When even the ACLU doesn’t like a gun control bill………..
California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed 15 gun-related bills into law Friday, tightening the state’s already-stringent Second Amendment restrictions.
One of the bills, which expands a so-called “red flag” law to allow co-workers, employers and educators to seek gun violence restraining orders against firearms owners they fear are a danger to themselves and others, was vetoed twice by Newsom’s predecessor, Jerry Brown.
Newsom also signed a companion bill allowing the gun violence restraining orders to last one and five years, although the gun owners could petition to end those restrictions earlier. The bill also allows judges to issue search warrants at the same time as they grant the orders. The warrants can be used immediately if the gun owners are served with the relinquishment orders but fail to turn over the firearms or ammunition…………….
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) opposed the bill, saying it “poses a significant threat to civil liberties” because a restraining order can be sought before a gun owner has an opportunity to dispute the request.
(CNSNews.com) — Senator and presidential contender Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass) has proposed rolling back the tax cuts implemented by the Trump administration in 2018 and imposing an “ultra-millionaire tax,” an “excessive Lobbying Tax,” and an increased tax on gun manufacturers.”……
Another Warren proposal would raise the tax on gun manufacturers from the current 10 percent “to 30 percent on guns and 50 percent on ammunition.” The proposal says the purpose is “to bring in new federal revenue that we can use for gun violence prevention and enforcement of existing gun laws.”
They couldn’t find enough support for their initiative petition, so now they try lawfare. There is a solution for this kind of crap, but we’re not at the point where it’s palatable…..yet.
OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — A Democratic state representative from Oklahoma City and other advocates for more restrictive gun laws filed a lawsuit Monday challenging a new Oklahoma law that will allow people to carry firearms without a background check or training.
State Rep. Jason Lowe sued in Oklahoma County, arguing that the law violates a state constitutional requirement that bills deal with only one subject matter.
“This fight is far from over,” Lowe said at a news conference. “We believe this law is dangerous.”
Dubbed “constitutional carry” by its supporters, the bill signed by Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt would allow most adults to carry firearms, concealed or openly, without the currently required background check or training. Exceptions would include anyone in the country illegally or those convicted of certain crimes. Firearms would still be prohibited in certain locations, including public buildings, schools, professional sporting events, casinos and bars. The bill, which was the first Stitt signed into law, is scheduled to take effect Nov. 1.
Lowe and other advocates for tighter gun laws already fell short of gathering enough signatures to send the issue to a vote of the people.
In the lawsuit, attorneys for Lowe and the other plaintiffs argue that the bill deals not just with carrying firearms, but also with self-defense, a campus weapons ban, the transportation of firearms, preemption and other subjects.
“In short, like the numerous acts of the Legislature that have previously been struck down for violating the single-subject rule, HB 2597 addresses ’multiple subjects that are not germane, relative and cognate to a common theme and purpose,” the lawsuit states.
Stitt’s office declined to comment while the lawsuit is pending.
One of the law’s biggest proponents, Don Spencer, executive director of the Oklahoma Second Amendment Association, said he believes Lowe’s attempt is a last-ditch effort to derail the law and that it will ultimately fail.
“We’re considering it kind of a Hail Mary attempt, and we’re confident the attorney general’s office will deal with it appropriately, and constitutional carry will go into effect on Nov. 1, as scheduled,” Spencer said.
Domestic ISIS Arrests Are on the Rise Again.
Terror arrests have doubled since 2018
Police have arrested more than twice the number of domestic ISIS terrorists and sympathizers in the first eight months of this year than they charged in all of 2018.
The FBI and local police departments have arrested 24 people for ISIS-related offenses as of Sept. 3, according to data assembled by George Washington University’s Program on Extremism (POE). That arrest count—which includes individuals who attempted to travel to fight for the group overseas, provide material support for its efforts, or kill Americans in a terrorist attack—dwarfs the 11 arrests made in 2018. Authorities are on pace to exceed the 38 arrests made in 2017.
Andrew Mines, the research fellow responsible for the statistics, emphasized that a “small sample of individuals” prevents scholars from reaching statistically significant conclusions from his data set. Nevertheless, he said the uptick could be related to a shift in ISIS strategy as it transitions from a territorial entity focused on Syria and Iraq to a more decentralized terrorist organization.
“ISIS’s messaging received a revamp with the end of the physical caliphate,” Mines told the Washington Free Beacon. “They were taking a lot of hard hits throughout 2018 but with this kind of steady decline and now this resurgence through different affiliates through the globe, the messaging now is both remaining but also expanding, spreading throughout the globe.”
The U.S.-led coalition successfully annihilated ISIS as a territorial entity in 2019, prompting President Donald Trump to declare victory over the terror group. While coalition efforts destroyed the organization’s home base in Iraq and Syria, ISIS remains a persistent threat across the globe, with affiliates launching terror attacks in countries including Sri Lanka, Russia, and the Philippines. A 2018 White House white paper acknowledged that “ISIS remains the foremost radical Islamist terrorist group and the primary transnational terrorist threat to the United States.”
“Despite many setbacks, ISIS maintains a sophisticated and durable media and online presence that allows it to encourage and enable sympathizers worldwide to conduct dozens of attacks within target countries, including the United States,” the White House wrote. “The increase in attacks by persons mobilized to violence in the United States underscores the ability of ISIS to inspire terrorist attacks.”
