Prospects for Trump gun deal grow dimmer

When even The Hill believes nothing’s going to happen….

Prospects for a bipartisan deal on gun control legislation have dimmed significantly as President Trump and Democratic leaders appear to be far apart on the key issue of expanding background checks.

Republicans expect Trump to put forward a proposal addressing gun violence later this week, but Democrats predict it is likely to fall far short of what is needed and that they may not vote for it.

Democrats are pressing Trump to agree to a gun control bill already approved by the House, but the president has yet to even signal support for a scaled-down background check bill sponsored by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.).

“I don’t think anyone thinks he’s going to endorse the Toomey bill, which is weaker than the House bill,” said a senior Democratic aide, expressing growing doubt on Capitol Hill that Trump will strike a bipartisan deal.

As a result, the likelihood that Congress will fail to take action on gun violence a month after a new spate of shootings across the country appears to be growing.

Pres. Trump & GOP Must Not Buckle To Press & Dems Looking to Destroy Second Amendment

“Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.” ~ George Orwell, writer and essayist, from his novel on a Dystopian society, 1984

Engaging in compromise with those who abhor firearms and who detest those who choose to exercise their sacred right to keep and bear arms will serve only to compromise that right, destroying the Second Amendment.

The American citizenry are a free, powerful, sovereign people living in a free Constitutional Republic; a Nation that belongs to the entire citizenry, not to a select few individuals among the citizenry; and definitely not to the Government, an entity created to serve the citizenry, not to subjugate and oppress it. The words codified in the Second Amendment make this fundamental truth plain. The exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms make this truth a reality. The New Progressive Left seeks to erase the words of the Second Amendment from the Constitution.

If these radical Left-wing elements succeed in compromising the Nation by undercutting the Constitution, then the American people, like the populations of the EU, will face unending misery; misery manifesting in the suppression of basic freedoms, constant surveillance, control over thought and conduct, and penury; a sad, oppressive life, nay, something less than life: mere existence—in a new political, social, economic, and cultural construct; one that has erased the independence and sovereignty of our Nation and of all Western nation-states; destroying, as well, the constitutions, laws, and jurisprudence of all nation-states.

But to accomplish their goal, the New Progressive Left in our Country must indoctrinate our children, and reeducate those adults who aren’t so easily susceptible to prolific proselytizing and propagandizing; those adults who are not so willing to accept the fiction that our fundamental rights and liberties aren’t rights at all and never had been, but are merely man-made constructs, mere privileges, bestowed on the American people by grace of Government and by that same authority of Government would those same privileges be rescinded.

If the public believes the fiction—if, in fact, the public believes that fundamental, immutable, inalienable rights are not, at all, rights preexistent in man, bestowed on man by a loving Divine Creator, but are mere privileges, vouchsafe granted by Government to men—then these Marxists, Socialists, and Communists, will find it much easier to weaken and ultimately negate the one right that alone serves as the means of preventing subjugation of the American citizenry, and it is that one, fundamental right that most concerns them: the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The problem for those of us who seek to preserve and strengthen our sacred right of the people to keep and bear arms is found less in the Radical Left or New Progressive Left elements now controlling the seditious Press and who have insinuated themselves in and are now legion in the Democratic Party but:

The growing possibility is that the U.S. President and Congressional Republicans might actually consider negotiating with the Democrats and in so doing, weaken rather than preserve and strengthen the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

What we must do is to make plain to both the U.S. President and to Congressional Republicans that they must not capitulate. We must make clear to President Trump and to Congressional Republicans that to cave in to Democrat demands for “muscular new gun control proposals,”—that Progressive Left Democrat Candidates for U.S. President, Joe Biden, and Elizabeth Warren, are calling for, as reported by The New York Times, on September 3, 2019, in an article titled, “Demanding Gun Control, but Differing on Tactics,”—is not the way to deal with these gun grabbers.

Lies, Damned Lies & Politicians

Q: “How do you tell when a politician is lying?”  A: “His lips are moving.”

This is particularly true when the political topic is guns.We have even seen commentators on the left questioning their own side’s stance on gun control.

Jeffrey Goldberg’s 2012 Atlantic article“But these gun-control efforts, while noble, would only have a modest impact on the rate of gun violence in America. Why? Because it’s too late.”

Justin Cronin’s New York Times 2013 article“. . . I am my family’s last line of defense. I have chosen to meet this responsibility, in part, by being armed. It wasn’t a choice I made lightly.”

