Could U.S. Face Regime Change In Trump Era?

The broadening revelations of the lawless, almost putschist excesses of the Comey-McCabe FBI and elements of the Justice Department and the Brennan-Clapper intelligence services invite serious contemplation of how close the United States came to being a country where regime change might be plausibly and self-righteously attempted by what in undemocratic countries is generally known as the secret police.

It is fantastic to contemplate such a thing in the United States, which is fundamentally prouder of nothing than of its Constitution and the immense place that the system created by that Constitution and maintained these 230 years by recourse to interpretation and reassertion of it has played in the unprecedented rise of America from a loosely connected group of colonists numbering only a few million at independence to the overwhelming preeminence of the U.S.A. at the end of the Second World War. That preeminence has been substantially maintained since.

For at least 60 years I have heard high American officials announce that the United States is not a “banana republic.” Of course it is not, and never was. But there is a complacency about America’s status as a society of laws that is both unbecoming and unjustified. As many judges, lawyers, and commentators have noted, the level of prosecution success in criminal cases is over 95%, 97% of those without a trial; these, and the proportion of the population that is incarcerated, are totalitarian numbers.

Congressional investigations where there is no lawyer-client privilege, the ease of alleging and gaining convictions on charges of dishonest responses to the police, as well as press trials long before a defense has even been filed (as in the Jussie Smollett case, where the chief of police of Chicago has been garrulously babbling out the prosecution evidence); all of this is a Star Chamber. None of it would be admissible in any other serious common-law country, such as Great Britain, Canada, Australia, or Ireland.

Break-in suspect shot by homeowner, seriously injured

CHESAPEAKE, Va. (WAVY) — A break-in suspect was seriously injured after police say he was shot by a homeowner in Chesapeake Thursday morning, police say.

Officers responded to the 2000 block of Martin Avenue at around 3:45 a.m. for a shooting call.

Police said the homeowner told officers he confronted a man outside of his attached garage who was trying to break in to his home.

The homeowner told the suspect to leave, but fired gun at the suspect when he refused, police said.

Police said the suspect was taken to a local hospital with life-threatening injuries.


15-year-old killed by employee while robbing east-side pawn shop

Update Thursday Feb. 28, 2019: A 15-year-old was shot and killed while police say he was armed with a stolen gun and trying to rob an east-side pawn shop.

An employee shot the teen during the attempted robbery at the E-Z Pawn in the 6200 block of East Washington Street just before 3:40 p.m. Wednesday, according to an Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department news release.

Police did not release the teen’s name.

Earlier: A man who police believe tried to rob an east-side pawn shop was shot and killed inside the business on Wednesday, Indianapolis police said.

Indianapolis Metropolitan Police officers responded to a report of a person shot at the E-Z Pawn in the 6200 block of East Washington Street just before 3:40 p.m. They found a man suffering from apparent gunshot wounds, IMPD said in a news release.

The man was taken to Eskenazi Hospital, where he later died, the release said.

Police say they believe the shooting was the result of an attempted armed robbery of the E-Z Pawn and that the man who died was a suspect.

Trump’s anti-socialist strength could turn Venezuelan-Americans into Republicans for decades.

The one VA in Florida I’m acquainted with for sure isn’t a demoncrap.

MIAMI — Ernesto Ackerman watched the horror play out in Venezuela this weekend on a large screen on the stage of a rally he had helped organize in support of the country’s opposition leader, Juan Guaido. The event was initially meant to bring Venezuelans in the city together to coincide with the protests back home. It ended up being something very different.

“A killing of civilians without arms, burning the humanitarian help, we are dealing with the genocide,” the Venezuelan-American activist said as they watched the violence play out in real time.

Ackerman, a medical equipment executive and co-founder of the nonpartisan grassroots organization Independent Venezuelan-American Citizens, was referring to the Venezuelan border standoff led by President Nicolas Maduro that not only prohibited the much-needed food and medical humanitarian aid meant for the Venezuelan people to enter the country but also resulted in the death of four people.

Guaido, the leader of the National Assembly, swore himself in as interim president of Venezuela in January, challenging Maduro who has led the country since 2013. The U.S., along with scores of other countries, recognized him as the leader as their citizens have taken to the streets to protest the nation’s ravaging poverty and economic collapse under Maduro.

“We seek a peaceful transition of power, but all options are open,” Trump said in a dramatic speech to a crowd of supporters including Ackerman, who had his picture taken with the president after the speech.

