, as he scolds Republicans over threats to block his nominee – since Obama, as a U.S. senator, tried in 2006 to filibuster the nomination of Samuel Alito, who ultimately was confirmed. Asked about that seeming discrepancy on Tuesday, Obama did not answer directly. He noted that senators are sometimes worried about primary elections and a backlash from supporters, and take “strategic decisions.” But he brushed off his own opposition to Alito, saying he’s on the bench now, “regardless of which votes particular senators have taken.”

Obama held the press conference at the close of a summit in California with leaders of Southeast Asian nations.
It came as he’s facing an already-heated battle back in Washington over his potential pick to replace Scalia – before he has even announced his nominee.
Senate Republicans want Obama’s successor to fill the vacancy, and some are threatening to oppose any Obama nominee. “The next Court appointment should be made by the newly-elected president,” Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., said in a statement Monday.
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said push to  let Obama’s successor to fill the vacancy "is not about the person," but "about the court."
"The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice by allowing this issue to be front and center in this year’s election," he said. "As Democrats have already admitted, their breach of decades of precedent is all about scoring political points.”
But Obama says he will fulfill his constitutional duty and nominate a replacement in due time.
Suggesting he would not use a single-issue litmus test in selecting his nominee, Obama said Tuesday whomever he chooses will be “indisputably” qualified.
At the same time, he said he understands the “stakes,” bluntly acknowledging the next justice “would be a deciding vote” in a divided court.
Later asked if the public should assume he is likely to choose a moderate, Obama curtly responded, “No.” He then elaborated, saying: “I don’t know where you found that. You shouldn’t assume anything … other than they’re going to be well-qualified.”
He also suggested he was not considering a controversial recess appointment, but did not definitively rule it out, either.
Obama’s Democratic allies have blasted Republicans for their recent statements on the court battle.
"By ignoring its constitutional mandate, the Senate would sabotage the highest court in the United States and aim a procedural missile at the foundation of our system of checks and balances," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in a scathing op-ed in Tuesday's Washington Post.
A key Republican senator, though, left open the possibility of at least holding a confirmation hearing.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley told Iowa radio reporters Tuesday he supports Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's view that Obama's successor should nominate someone but won't make any decision until there's a nominee.
At Tuesday’s press conference, Obama also weighed in on the 2016 race to succeed him in the White House. He reprised his criticism of the Republican candidates, and even seemed to take a shot at Florida Sen. Marco Rubio for allegedly “running away” from a comprehensive immigration reform bill.
But on the Democratic primary battle between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, he declined to comment extensively.
“Let’s see how this thing plays itself out,” he said, adding: “Ultimately, I will probably have an opinion on it.”
On foreign policy, Obama also said he's under no illusions that a ceasefire negotiated for Syria will bring lasting peace to the "shattered" nation.
Obama and leaders of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, meanwhile, spent the session in California Tuesday trading views on China's territorial claims to disputed water of the South China Sea, moves that have sounded international alarms and heightened tensions with some association members.
Counterterrorism, a growing concern in the Asia-Pacific region, was also on the agenda.
The U.S. maintains that maritime disputes should be resolved peacefully according to international law, a stance Obama emphasized Monday in welcoming leaders of ASEAN's 10-nation bloc: Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Brunei, Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar and Cambodia.
“Freedom of navigation must be upheld,” Obama said Tuesday, following the first ASEAN-only summit held in the U.S.

US stealth fighters fly over South Korea amid standoff with North

OSAN AIR BASE, South Korea –  Four U.S. F-22 stealth fighters flew low over South Korea on Wednesday in a clear show of force against North Korea, a day after South Korea's president warned of the North's collapse amid a festering standoff over its nuclear and missile ambitions.

The high-tech planes capable of sneaking past radar undetected were seen by an Associated Press photographer before they landed at Osan Air Base near Seoul. They were escorted by other U.S. and South Korean fighter jets.

Pyongyang will likely view the arrival of the planes flown from a U.S. base in Japan as a threat as they are an apparent display of U.S. airpower aimed at showing what the United States can do to defend its ally South Korea from potential aggression from North Korea.

"The F-22 `Raptor' is the most capable air superiority fighter in the world, and it represents one of many capabilities available for the defense of this great nation," Lt. Gen. Terrence J. O'Shaughnessy, deputy commander of the U.S. military command in South Korea, said in a statement.

"The U.S. maintains an ironclad commitment" to the defense of South Korea, he said.

The U.S. military would not say how long the F-22s will be deployed in South Korea.

The United States often sends powerful warplanes to South Korea in times of tension with North Korea. Last month it sent a nuclear-capable B-52 bomber to South Korea after North Korea defiantly conducted its fourth nuclear test.

The international standoff over North Korea deepened earlier this month when Pyongyang ignored repeated warnings by regional powers and fired a long-range rocket carrying what it calls an Earth observation satellite. Washington, Seoul and others consider the launch a prohibited test of missile technology.

Foreign analysts say the North's rocket launch and nuclear test put the country further along it its quest for a nuclear-armed missile that could reach the U.S. mainland.

South Korea's president on Tuesday warned North Korea faces collapse if it doesn't abandon its nuclear bomb program, an unusually strong broadside that is certain to infuriate Pyongyang.

In a speech at parliament, President Park Geun-hye said South Korea will take unspecified "stronger and more effective" measures to make North Korea realize its nuclear ambitions will result only in accelerating its "regime collapse."

Park made the speech while defending her government's decision to shut down a jointly run factory park in North Korea in response to the North's rocket launch. Pyongyang retaliated by expelling all the South Koreans there, put its military in charge of the area and cut off key communication hotlines between the Koreas.

It is unusual for a top South Korean official to publicly touch on such a government collapse because of worries about how sensitive North Korea is to talk of its authoritarian government losing power. Pyongyang has long accused Washington and Seoul agitating for its collapse.