Jamelle Bouie’s Slate 2015 article“. . . assault weapons—there’s no official definition for the term, which makes identifying them for prohibition difficult, if not impossible . . . But out of 73 mass killers from 1982 to 2015, just 25 used rifles of any kind, including military-style weapons. Most used revolvers, shotguns, and semi-automatic handguns. Which gets to a related point: We might feel safer if we ban “assault weapons,” but we won’t be safer. Of the 43,000 Americans killed with guns since 2010, just a fraction—3.5 percent—were killed with rifles.”

Leah Libresco’s Washington Post 2017 article“By the time we published our project, I didn’t believe in many of the interventions I’d heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, . . . But I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them.”

Alex Kingsbury’s New York Times 2019 article:  “. . . [C]alling for military-style rifles bans—as I have done for years—maybe making other lifesaving gun laws harder to pass.  America’s gun problem is far larger than military-style weapons, the mass killer’s rifle of choice. There are hundreds of millions of handguns in the country . . . The guns . . . are here to stay.”

After each mass shooting the demand for more gun control rises in proportion to the death toll.  Few Democrat politicians forego the opportunity to denounce guns in civilian hands.  Even a few Republicans now vie for their place in the line before the microphones.  But all this clamor for gun control is another BIG LIE.

Even if that progressive wet dream—repeal of the Second Amendment—happened, gun owners would defy the ban, burying their Cosmoline coated guns in PVC pipe.  Merciless enforcement might scare some, but there would remain hundreds of millions of firearms in patriot hands.

The most remarkable aspect of gun control advocacy is that proponents cannot explain how their “common sense”, “reasonable” measures will reduce gunshot mortality and morbidity.

Background checks are a perfect example of the unwillingness to acknowledge the ineffectiveness of a gun-control measure.  For more than 20 years we have had in place an extensive regime, the National Instant Background Check System, required of all retail dealers.  And almost all mass killers have passed this background check.  A few stole their guns or bought them illegally, sometimes violating state laws mandating background checks on private sales.  Occasionally, the NICS failed due to weaknesses in implementation.  Also, straw buyers routinely buy guns on behalf of prohibited persons—yet these violations are rarely investigated or prosecuted.

Background checks can’t stop anyone with a modicum of craftsmanship from building his own gun.  Nor can they influence robbers, traffickers or other criminals.

We should strive to improve the existing background check system for licensed dealers before expanding its scope, because it produces far too many false positive (and temporary) prohibitions.  “Universal” background checks will not be the magic bullet that stops criminal “gun violence”.

“Assault weapon” bans are another example of a gun-control proposal that doesn’t stand scrutiny.  The FBI reports more homicides by hammers, clubs and cutlery than by all rifles. Yet, no one speaks of banning cutlery or clubs (except in England, of course).

Just what would be banned as an “assault weapon” anyway?

Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy was asked: “What is a barrel shroud?  And why should we regulate that?”  She finally admitted:  “I actually don’t know what a barrel shroud is . . . I believe it a shoulder thing that goes up.”  A barrel shroud is just a fore grip that prevents the user burning his hand on a hot barrel. Neither this, nor any fore grip, have any influence on lethality of “military-type guns”.

There is no practical definition of an “assault weapon” that distinguishes it meaningfully from most other types of firearms. The attempt to do so would lead down the slippery slope to outlawing all semi-automatic firearms. But it’s politically and practically impossible to confiscate the ubiquitous semi-auto long gun in America, while handguns have already been defined by the Supreme Court as in common use and therefore inviolable.

In fact, none of the supposedly “reasonable”, “common sense” gun controls proposed stand up to political or practical scrutiny.  Gun control advocates know this and refuse to debate the effectiveness or economics of implementation and enforcement.  When challenged they always retreat immediately behind the shield of “We have to do SOMETHING!”

Stated clearly, we are being lied to. Politicians promise gun control to satisfy their fearful constituents, yet there is never any measurable impact on gunshot deaths or wounding.

Why? Because no gun control measure short of successful nationwide confiscation of all firearms could substantially affect these casualties.

Two-thirds of gunshot deaths are suicides, and a single-shot weapon does as well as one with a 100 round magazine for that. One-third of gunshot deaths are homicides;, and almost all injuries are attempted homicides. These are committed mostly by convicted felons, gang members, and in drug-related crime. Meanwhile, mortality due to firearm accidents has practically become a rounding error.

Until we are prepared to criminalize as much as half of Americans, repeal of the Second Amendment won’t happen.  Nor could it be passed while 42 states are Right-to-Carry jurisdictions and just 13 opposing states could block any amendment.