On Monday, Vice President Mike Pence spoke to the Lima Group of nations in Bogota, Colombia, reinforcing the administration’s position that the U.S. has Venezuela’s interim President Juan Guaido’s back following the deadly weekend clashes.

 

Cohen Lied When He Told Congress He Never Wanted White House Job.

Well, he’s a convicted liar already, so this is not surprising.

This is CNN?

A CNN panel said Michael Cohen made a false claim Wednesday when he said he never wanted a job in the Trump White House during his testimony before the House Oversight Committee.

“The one potential problem that I thought Michael Cohen has is when he was asked if he wanted a job in the White House, and he said no,” correspondent Dana Bash said. “Our reporting, I know, Pam, you have been told and I have been told, all of us, by people in and around the process real time, he very much wanted a job in the White House.”

Host Jake Tapper played the clip in which Rep. Jim Jordan (R., Ohio) pressed Cohen about his desire to work in the White House.

 

Sometimes you have to walk’: Trump scraps North Korea summit deal

Who is surprised that Trump meant what he said about NK?

HANOI (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump said he had walked away from a nuclear deal at his summit with Kim Jong Un in Vietnam on Thursday because of unacceptable demands from the North Korean leader to lift punishing U.S.-led sanctions.

Trump said two days of talks in the Vietnamese capital Hanoi had made good progress in building relations and on the key issue of denuclearization, but it was important not to rush into a bad deal.

“It was all about the sanctions,” Trump said at a news conference after the talks were cut short. “Basically, they wanted the sanctions lifted in their entirety, and we couldn’t do that.”

The United Nations and the United States ratcheted up sanctions on North Korea when the reclusive state undertook a series of nuclear and ballistic missile tests in 2017, cutting off its main sources hard cash.

Trump and Kim cut short their talks, skipping a planned working lunch at the French-colonial-era Metropole hotel after a morning of meetings.

“Sometimes you have to walk, and this was just one of those times,” Trump said, adding “it was a friendly walk”.

Whooping Cough Outbreak Spreads Across Los Angeles

So even being vaccinated doesn’t completely help with this strain of Pertussis? Well, Californians, welcome to being a ‘sanctuary state’ where immigrants with virulent strains of disease are welcomed in with open arms.

STUDIO CITY (CBSLA) — An exclusive private school has been hit with dozens cases of whooping cough, which has sickened a large number of teenagers across Los Angeles County.

Health officials say they are monitoring three large clusters of highly contagious whooping cough among 11- to 18-year-olds. The county Department of Health issued a health alert to pediatricians and other health care providers about the uptick in whooping cough last week.

Harvard-Westlake, which has campuses in Studio City and Beverly Crest, was hit particularly hard, with 30 students coming down with whooping cough since November, according to the Hollywood Reporter.

Of about 1,600 students attend Harvard-Westlake, where tuition is close to $40,000 a year, only 18 opted out of vaccinations for medical reasons. None of the 30 students who contracted whooping cough were not vaccinated.

 

Man fatally shoots burglar suspected of taking rims and tires from car
Don’t be a bungler in Texas, you can wind up shot to death.
And in many cases, under Texas penal code §9.42, it’s legal.

Grand Prairie police are investigating the shooting death Tuesday morning of a man they say was confronted by another man while trying to steal the rims and tires from that man’s vehicle.

The shooting happened around 2 a.m. at an apartment complex in the 1900 block of West Tarrant Road, near Interstate 30 and the Bush Turnpike, police said.

When officers arrived, they found the man in the parking lot with apparent gunshot wounds. He was taken to a hospital, where he died. His name has not been released.

Investigators believe the man was trying to steal rims and tires from a vehicle when its owner heard the sound of “an impact tool” and confronted the thief, police said. The vehicle owner was armed with a gun and shot the man multiple times, police said.

The vehicle owner is cooperating with detectives, Grand Prairie police spokesman Mark Beseda said. No charges have been filed.

Here are the names of the Republican Representatives that voted for HR-8 (the House gun control bill).

Vern Buchanan, FL
Mario Diaz-Balart, FL
Brian Fitzpatrick, PA
Will Hurd, TX
Peter King, NY
Brian Mast, FL
Christopher Smith, NJ
Fred Upton, MI

 

PRODUCT WARNING AND RECALL NOTICE WINCHESTER® 38 Special 130 Grain Full Metal Jacket 

Olin Winchester, LLC (“Winchester”) is recalling three (3) lots of 38 Special 130 Grain Full Metal Jacket centerfire ammunition.