After the rocket launch, Seoul announced that talks would begin with Washington on deploying a sophisticated U.S. missile defense system in South Korea and that the allies' annual military drills in the spring will be the biggest ever.

The deployment of the Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD, is opposed by North Korea, China and Russia. Opponents say the system could help U.S. radar spot missiles in other countries.

Pyongyang has also called regular U.S.-South Korea military exercises a rehearsal for a northward invasion. The allies say their drills are defensive in nature.

Whacking W.: Why Trump is attacking one Bush to stop another

Who would have thought, nearly eight years after he left the White House, that George W. Bush would become a pivotal figure in the 2016 campaign?
Yet Donald Trump has aggressively whacked the former president, who responded for the first time in a South Carolina appearance for Jeb.
It was striking to see W., who’s a more gifted speaker than his brother, because he has so doggedly avoided the limelight since leaving office. The fact that Jeb Bush brought him in, along with their mom and Laura Bush, shows that he finally sees no choice but to embrace the family name.
I first saw Jeb—who had been running with just an exclamation point!--declare he’s proud to be a Bush in New Hampshire, and he seemed more comfortable doing it than the awkward distancing act he had previously attempted. But obviously the 43^rd president is both asset and liability.
George W. left office quite unpopular after the Iraq war and the financial meltdown, creating something of an albatross for the man who would be the third President Bush. But W. is popular among Republicans in South Carolina, where his brother badly needs a strong showing after a campaign that’s been far more successful at raising money than winning votes.
Trump has made the calculation that tarnishing Bush 43 will tarnish the man who wants to be Bush 45. Or perhaps he just got angry in the CBS debate.
On that stage, Trump not only hit the former president for “a big, fat mistake” in invading Iraq, he said “they lied” about whether Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. In doing so, he sort of echoed the “Bush lied, people died” line of liberal extremists, and the next day Trump retreated a bit on the Bushies having prior knowledge that their WMD claims were false.
When Jeb said his brother “kept us safe” while Trump was creating a reality show, the billionaire hit back with the twin towers coming down on Bush 43’s watch. He has said this before, reviving talk of those intelligence warnings in 2001, but in a debate it was unusual to see a Republican candidate attacking a Republican president.
The former president didn’t mention Trump by name, but his target was unmistakable when he said in South Carolina: “I understand that Americans are angry and frustrated, but we do not need someone in the Oval Office who mirrors and inflames our anger and frustration.”
The pundits, having been burned so many times before, still wondered whether this time Trump had gone too far: He looked angry, he sounded like a Democrat, he even offered qualified praise for Planned Parenthood.
Joe Scarborough acknowledged that he thought Trump would lose 20 points after the debate, and so far that hasn’t happened. (A PPP poll conducted after the debate shows Trump still leading in South Carolina with 35 percent, followed by Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio at 18, John Kasich at 10, Ben Carson at 7, and Jeb at…7 percent.)
Rush Limbaugh said that “there were a number of occasions where Donald Trump sounded like the Daily Kos blog, where Donald Trump sounded like the Democratic Underground, sounded like any average host on MSNBC.” But Rush said this may have been part of a strategy to appeal to Dems and independents in South Carolina’s open primary.
What Trump is doing is not just dominating the news cycle, but jamming all the communications channels. He’s generating multiple stories, so if journalists don’t like the appetizers, there’s a sizzling steak over here, some fried chicken, and irresistible deserts. The other candidates hit back, and that keeps the narrative going. Even when the coverage is negative, it revolves around Trump.
So was it wise to take on George W. Bush? By reminding voters of the negative side of his presidency, especially Iraq, Trump implicitly argues that his brother would bring the same brand of military interventionism. And if that makes Trump sound a bit like a Democrat, well, remember that he’s running against the Republican establishment as well as the other party.
Trump made a mocking reference to Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” moment, the aircraft carrier landing that seemed impressive at the time but later became a symbol of overconfidence and arrogance. We may know on Saturday whether that line of attack helped accomplish Trump’s mission.
Click for more Media Buzz.
Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET). He is the author of five books and is based in Washington. Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz. 

Vatican responds to Trump's criticism of Pope Francis' border trip

The Vatican responded late Tuesday to Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's criticism of Pope Francis' plan to visit the border wall that separates Mexico from the U.S.
The pope is scheduled to visit the fence between the border cities of Ciudad Juarez, Mexico and El Paso, Texas Wednesday. He is expected to stop at the fence, give a blessing in honor of asylum-seekers on the other side and pray for those who died trying to get there.
In an interview with Fox Business Network last week, Trump said that he did not believe Francis understood what he called "the danger of the open border we have with Mexico."
"I think Mexico got him to [visit the border] because Mexico wants to keep the border just the way it is because they’re making a fortune and we’re losing," Trump added.
In a statement, Vatican spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi said, "The pope always talks about migration problems all around the world, of the duties we have to solve these problems in a humane manner, of hosting those who come from other countries in search of a life of dignity and peace."
Immigration is a theme close to the pontiff's heart. He has demanded that countries welcome those fleeing poverty and oppression and denounced what he calls the "globalization of indifference" toward refugees.
The pontiff touched on the issue in his address to Congress this past September, when he urged lawmakers not to be “fearful of foreigners” and reminded them that many are “descended from immigrants.”
It's a message that hasn't gone down well with some in the U.S., at a time when border apprehensions of families and unaccompanied minors rose significantly in the last three months of 2015.
Trump has repeatedly vowed to build a wall along the entire border with Mexico – and make Mexico pay for it. All along, he's made combating illegal immigration a centerpiece of his presidential campaign, claiming credit for kickstarting the debate which now features heavily in the GOP primary race.