Politicians using gun control to mobilize their base on Election Day are also inflaming gun owners to vote to against them. These effects seem, so far, to offset one another.

Why do progressives risk jeopardizing the rest of their platform for the promise of “reasonable” and “common-sense”, but impotent, “gun control”?  Why do they pursue incremental gun control that can’t deliver on its false promise of reducing gunshot mortality and morbidity?

Maybe they’re lying to themselves as much as to the rest of us. 

Warren’s fix for government corruption is to turn all power over to government

Statists gotta state you know.

Chief Elizabeth Warren, who lies constantly, has a plan to end corruption.

Repeating her anti-government rhetoric, in a piece titled, END WASHINGTON CORRUPTION, Warren writes that big insurance companies and hospital conglomerates put profits ahead of the health and well-being of the American people, and dump piles of money into political campaigns and lobbying efforts to block any move toward Medicare for All.

This comes from a woman who has no problem with unions and Planned Parenthood sinking a fortune into Democratic campaigns, including hers. She has no problem with their lobbyists or those of far-left groups.

In order to get her unaffordable Medicare for All through, she must demonize hospitals, many of which are just trying to survive.

Railing against fossil fuels, she claims they are promoting false studies and preventing the Green New Deal from seeing the light of day. That’s the same Green New Deal that will take away our planes, our cars, and our hamburgers but provides incomes to people who don’t’ want to work.

Pharmaceuticals and their lobbyists are also on her hit list.

Her answer to all of it is to spend trillions of dollars we do not have and to take away our liberties.

Her last paragraph calls for Universal Childcare, criminal justice reform, and affordable housing [paid for by the redistribution of wealth]. Naturally, she wants gun reform. Somehow, turning over control of all sectors of society to the big corrupt government will fight corruption in the big government and its cronyism.

She won’t admit middle-class taxes will go up under Medicare for All.

Pelosi And Schumer Had A Call With Trump About Gun Control. This Is Their Non Negotiable.

About 2/3rd of the deaths in the U.S. that involve the use of a gun are suicides. No kind of a background check will in any way do one thing to decrease that number. Of course, SanFranNan & ChuckU are being their standard operational demoncrap selves.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on Sunday had a call with President Donald Trump about gun control legislation. According to a statement from Democratic leadership, universal background checks are a non negotiable that must be included in any proposal Trump moves forward with. Specifically, Democrats want Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to bring the legislation to a floor for a vote.

“200 days ago, the Democratic House took decisive action to end the gun violence epidemic in America by passing H.R. 8 and H.R. 1112: bipartisan, commonsense legislation to expand background checks, which is supported by more than 90 percent of the American people.  With the backing of the American people, we continue to call on Senator McConnell to ‘Give Us A Vote!’

“Yet, for 200 days, Senator McConnell has refused to give these bipartisan bills a vote on the Senate Floor, again and again putting his own political survival before the survival of our children.  Every day that Senator McConnell blocks our House-passed, life-saving bills, an average of 100 people – including 47 children and teenagers – die from senseless gun violence.  Some 20,000 have died since the House took action on February 27th.

“This morning, we made it clear to the President that any proposal he endorses that does not include the House-passed universal background checks legislation will not get the job done, as dangerous loopholes will still exist and people who shouldn’t have guns will still have access.  For instance, someone prohibited from possessing a gun under an Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) law could still obtain a firearm by exploiting the gun show and online loopholes that H.R. 8 would close. We know that to save as many lives as possible, the Senate must pass this bill and the President must sign it.  We even promised the President that if he endorses this legislation and gets Senator McConnell to act on what the House has passed, we would both join him for a historic signing ceremony at the Rose Garden.

“Congressional Democrats will continue to join with law enforcement, survivors, students and parents, health care providers, mayors and public health officials across the nation to accelerate a relentless drumbeat of action to force Senator McConnell to pass our background checks bills.  We will not stop until these bills are passed and our children’s lives are safe.  We call upon Senator McConnell to ‘Give Us a Vote!’

McConnell has made it clear that he wouldn’t bring any gun control proposals to the floor for a vote if President Trump has vowed to veto the bill.

“My members know the very simple fact that to make a law you have to have a presidential signature. They are working on coming up with a proposal that the president will sign,” McConnell said last week.

Young conservative in burning face ad: ‘I don’t care about AOC’s feelings’

Elizabeth Heng has some things to say to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Heng — who is behind the New Faces GOP PAC which aired a negative ad about AOC and Dems during Thursday night’s Democratic debate — took to Twitter to respond to AOC’s recent meltdown.