Symbol: USA38SPVP

Lot Numbers: KF21, KL30 and KM52

Winchester has determined the above lots of 38 Special ammunition may contain incorrect powder charges. Ammunition with excessive powder charges may cause firearm damage, rendering it inoperable, and subjecting the shooter and bystanders to a risk of serious personal injury or death.

DO NOT USE WINCHESTER® 38 SPECIAL 130 GRAIN SYMBOL USA38SPVP WITH LOT NUMBERS KF21, KL30 or KM52. The ammunition Lot Number is ink stamped inside the right tuck flap of the 100-round carton as indicated here. The symbol is printed above the UPC bar code.

To determine if your ammunition is subject to this notice, review the Symbol and Lot Number. If it is Symbol USA38SPVP with Lot Number KF21, KL30 or KM52, immediately discontinue use and contact Winchester toll-free at 844-653-8358 for free UPS pick-up of the recalled ammunition.

This notice applies only to Symbol USA38SPVP with Lot Numbers KF21, KL30 and KM52. Other Symbol or Lot Numbers are not subject to this recall.

If you have any questions concerning this 38 Special centerfire ammunition recall please call toll-free 844-653-8358, write to Winchester (600 Powder Mill Road, East Alton, IL 62024 Attn: USA38SPVP Recall), or visit our website at www.winchester.com.

We apologize for this inconvenience.

WINCHESTER

February 27th, 2019

23-Year-Old Man Who Set Up Email Accounts for ISIS Sent to Prison for 15+ Years

A former Berkeley High student who laughed while he talked about killing 10,000 people by setting fire to the Berkeley hills and bombing UC Berkeley dorms, among 13 other plots, was not just joking, a federal judge said Tuesday as he handed Amer Sinan Alhaggagi a 15-year, eight-month-long sentence.

While the 23-year-old Yemeni-American did more talking about terrorism than taking action, he still took a number of concrete steps that make him dangerous to the public and justify a stiff sentence in prison, said U.S. District Court Judge Charles R. Breyer.


Wisconsin Man Who Tried to Join ISIS is Sentenced to Seven Years in Prison

A Milwaukee man who wanted to join the Islamic State was sentenced Tuesday to seven years in federal prison.

Federal prosecutors called Jason Ludke “a true danger” and recommended a 20-year sentence followed by a lifetime of federal supervision, but his attorney called him a “lost soul” who can’t express himself well who should only do five years.

U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman settled on the seven-year sentence, followed by 10 years of supervised release.

Twitter Legal Warns Michelle Malkin Her ‘Mohammed Cartoon Tweet’ Violates “Pakistan’s Blasphemy Laws” – Which Are Punishable by Prison or Death

Twitter legal sent conservative firebrand Michelle Malkin a warning last week that her Mohammed cartoon tweet violated Pakistan’s “blasphemy laws.”
The specific blasphemy laws Michelle Malkin violated are punishable by life imprisonment or death and Twitter happily delivered the death threat to her.

‘Constitutional carry’ becomes first legislation signed into law by Gov. Kevin Stitt

OKLAHOMA CITY — Gov. Kevin Stitt on Wednesday signed a measure that would allow individuals to carry firearms without a permit or training.

It was the first bill Stitt has signed since taking office.

House Bill 2597, by House Majority Floor Leader Jon Echols, R-Oklahoma City, and Senate Majority Floor Leader Kim David, R-Porter, passed the Senate earlier in the day by a vote of 40-6.

David said 15 states, including three that border Oklahoma, have “constitutional” or permitless carry.

“The Wild West has not happened in those states,” she said.

While training would not be required, David said she encourages those who want to carry a firearm to have training.

She said guns would still not be allowed in areas where they are prohibited, such as on college campuses and in some businesses.

SAF FILES FEDERAL LAWSUIT CHALLENGING SECOND AMENDMENT ENFORCEMENT PRACTICES

The Second Amendment Foundation today filed suit in federal district court seeking to have federal and state laws preventing persons who, at one time in their lives, were subject to a mental health “hold” on the exercise of their Second Amendment rights overturned on the grounds that the way those laws and regulations are enforced are in violation of the Constitution.

The lawsuit is asking the court to declare that a section of federal law governing this issue, along with all derivative regulations and all laws, policies and procedures violate the Second Amendment, and the plaintiffs’ due process rights under the Fifth and/or Fourteenth amendments. It was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.

SAF is joined by several California residents who are filing either as “Jane Roe” or “John Doe” to protect their identities. Named as defendants in their official capacity in this case are acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, the Department of Justice, FBI and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and California Attorney General Xavier Becerra. Plaintiffs are represented by noted California civil rights attorney Donald Kilmer.