“@AOC response is the Democratic party in a nutshell. They are more offended by truthful words than the acts of their political ideology that has killed millions of innocent victims. I don’t care about @AOC feelings — I care about stopping her lies about the lies of socialism,” Heng tweeted.

Ted Cruz: Trump Will Lose in 2020 if He Cuts Deal on Gun Control

Sen. Ted Cruz is warning that President Donald Trump making a deal with Democrats on gun legislation might cause conservative voters to stay home in 2020.

“If Republicans abandon the Second Amendment and demoralize millions of Americans who care deeply about Second Amendment rights,” the Texas Republican said, “that could go a long way to electing a President Elizabeth Warren.”

“We’re going to see record-setting Democratic turnout. The only element missing is demoralizing conservatives so they stay home. I hope we don’t do that,” Cruz told reporters at a Thursday breakfast.

He was responding to a question that specifically referenced a possible deal between the Trump administration and a bipartisan group of senators including Democrats Christopher S. Murphy of Connecticut and Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, as well as Republican Patrick J. Toomey of Pennsylvania.

Those senators spoke with Trump on Wednesday and signaled that the president was nearing an announcement of his position on background checks for gun purchases.

“It would also be a serious mistake as a policy matter,” Cruz said, arguing that none of the recent mass shootings would have been stopped by the Democratic legislative proposals. He instead was pushing legislation he has drafted with former Judiciary Chairman Charles E. Grassley of Iowa that is focused on ensuring that federal agencies report all crimes into the existing background check database.

“The far left is pissed off,” Cruz told reporters Thursday. “They hate the the president, and that is a powerful motivator.”

Cruz cited his own 2018 reelection contest against then-Rep. Beto O’Rourke, which saw record-setting Democratic turnout in Texas.

“The Texas Senate race ended up being the most expensive Senate race in U.S. history, and I think that foreshadows what 2020 will be nationally,” Cruz said.

Rep. Nunes to Comey: Our Referral Puts You in Danger of FISA Conspiracy Prosecution

In his interviews with One America News (OAN), NewsmaxTV, Fox News Channel and other news outlets, Rep. Devin Nunes R-California, who has had access to most of the evidence pertaining to the securing Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court warrants in order to spy on members of President Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, said he didn’t want to discuss anything about Comey’s alleged role in Spygate.

But, Nunes did intimate that if federal prosecutors and investigators assigned by Attorney General William Barr to thoroughly probe Spygate gave the investigation a serious unbiased criminal process, there’s an abundance of proof available to place Comey in the center of the plot to oust a duly elected U.S. President through impeachment.

“So this is a guy who is definitely not telling the truth, and the good thing about the [Justice Department Inspector General’s] report is he’s now made himself, the IG has now made him eligible for a larger conspiracy charge—a criminal conspiracy charge—which is what we really hope the attorney general [U.S. attorney] out of Connecticut is able to do,” Nunes said in an interview with Breitbart News.

“That’s the big thing that we need. We need real charges brought. And I think a lot of people are frustrated because they feel like Comey leaked classified information. But the question is would a panel of jurors in Washington, D.C., [convict]?” he asked rhetorically.

Kamala Harris Does Not Understand Why the Constitution Should Get in the Way of Her Gun Control Agenda
The presidential contender conspicuously fails to explain the legal basis for her plan to impose new restrictions by executive fiat.

She fantasizes about being the tyrant in chief, that’s why she can’t explain the legal basis, because there isn’t one.
It’s the old “We could have a utopia on Earth if only we could get some of these pesky laws, and people, out of the way.”
No matter which end of the political spectrum you’re on, this is the exact reason the 2nd amendment was demanded to be included in a Bill of Rights.

During last night’s Democratic presidential debate, former Vice President Joe Biden admonished Sen. Kamala Harris (D–Calif.) for promising to impose new gun controls by executive fiat if Congress fails to pass the laws she thinks it should. That gave Harris a perfect opportunity to explain how her 100-day plan for gun control can be reconciled with constitutional restrictions on presidential power. The former prosecutor not only conspicuously failed to do so but literally laughed at the question.

The senator’s campaign website promises that “if Congress fails to send comprehensive gun safety legislation to Harris’ desk within her first 100 days as president—including universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, and the repeal of the NRA’s corporate gun manufacturer and dealer immunity bill—she will take executive action to keep our kids and communities safe.” Biden interprets that pledge as a promise to ban “assault weapons” without new legislation, something the president clearly does not have the authority to do.

Harris’ plan for unilateral action on “assault weapons” is actually more modest than Biden implies. She says she would “ban AR-15-style assault weapons from being imported into the United States,” noting that the Gun Control Act “empowers the executive branch to prohibit the importation of guns not ‘suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.'” As Harris points out, “both Democratic and Republican presidents,” including George H.W. Bush in 1989, have used that provision to block importation of “assault weapons.” But two other parts of Harris’ gun control plan do not seem to have any statutory basis.

Harris says she would “close the ‘boyfriend loophole’ to prevent dating partners convicted of domestic violence from purchasing guns.” Under current law, people convicted of misdemeanors involving “domestic violence” are barred from possessing firearms. But crimes against dating partners count as “domestic violence” only if the perpetrator has lived with the victim or produced a child with him or her. Harris seems to think she can eliminate those requirements without new congressional action, but it’s hard to see how. Congress has defined “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,” and only Congress can change the definition.

Harris also thinks the president can “mandate near-universal background checks by requiring anyone who sells five or more guns per year to run a background check on all gun sales.” Since only federally licensed dealers are legally required to run background checks, such a rule would require dramatically expanding that category.

The problem is that federal law defines a gun dealer as someone who is “engaged in the business of selling firearms,” which in turn is defined as “devot[ing] time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms.” The statutory definition explicitly excludes “a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms.” Under Harris’ plan, a hobbyist or collector who sold more than four guns in a single year would be required to obtain a federal license and conduct background checks, which is plainly inconsistent with current law.

Instead of explaining the legal basis for the “executive action” she has in mind, Harris made a weak joke: “Hey, Joe, instead of saying, ‘No, we can’t,’ let’s say, ‘Yes, we can.'” Then she launched into a description of the casualties from mass shootings, adding, “The idea that we would wait for this Congress, which has just done nothing, to act, is just—it is overlooking the fact that every day in America, our babies are going to school to have drills, elementary, middle and high school students, where they are learning about how they have to hide in a closet or crouch in a corner if there is a mass shooter roaming the hallways of their school.”

That is not an argument in favor of any particular gun control policy, let alone an argument for the president’s authority to impose it unilaterally. “Let’s be constitutional,” Biden said. “We’ve got a Constitution.” To which Harris replied, in effect, “Constitution, schmonstitution. Why should that get in the way of my agenda?” Even voters who tend to agree with Harris about gun control should be troubled by her blithe dismissal of the legal limits on the powers she would exercise as president.

Beto O’Rourke hands GOP, NRA golden ticket.

Thanks, Beto.

“Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47,” he said, on television, on the Democratic Party debate stage, for all to hear and see. “We’re not going to allow them to be used against fellow Americans anymore.”

And with that, all the Democrats who’ve tried for years to deny the gun confiscation motives behind their gun control pushes went — nooooooo.

It doesn’t get any clearer than that, does it?

“Hell yes,” we’re going to take your guns.

“Hell yes,” we’re going to confiscate your firearms.

“Hell yes,” we’re going to one day, make it so the Second Amendment is a Second Amendment In Name Only — and that whole God-given right to self-defend is a thing of the past.

Democrats have been trying for years to convince Americans that registrations and limits on assault weapons and universal background checks and other so-called common sense gun control proposals were harmless steps to curb gun-related violence that even hard-core Second Amendment activists should embrace. That the evil National Rifle Association and all those evil gun rights groups were trying to drum up fears of confiscations that just weren’t true.

That Democrats had no intention of taking away firearms from the legal gun owners. That if you like your gun, you can keep your gun.

And for some, the left’s talking points have been convincing. Particularly, as school shootings and tragic, heartbreaking stories of gun-related violence dominate far too many media cycles.

Then comes Beto, charging to clarify.

“Hell yes,” we’re going to confiscate.

It doesn’t get more honest than that.

There’s the golden ticket the NRA, the Republican Party, the patriotic Second Amendment supporters of this country needed to prove their argument, to prove their points, to showcase the truths about the Democrats’ ultimate gun controlling end game.

Democrats want to confiscate guns, pure and simple. Beto O’Rourke himself admitted it.

CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD’S FATHER SUPPORTED BRETT KAVANAUGH’S CONFIRMATION:

Last year, when Christine Blasey Ford emerged after then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings to accuse him of attempted rape at a house party when both were teenagers, there were many unanswered questions both about her story and her credibility.