“We’re challenging the policies, practices and procedures of either or both the U.S. and California governments, and the way they interpret and implement these laws and regulations,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Specifically, under California law, un-adjudicated mental health holds require that firearm purchases must be denied, even though such holds have no federal consequences. In California, a prospective gun purchaser must wait for five years after such a hold has occurred, or they may apply for relief under state statute.”

Several of the plaintiffs have actually had full adversarial hearings under California law to restore their rights and Superior Court judges have granted their petitions. Yet they are still being denied when they try to exercise their Second Amendment rights. The lawsuit notes that there are several theories for these constitutional violations, the most being bureaucratic inertia and the most sinister being a hostility to the exercise of Second Amendment rights by “government actors.”

“Our lawsuit is asking for injunctive and declaratory relief,” Gottlieb said. “This is a situation that begs the court’s attention and should not be allowed to continue.”

Do people under 21 have 2nd Amendment rights?

Do persons under 21 have any Second Amendment rights? Around the nation, gun control activists have been pushing for laws to prohibit firearms for persons under 21. In a symposium issue of the Southern Illinois University Law Journal, Joseph Greenlee and I examine the issue. History and Tradition in Modern Circuit Cases on the Second Amendment Rights of Young People concentrates on two topics: First, the five leading post-Heller federal circuit cases that have addressed age-based restrictions or bans on the exercise of Second Amendment rights. Second, statutes and case law from the nineteenth and early twentieth century on the issue. We pay particular attention to how the modern cases employed legal history.

A separate and much longer article, The Second Amendment Rights of Young Adults, will appear in the next issue of the SIU Law Journal (but you can read a near-final draft via the link). That article examines the colonial and Founding periods, twentieth century laws, and modern policy questions. I will write more about that article when it is published.

Rene E. (1st Cir.)

The first post-Heller case to examine an age limit for the Second Amendment was the First Circuit’s United States v. Rene E., which upheld 18 U.S.C. 922(x)(2). The statute prohibits handgun possession by persons under 18, with certain exceptions, including self-defense in the home, hunting, farm and ranch work, and target shooting (if the person at the target range carries a permission note from her parents).

NRA v. BATFE (5th Cir.)

Another part of the federal Gun Control Act forbids persons under 21 from buying handguns in retail stores, but does not prohibit them from acquiring handguns from other sources. The Fifth Circuit addressed the ban in NRA v. BATFE, 700 F.3d 185 (5th Cir. 2012). The court correctly pointed out that gun controls existed at the time of the Founding, and that the Founders were concerned about keeping arms away from people who were not “virtuous” citizens. Without a scintilla of evidence, the Fifth Circuit speculated that the Founders considered persons under 21 to be unvirtuous, and so such persons have no Second Amendment rights. Since the standard starting age for militia service in the colonial and Founding periods was 16 or 18, the Fifth Circuit’s notion that the Founders distrusted young people with arms is implausible and absurd.

The stronger part of the Fifth Circuit opinion was a list of 19th century statutes involving arms restrictions on minors. These start with an 1856 Alabama law against giving handguns or bowie knives to male minors, and Tennessee law of the same year against giving such arms to minors or slaves (with an exception for hunting). The rest of the laws date from 1873 or later.

A

NRA v. McCraw (5th Cir.)

Another case in the Fifth Circuit, National Rifle Association v. McCraw, challenged the Texas concealed handgun carry licensing statute, which does not allow young adults aged 18-20 to obtain permits. (An statutory exception was later added for young adults with past or present service in the armed forces.) The McCraw court mostly relied on the NRA v. BATFE precedent, and improperly so. The BATFE case involved a restriction on one means of acquiring handguns, and was tested under intermediate scrutiny. The McCraw case, in contrast, involved a near-total prohibition on the exercise of the right to bear arms; accordingly the statute should have been subject to more rigorous review.

The McCraw court applied a special, feeble version of intermediate scrutiny, which has become a specialty for the Fifth Circuit, and some other courts, in Second Amendment cases. In normal intermediate scrutiny, the government carries the burden of proving that there is no “substantially less burdensome alternative.” Under the more rigorous rules of strict scrutiny, the government must prove that there is no “less restrictive alternative.” In McCraw, the plaintiffs argued that young adults could be issued permits under a stricter system–for example, additional training or background checks could be required. The Fifth Circuit refused to consider the argument, and incorrectly stated that intermediate scrutiny requires no consideration of alternative regulations.

Horsley v. Trame (7th Cir.)