She offered no proof that she and Kavanaugh had ever even met. She couldn’t remember where it happened, when it happened, or how she arrived at or departed from the party. None of the four alleged witnesses she eventually named, including one of her closest lifelong friends, corroborated her accusations. Prior to airing her allegations with the media, she scrubbed her entire social media history that indicated she was a liberal activist.

To this day, there is zero evidence beyond her claims that the alleged assault ever happened. One detail, however, remains particularly intriguing. The Blasey family stayed conspicuously silent about the veracity of her allegations. A public letter of support for Ford that began “As members of Christine Blasey Ford’s family . . .” wasn’t signed by a single blood relative. Reached for comment by the Washington Post, her father simply said, “I think all of the Blasey family would support her. I think her record stands for itself. Her schooling, her jobs and so on,” before hanging up…………………

So what was the point of the cavalcade of unsubstantiated allegations? Ford’s attorney Debra Katz offered not so much a hint as a confession. Ford testified that she had no political motivation. But in remarks captured on video, Katz admitted that Ford’s allegations against Kavanaugh were at least in part driven by fear he might not sufficiently support unregulated abortion on the court.

“We were going to have a conservative” justice, she said, “but he will always have an asterisk next to his name” that will discredit any decision he makes regarding abortion. What’s more, she added, “that is part of what motivated Christine.”


Giving up the Game

Even before attorney Debra Katz took on Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s primary accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, as a client, she was someone the abusive and unscrupulous should have feared. At least, that’s how she was portrayed in the press.

“Those who know and have worked with Katz describe her as a meticulous and battle-tested attorney, as someone who vets her clients carefully and doesn’t take on cases merely because she sympathizes with victims of exploitation and abuse,” the Washington Post glowed. The Washingtonian described Katz as the capital’s “top attorney for women who want to fight back.” And that’s not a burden she took lightly. Litigating sexual harassment cases “hurts people in such a deep way,” she confessed. “We need to be fighting harder, and more strategically and more vocally.”

Katz was a serious person, and congressional Republicans took her seriously. Blasey Ford’s attorney made a variety of demands on the Judiciary Committee staffers who were slated to question her client, some of which were absurd but others—like her request for Blasey Ford to testify without Kavanaugh present and to be questioned by outside counsel and not lawmakers—were granted. These were small concessions in service to what Katz insisted was the effort to get to the truth. “Intention matters,” the lawyer told CBS News, “if we’re trying to really engage in an inquiry to get at the truth, a highly politicized environment such as the one were in is not designed to do that.”

As it turns out, Katz wasn’t as opposed to a “highly politicized environment” as she maintained. “In the aftermath of these hearings, I believe that Christine’s testimony brought about more good than the harm misogynist Republicans caused by allowing Kavanaugh on the court,” Katz told attendees at the University of Baltimore’s Feminist Legal Theory Conference this past April. “He will always have an asterisk next to his name. When he takes a scalpel to Roe v. Wade, we will know who he is, we know his character, and we know what motivates him. And that is important; it is important that we know, and that is part of what motivated Christine.”

Only someone with a lawyer’s gift for prevarication could fail to comprehend Katz’s meaning. In this textbook definition of the Kinsley gaffe, Katz has revealed that not only was she motivated to litigate the claims against Kavanaugh for the advantageous political effect they would have but that her client was, too. And what was that desired effect? Affixing an “asterisk” to Kavanaugh’s record so that his judgments and decisions would be regarded as animated by biases and prejudices and would be, therefore, suspect if not entirely illegitimate.

This is an admission entirely against interest, in part, because you do not have to announce the presence of an asterisk if it truly exists. The Democratic partisans who insist Justice Clarence Thomas has been similarly undermined are screaming into a void. His concurrences and dissents still carry as much moral and intellectual weight as any other justice. He still influences the evolution of legal thought as much as or more than his colleagues on the bench. His clerks still get confirmed to federal judicial appointments in striking numbers. The notion that Kavanaugh’s reputation had been irreparably tarred in some way by his confirmation hearings isn’t an observation. It’s a self-affirmation.”

Divided Democrats Step Back From Assault Weapons Ban

When even the NY Times publishes it…………..

WASHINGTON — As Democrats make an aggressive push for new gun control legislation, they have made a calculated decision to stop short of pursuing their most ambitious goal: an assault weapons ban.