In Illinois, gun owners must have a Firearm Owner’s Identification Card (FOID). Persons 18-20 who apply for a FOID card must have a signed authorization for a parent or guardian. If the signature is not obtainable, there is a safety valve provision for the applicant to seek relief from a state official, and an option for judicial review of an administrative denial. In abortion jurisprudence, parental permission laws have been upheld if they have a safety valve for alternative means of obtaining permission. By analogy, the Illinois system for gun licenses was upheld in Horsley v. Trame, 808 F.3d 1126 (7th Cir. 2015).

Ezell II (7th Cir.)

After the City of Chicago’s ban on gun ranges open to the public was ruled unconstitutional, the Chicago City Council enacted a new ordinance. That ordinance prohibited any person under 18 from entering a target range. The ban was held unconstitutional in Ezell v. City of Chicago, 846 F.3d 888 (7th Cir. 2017) (Ezell II). The City pointed to some of the historical restrictions on minors discussed above. But as the Seventh Circuit observed, “There’s zero historical evidence that firearm training for this age group is categorically unprotected. At least the City hasn’t identified any, and we’ve found none ourselves.” Indeed, the Supreme Court in Heller had quoted a 19th century treatise that “a citizen who keeps a gun or pistol under judicious precautions, practices in safe places the use of it, and in due time teaches his sons to do the same, exercises his individual right.” Benjamin Vaughan Abbott, Judge and Jury: A Popular Explanation of the Leading Topics in the Law of the Land 333 (1880).

In sum, the legal tradition of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, as well as post-Heller federal circuit cases provide two approaches to the right to arms of persons under 21. Under the 1911 approach of the Georgia Court of Appeals, and of the modern Fifth Circuit, persons under 21 have no rights that the government is bound to respect. Under the approach of the Seventh Circuit, people under 21 may sometimes be subject to extra regulation, but not to prohibition. A ban on long guns for persons 18-20 is bereft of any support in history and tradition.

Pence on Venezuela: 5 Takeaways from VP’s Sit-Down with FOX’s Trish Regan.

1. The Trump administration fully supports interim president Juan Guaidó. Guaidó defied an order by Maduro not to leave the country in order to meet with Pence and members of the LIMA group to formulate plans going forward. Pence expressed confidence that Mr. Guaidó will continue to push for a peaceful transition to his leadership and, eventually, legitimate elections in an effort to foster freedom in the once-thriving country.

2. Sanctions, sanctions, and more sanctions: Maduro “must go.” How, you might ask? Well, more sanctions on oil companies, and encouraging more nations to recognize Mr. Guaidó as Venezuela’s legitimate president, while calling on nations supporting Maduro to rethink their positions (that’d be you, China, Russia, and Cuba). Pence also called on nations like Mexico to stand with “constitutionally-recognized” President Guaidó. He also urged:

“To the people of Venezuela: the American people stand with you, if you will stand for freedom.”

Translation: It’s clear that Pence is encouraging more Venezuelans to rise up against Maduro, who’s shown himself more than willing to turn his firepower against his own, unarmed people. (Note: Socialists like gun control; sound familiar?)

3. Why should Americans be concerned with the situation in Venezuela? Simple, asserted Pence: the threat of “narcoterrorism” spreading into the United States. What Pence didn’t mention: the spread of infectious diseases going untreated in a country where the promised “free” healthcare is virtually nonexistent. Again: Sound familiar?

4. People are starving and causing mass migration out of Venezuela. Pence promised that the Trump Administration will continue pressing to get crucial aid into the country, as well as continued economic pressure. Then, just as Pence was warning that any violence against Americans, interim president Guaidó, and innocent Venezuelans “will not be tolerated,” this news broke:

 

Yes, those are Venezuelan citizens rummaging through a garbage truck in search of food.

(The journalist mentioned was Univision’s Jorge Ramos, an American citizen, and his crew. Nothing to see here; move along; it was all just an orchestrated ruse by the evil, American State Department, according to a Maduro yes-man. Wink wink, nod nod.)

When asked to explain what the consequences would be, Pence wouldn’t elaborate, but

5. Everything is on the table.

President Trump “has made it clear that while we hope for a peaceful transition, we hope that the diplomatic and economic pressure and the voice of nations around the world will result in a peaceful transition. All options are on the table.”

All options. Does that include military intervention on behalf of the United States? It certainly sounds like it. That said, President Trump and his cabinet have displayed an unusual knack for diplomacy.

Leftist Hoaxes: A Failure to Understand the Right.