The overwhelming majority of House Democrats — 211, seven shy of the 218 needed for passage — are co-sponsoring legislation to ban military-style semiautomatic weapons, similar to the ban in effect from 1994 to 2004. But some centrist Democrats remain skittish about any proposal that keeps firearms from law-abiding citizens — a frequent charge against Democrats by Republicans and gun rights groups — making any such ban politically risky for moderates in Trump-friendly districts. In the Senate, it draws less support.

The split reveals just how complicated gun politics remain inside the Democratic Party, even as mass shootings are terrorizing the nation and the Twitter hashtag #DoSomething has captured the mounting public demands for Congress to act.

Anti-Gun Laws Will Never Solve Gun Violence in America

Despite of what the left-wing media wants you to believe, there is not an epidemic of mass shootings, or an epidemic of gun violence in general, in the United States. The data make this clear.

In fact — and again, in spite of what many in the media would have us believe — by many accounts, mass shootings are not even on the rise. Definitions of what constitutes a “mass shooting” vary, but using “standard definitions,” a recent piece in The Conversation — an academic and research journal — declares that “Mass shootings aren’t growing more common.”

In support of this conclusion, The Conversation article references data presented in USA Today:

Northeastern University criminologist James Alan Fox, a leading expert with decades of experience on such matters, has long held that “There is no evidence that we are in the midst of an epidemic of mass shootings.” This was true five years ago, as the graphic below, using Professor Fox’s data, reveals:

And it’s true today, as Fox recently revealed in a lengthy interview with Reason’s Nick Gillespie: “There is no evidence that we are in the midst of an epidemic of mass shootings.” Even the liberals at Politico agree. There, Grant Duwe, a research director for the Minnesota Department of Corrections and author of Mass Murder in the United States: A History, concludes that mass shootings are “roughly as common now as they were in the 1980s and ’90s.”……….

In his new book, Bleeding Out, criminal justice scholar Thomas Abt reveals that, “Since October 2001, 410 people have died in domestic terrorist attacks & 520 have died in mass shootings. During that same period, at least 100,000 lost their lives to urban violence.” This should come as little surprise to those who are aware of the weekly events in Baltimore, Chicago, Ferguson, St. Louis, and the like.

In other words, the real problem with gun violence in the U.S. is the murder and mayhem that often plague Democratic enclaves in urban America. Where are the cries of “Do something!” when it comes to the weekly gun violence in America’s cities? The silence is deafening.

Democratic-Controlled House Judiciary Committee Approves Anti-Gun Measures For A Vote

Well, to no one’s surprise, the Democratic-controlled House Judiciary Committee approved several anti-gun measures for a vote, including red flag laws, a ban on so-called large-capacity magazines, and expanded background checks. It’s the same old story with the anti-gun Left. Red flag laws are an issue. We should always be on the alert, but an expanded background checks bill is the enemy at the gates. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell can nuke all of these proposals but said he’d put a background check bill for a vote if it had the backing of Trump. And that goes for the rest of the Senate GOP caucus (via CBS News):

The House Judiciary Committee voted to send several gun control bills to the House floor for a full vote on Tuesday, even as the Senate and President Trump vacillate on support for less restrictive proposals.

The committee meeting, known as a markup, came after three deadly mass shootings in the month of August that killed 38 people in total. House Democrats urged the Senate to hold an emergency session to vote on a bill passed by the House in February which would implement universal background checks, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell resisted the call.

McConnell recently said that he is waiting on Mr. Trump to signal which gun control measure, if any, he supports, before acting in the Senate. He said that he would bring a background checks bill to the Senate floor only if it had Mr. Trump’s support and he was certain “we will pass it and it’ll become law.”

Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, McConnell said that Democratic tactics were “theatrics,” given that Mr. Trump has not said that he would sign any of the gun control legislation under consideration in the House.

“We are working on coming up with a proposal that the president will sign. Until that happens, all of this is theatrics,” McConnell said.

Mr. Trump has sent mixed signals about whether he would support background checks.

[…]

H.R. 1236, the “Extreme Risk Protection Order Act of 2019”: This bill would provide grants to help state, tribal and local efforts to remove firearms from individuals determined to be a danger to themselves or others. Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) laws are more commonly known as “red flag” laws.

H.R. 1186, the “Keep Americans Safe Act”: This bill would regulate large capacity ammunition feeding devices, such as a magazine or belt, making it illegal to import, sell, manufacture or possess such devices.

H.R. 2708, the “Disarm Hate Act”: This bill would prevent a person convicted of a misdemeanor hate crime from obtaining a firearm.