Many moons ago, Milo Yiannopoulos told us that the demand for hate crimes far outstrips the supply. This has been obvious to many on the Right for quite a long time now. Jussie Smollett’s hoax certainly wasn’t the first such incident, though it is unusually prominent. In this, we see the Media’s journey into a Pravda-like arm of the DNC reach its final conclusion. Like Alyssa Milano, they desperately want the image of violent MAGA hat loons running around to be true. Their desire finally trumped the last vestiges of integrity they still possessed.

But beyond this, as Tom Kratman once told me, the Left does not understand us. They do not know their enemy, though we know them a bit better than they know us. Jussie’s faked hate crime smelled wrong to us from the beginning, and not just because of the lack of credible evidence, but because the Left’s conception of who and what we are is so out of touch reality. Their image of MAGA hat wearers is completely at odds with reality.

To explain this in more detail, I will tell you a story. A friend of mine used to be a bouncer. He’s a Rightist, and has always been at least vaguely conservative. And he did witness (and deal with) a homophobic “hate” crime (I loathe the term hate crimes in general, but let’s play along for the moment).

He was at a seedy biker bar a couple decades ago, and a very obviously flamboyant gay man entered the premises. The gay man appeared to be oblivious to the unwelcoming looks of the bar’s regulars. At some point, the gay man decided to go to the bathroom, and some drunken, addled bikers followed him into the john with obvious intentions.

My friend, naturally, followed the bikers. When he got in, the gay man was already being attacked, and my friend had a real hard time dealing with them – they were bikers, after all – but he successfully fought them off and told the gay man to leave before it got any worse for him.

This is how a crime against a gay man, motivated by his homosexuality, would likely take place. If Jussie was walking down the street, acting particularly flamboyant, and a couple of drunken guys accosted him in the street, it would be believable. Crimes of this sort aren’t planned, generally. Nobody is carting around rope and bleach, while pointedly wearing MAGA hats, to find a homosexual to beat down. If someone has an issue with gays, the attack is likely to be unplanned, spontaneous, and like the case my friend dealt with, it will probably involve copious amounts of alcohol.

Most Rightists don’t care much one way or the other if a gay man walks by, or enters a bar, or whatever. Contrary to Leftist belief, most of us don’t care who you are screwing. If there is any annoyance, it’s probably with the sort of folks who like to wave their sexual preferences around like a badge of honor and won’t shut up about it. Even then, that is usually a minor annoyance, barely above that of people who drive slow in the left lane. But if a Rightist were to care, and take offense, and want to hurt someone over it, it would go down like the incident in the biker bar.

It would not go down like the Jussie Smollett hoax. Or the “poop Swastika” incident at Missou. Or the drum-beating Indian complaining about “the Smirk heard ’round the world.”

Rather, these fake hate crimes are presented in the manner a Leftist would conduct a hate campaign. Leftists are fond of indirect, symbolic tactics. PETA-tards enjoy throwing paint on people wearing leather or fur. They are fond of weird symbolism like dressing up as bloodied animals up for slaughter. See the parallels with the noose and bleach supposedly dumped on Jussie? It’s basically PETA-behavior, but staged as a Rightist thing……

In this the Left betrays how little they understand us. For even their hoaxes seem like bad parodies to us. It’s what a Leftistwould do, only reversed in ideological polarity. It’s not what a Rightist would do. They don’t get us. Their rank-and-file doesn’t have any clue who they are dealing with anymore. Even the Media is too stuck on Leftism to understand anymore. There was a time, perhaps, when wiser Leftists would have thought “well, that doesn’t sound a whole lot like them… maybe we should check into this a little more.”

That time has passed.

This is profoundly dangerous to us all. Because, not knowing us, they cannot understand where the limits are. They’ve been butting up near our maximum levels of tolerance for some time now. Sooner or later, one of them is going to exceed that boundary because he doesn’t even know it’s there, anymore.

How Forcing Michael Cohen To Divulge Attorney-Client Communications Damages The Rule Of Law.

Let’s start at the beginning with a British judge serving under Queen Elizabeth, who wrote, “Thomas Hawtry, gentleman, was served with a subpoena to testify his knowledge touching the cause in variance; and made oath that he hath been, and yet is a solicitor in this suit, and hath received several fees of the defendant: which being informed to the Master of the Rolls, it is ordered that said Thomas Hawtry shall not be compelled to be deposed” (Berd v. Lovelace Anno 19 Eliz. 1576-77).