Scalise says it’s unclear if bipartisan deal on guns will happen

House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) said it’s unclear whether lawmakers can reach a bipartisan deal on gun legislation following a meeting with fellow Republican leaders at the White House on Tuesday.

The Louisiana Republican said while “good faith negotiations and conversations” are taking place between parties and chambers, he doesn’t feel the bills Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has advocated for the Senate to take up would prevent future instances of mass violence. Scalise said Tuesday’s talks centered around both potential new measures aimed at preventing future shootings and improving the implementation of current laws.

“We talked about some of the things that still need to be done to make the background check system work better, making current laws work better. There are a lot of gaps in our current laws where people are able to buy guns, who shouldn’t have been able to buy guns that had criminal records and other things that weren’t getting fed into the background check system,” he told reporters following the meeting.

“And so we passed a law to make that work better. He’s looking at, you know, what might be other laws that he can get an agreement on, but the other concern is, you know, do the Democrats actually want to solve problems or do they want to just be more aggressive about taking away people’s guns.”

Scalise’s comments come as lawmakers and the White House attempt to figure out the next steps toward crafting gun policies in the wake of two mass shootings that took place last month.

Pelosi has pushed for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to bring House-passed universal background checks legislation, which faces an uphill battle in the Republican-controlled upper chamber.

Sens. Toomey (R-Pa.)has crafted proposals with both Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) and Chris Coons (D-Del.), but it remains uncertain whether either plan can garner enough support or the support of the administration.

“We had a lengthy discussion about the fall agenda and there’s no announcements to come out of it. We talked about the things you would expect us to talk about—the appropriations process, the possibility of gun legislation, and it was a good discussion,” McConnell told reporters following the meeting.

Asked if he liked what he was hearing in the gun discussion, McConnell didn’t answer as the elevator doors closed.

Gun Rights Debate Fuels Historic Donations In Virginia Elections

Yep. Look at those numbers again. The gun grabbers spending 15 Times more, and you have to figure that’s coming from the pockets of Soros & Bloomberg.

The National Rifle Association gave a historic contribution to Virginia’s statewide elections this week, donating just over $200,000 to House of Delegates Majority Leader Todd Gilbert.

The donation is far less than the $2.5 million given by gun control advocates. But both sums show how the issue could be decisive in the November elections for the General Assembly.

“They may outspend the NRA, but they will never outwork us,” said NRA spokesperson Catherine Mortensen.

The NRA is “fully engaged,” in the election “to protect the self defense rights of every law-abiding Virginian,” she said, adding that “big-city financiers” have flooded Virginia.

One of the “big-city” bankrollers she referenced is Everytown for Gun Safety, a New York based group funded largely by Michael Bloomberg.

Everytown has committed $2.5 million to Virginia elections, including $125,000 to the Virginia Senate Democratic Caucus and $100,000 to the Virginia House Democratic Caucus. This week, the group endorsed 25 candidates running for office in Virginia, and pledged to “unleash its grassroots army” to support their campaigns.

Andrew Zucker, a spokesperson for Everytown, says they’ve spent millions in other states, including during Nevada’s statewide races, but Everytown has never contributed so heavily in Virginia.

He pointed to a poll the group conducted that found some 82 percent of voters in Northern Virginia said candidates’ views on gun rights would be important in their choice.

“What happens in Virginia I think is going to reverberate for the next year plus,” Zucker says. “It’s both an opportunity to change the makeup of the legislature and pass proactive gun-safety policy in Virginia, but it’s also a harbinger of what is to come in 2020 as well.”

The NRA’s $201,500 contribution, reported by the Virginia Public Access Project (VPAP), dwarfs every previous donation from the group since 1996, the first year VPAP has listed.

Tom Davis, who served 14 years as a Republican state delegate, says the NRA’s base has changed since then.

“Traditionally, the NRA gave to both parties,” Davis says. “Basically to rural members who were supporting their constituents and supporting gun rights. But as the Republican base migrated from the country club to the country, and became a more rural-based party, the NRA has more or less become an appendage of those rural-based Republicans.”

In 2001 the NRA gave $133,000 in political contributions, and $25,000 of that total to Democrats. The group gave no money to Democrats this year. Davis says he never accepted NRA contributions for his campaign.

Gun rights have become a flashpoint in the Commonwealth after a shooter killed 12 people in a Virginia Beach municipal building in late May.

In the aftermath, Gov. Ralph Northam convened a special session on gun safety; however, Republicans controlling the General Assembly ended the July discussion after 90 minutes. They voted to take up the issue again on Nov. 18.