Cut to 2018 when the left sacrificed this sacred principle of Western civilization in the name of getting Trump. The New York Times titillated Trump-haters with the public airing of a recording of a discussion between Donald Trump and Cohen concerning the payment of two women who were essentially blackmailing then-candidate Trump. The FBI seized the recording during a raid of Cohen’s office. The New York Times did not say where it obtained the recording.

Subsequent to the release of the recording, the president chose not to assert attorney-client privilege. Those familiar with attorney-client confidentiality understand that the public release deprived him of any meaningful opportunity to make that choice. Nobody can un-hear the recordings.

It’s bad that an attorney maintained secret audio tapes of conversations with his client. Such information has a way of ending up in the wrong hands, and secretly making these tapes impairs the spirit of the attorney-client relationship. But it’s really bad that the American Civil Liberties Union posted an article cheerleading the raid. The government doesn’t need a cheerleader, and certainly not from the ACLU.

State Bills Foreshadow Frightening Trend Of Considering Parents Guilty Until Proven Innocent

The socialist teachers there alongside the socialist politicians infesting our schools and governments  understand that to have compliant serfs, instead of adamantly independent citizens, requires complete control in indoctrinating multiple generations of complacent sheep.

cf. the bawling children who were herded by those kind of teachers into Senator Finestein’s office demanding she listen to their econut foolery.

Do you really know what your children are being taught in your schools? Are you supporting the right of parents who will not put up with socialist indoctrination and have taken their children away from that influence to teach them themselves?

Two recent bills proposed by state legislators in Illinois and Iowa reveal a disturbing perspective on parental rights that’s becoming more prevalent in our country: the belief that parents cannot be trusted to care for their children.

The Swiftly-Defeated Illinois Bill

In Illinois, a little over a week ago, Democratic state Rep. Monica Bristow introduced House Bill 3560. That bill sought to amend the school code to require the Child Protective Service unit of the Department of Children and Family Services to investigate the home of a child being homeschooled “to ensure there is no suspected child abuse or neglect in the home.” The proposed law would have applied to every child being homeschooled, even when there was no reason to suspect neglect or abuse.

The response of homeschooling families was swift. “We live in such a ‘guilty until proven innocent’ culture,” Amy Kwilinski, an Illinois homeschooling mom of six (including four with special needs) told The Federalist. “It seems like our culture is headed toward a mistrust of homeschooling, which might send us dangerously toward a German-like ban,” Kwilinski added, noting that she plans to contact all of her elected officials.

Other homeschooling parents apparently felt similarly, because within days of Bristow’s bill being referred to the Rules Committee, the sponsor filed a motion to table the bill. In less than a week, HB 3560 was dead.

Scott Woodruff, senior counsel with Home School Legal Defense Association told The Federalist that Bristow’s “bill struck a raw nerve among homeschool families.” “They don’t want to be treated like criminals. Who wants to be investigated for child abuse for absolutely no other reason than choosing to homeschool your child?” Woodruff said. “It also would have been a fabulous waste of the limited time that child protective workers have to protect kids who are in trouble,” Woodruff added.

A Different Bill Attempts to Surveil Families In Iowa

While the Illinois bill is essentially dead, a similar bill remains under consideration in Iowa. Late last month, representatives in Iowa introduced a bill that would require school districts to conduct “quarterly home visits to check on the health and safety of children” being homeschooled. The bill specified that “home visits shall take place in the child’s residence with the consent of the parent, guardian, or legal custodian and an interview or observation of the child may be conducted.”

Unlike the Illinois bill, which would have forced parents to allow the government to investigate their homes and children before they could homeschool—likely an unconstitutional condition—the Iowa bill at least recognized that such inspections require the consent of the parent or guardian. However, the following section stated that “if permission to enter the home to interview or observe the child is refused, the juvenile court or district court upon a showing of probable cause may authorize the person making the home visit to enter the home and interview or observe the child.”

This probable cause provision raises several red flags. First, the proposed bill does not specify what there must be “probable cause” of. The most reasonable interpretation would be “probable cause” of neglect or abuse, which leads to the second point: The law already allows the government to obtain a court order to enter a home upon a showing of “probable cause” of neglect or abuse, so why the need to amend the code regulating homeschooling?

There is no need. Rather, the Iowa bill would provide school officials the ability to bully parents by demanding entry, knowing many homeschoolers would not realize they could refuse to consent. For those parents who know their rights and exercise them, they risk retaliation when the school districts later review the objecting parents’ homeschool curriculum. Even worse, the school officials might present unfounded claims of neglect to a court which, given the normal ex parte (without notifying the parents of the court filing) proceedings, may authorize the government’s invasion of the family’s home…..

But the mere proposal of these bills should serve as a wake-up call to all parents of the trend among policymakers to view them as the enemy. While these two bills focused on homeschooling, the same perspective on parental rights—that the state knows best, parents be damned—can be seen in legislative branches throughout the country.

For instance, in Indiana, last year the legislature gutted a law that would have required schools to provide parents access to materials used for instruction on sexual activity and gender identity and to obtain their consent before “teaching” kids about gender identity. South Dakota’s legislature recently killed a bill expressly protecting a parent’s right to refuse to consent to health care “treatment” for a child that would promote the child’s belief that he is a she, or vice versa.

The aggressive move to replace a parent’s love, care, guidance, and decision-making with whatever whim the experts of the bureaucratic state currently profess is a disturbing and growing trend, and it threatens all parents—not merely those homeschooling their children.

We all remember 9/11/01. Let’s not forget that the terrorists first tried it 26 years ago today when they drove a Ryder van full of explosives into a basement garage and left after lighting the fuzes (the cowards).

That failure prompted Osama Bin Laden to begin a well thought out plan, actually using the talents of a building engineer, to figure out just exactly what it would require to take down the WTC towers.

France President May Ban Non-PC Language Users from Internet for Life

That ought to calm down Gilet Jaune protestors…not.
Does Macron actually think permanently revoking someone’s fundamental right of free speech for saying something the liberal establishment does not like would really work, or is he just stupid?
I know, I know; mighty power of “and”.

Globalist President Emmanuel Macron is flirtingwith more anti-free speech measures.

At an annual dinner, Macron put forward the idea of permanently banning those convicted of so-called “hate speech” crimes from all social media.

Broadcaster BFMTV reports that a bill fighting hate speech online will be filed around May.

This proposal to put the clamps on Internet speech coincides with the ear-piercing levels of criticism Macron is facing throughout the anti-government Yellow Vest protest. The French government has brought down the hammer on the Yellow Vest protestors, arresting approximately 8,400 protestors in a span of a few months.

 

The Green New Deal: Scope, Scale, and Implications

BLUF: 50 to 90 TRILLION Dollars.
That’s $50,000,000,000,000 to $90,000,000,000,000

So, the real question is; Is Occasional-Cortex actually that stupid, or is this just a sort of smokescreen/flypaper to keep people occupied while they do something else. Of course we could embrace the mighty power of “and”.

The Green New Deal (GND) is a sweeping policy plan setting out ambitious objectives for energy and economic policy. The breadth of its proposals makes it daunting to assess the GND using the standard tools of policy analysis. Nevertheless, this short paper is an initial foray. We have three broad conclusions

Suspect shot during home invasion in Greene County

GREENE COUNTY, Tenn. (WJHL) – Officials with the Greene County Sheriff’s Department say a Bulls Gap man is currently in serious condition at the Johnson City Medical Center after attempting to break into a Greene County home over the weekend.

According to a report issued by the department, Timothy Letts, 35, attempted to enter the home of Jeremey and Shelley Easterly late Saturday night on Spice Cove Road.

A narrative by the department says the Easterlys were at home when they heard banging noises against their home.

According to the report, Jeremy armed himself with a shotgun and found two men at his door.

Jeremy reportedly told the men to leave and attempted to shut his down, but Letts ran into the home and followed the victim to his bedroom.

After a chase, investigators say Letts was struck by a shotgun blast to the shoulder from Jeremy.

The other suspect, Justin Letts, ran inside to find his brother had been shot, according to police.

Police say charges are pending against Timothy for aggravated assault and burglary/breaking/entering.

Mr. Easterly will not face any charges, according to police.


Man was assaulting girlfriend before witness shot him at north Houston apartment complex

A possible suspect is in custody after a shooting Monday morning at a north Houston apartment complex in the 2800 block of Northborough, according to a tweet from Houston police.

“A state with some of the country’s strictest gun laws could not stop this shooting”

This is CNN…?!!

So if these laws didn’t work, why have them?

Gun laws in the state of Illinois are among the strictest in the United States. But people on both sides of the gun control debate say it takes more than policy to prevent tragedies like the recent deadly shooting in a manufacturing plant in Aurora.

Given his criminal record, gunman Gary Martin should not have been able to obtain a gun-owner license or a firearm in 2014. When law enforcement discovered he had both, they were unsuccessful in getting them back.

Now, law enforcement is under pressure to explain how Martin kept the gun, which he used to kill five people shortly after he was fired from Henry Pratt Co. on February 15. Police killed Martin in the rampage.