The data also showed that ISIS sympathizers in the United States are shifting their interest away from attempting to travel to join the fight to committing acts of terror at home. More than 75 percent of offenders were charged for attempting to join the caliphate in 2014 compared to 36 percent in 2018. Domestic terror plots have meanwhile jumped from 12 to 45 percent of total arrests during that span of time.
Counterintuitively, coalition success might be driving this change in behavior, according to Mines.
“When that [ISIS] territory is shrinking and the international community is closing down the gateways and becoming a lot more savvy with how individuals are able to use different travel routes and entry points into countries [with ISIS presence,] … the messaging from the top is going to be that domestic attacks are a more viable option,” Mines said.
The program published court documents related to 18 of the 24 arrests this year. While some of the charges were for non-violent offenses such as violating a plea agreement or contacting ISIS affiliates, many arrests involved some violent plots that aimed to strike at prominent symbols of American life.
There is no impeachment inquiry. There are no subpoenas.
You are not to be faulted if you think a formal inquest is under way and that legal process has been issued. The misimpression is completely understandable if you have been taking in media coverage — in particular, reporting on a haughty Sept. 27 letter from House Democrats, presuming to direct Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, on pain of citation for obstruction, to cooperate in their demands to depose State Department officials and review various records.
The letter is signed by not one but three committee chairmen. Remember your elementary math, though: Zero is still zero even when multiplied by three.
What is portrayed as an “impeachment inquiry” is actually just a made-for-cable-TV political soap opera. The House of Representatives is not conducting a formal impeachment inquiry. To the contrary, congressional Democrats are conducting the 2020 political campaign.
The House has not voted as a body to authorize an impeachment inquiry. What we have are partisan theatrics, proceeding under the ipse dixit of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). It raises the profile, but not the legitimacy, of the same “impeachment inquiry” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) previously tried to abracadabra into being without a committee vote.
Moreover, there are no subpoenas. As Secretary Pompeo observed in his fittingly tart response on Tuesday, what the committee chairmen issued was merely a letter. Its huffing and puffing notwithstanding, the letter is nothing more than an informal request for voluntary cooperation. Legally, it has no compulsive power. If anything, it is rife with legal deficiencies.
The Democrats, of course, hope you don’t notice that the House is not conducting a formal impeachment inquiry. They are using the guise of frenetic activity by several standing committees — Intelligence, Judiciary, Foreign Affairs, Oversight and Reform, Financial Services, and Ways and Means — whose normal oversight functions are being gussied up to look like serious impeachment business.
But standing committees do have subpoena power, so why not use it? Well, because subpoenas get litigated in court when the people or agencies on the receiving end object. Democrats want to have an impeachment show — um, inquiry — on television; they do not want to defend its bona fides in court.
They certainly do not want to defend their letter. The Democrats’ media scribes note the chairmen’s admonition that any failure by Pompeo to comply “shall constitute evidence of obstruction of the House’s impeachment inquiry.” What a crock.
I believe there is a real nugget in POTUS’s quest to deal with Ukraine (and the Bidens) that has not been mentioned, and that nugget is what has the Democrats so up in arms and willing to march over the cliff politically with this impeachment ruse. There is a high likelihood that US taxpayer funds in the form of foreign aid were laundered through Ukraine (and other corrupt countries), with kickbacks to the likes of Hunter Biden and other politically-connected Americans. And there are even reports that Nancy Pelosi’s son Paul Jr. was on the board of a Ukrainian energy company, too! No wonder San Fran Nan is pressing ahead with the impeachment “inquiry.” Here is one of those reports:
BOOM: Nancy Pelosi's son Paul Pelosi Jr. (who went to Ukraine in 2017) was a board member of Viscoil and executive at its related company NRGLab, which DID ENERGY Business in UKRAINE!
And Nancy Pelosi appeared in a promotional video for the company!https://t.co/wlndLhPqLe
— Patrick Howley (@HowleyReporter) October 3, 2019
Did you know that US foreign aid to Ukraine DOUBLED from $272M in 2015 to $513M in 2016? I wonder where that money went? Accountability under the Petro Poroshenko regime in Ukraine was a joke, and corruption was the key issue that led to Volodymyr Zelenskiy’s landslide victory in April 2019. I am certain that Poroshenko’s defeat was a severe blow to Democrats, in particular the Bidens, because they expected him to keep the lid on their corrupt dealings. However, the new Ukraine president is a reformer who is tackling corruption, and that is welcome news for those of us who, like our president and attorney general, want to find out about the likes of Crowdstrike’s and also various DNC operatives’ activities in Ukraine during the 2016 campaign.
Bottom line: I strongly suspect that the retainer Hunter Biden received was part of the kickback scheme involving US foreign aid laundered through Poroshenko’s regime using Burisma Holdings Ltd. as a cutout. In short, US taxpayers paid Hunter’s salary, thanks to a real quid pro quo executed by his father who was the vice president of the United States! And this misuse of foreign aid dollars is what POTUS is actually targeting, with the Bidens being the means of exposing it all. That’s what the Democrats cannot tolerate because Ukraine wasn’t the only country in which this kickback scheme was practiced during the Obama era. For starters, think about Obama’s Iran nuke agreement and the $1.5 billion…
It should by now be obvious to the meanest intelligence that the Democrats are determined to impeach President Trump with or without credible evidence that he has committed any act resembling “high crimes and misdemeanors.” The “whistleblower complaint” that Nancy Pelosi used as the pretext for launching her ersatz impeachment inquiry contains little but hearsay and fabrication, while her claim that it proves Trump has “violated the Constitution” fails the laugh test. In the end, however, impeachment is less about offenses committed by the president than the desire of the Washington establishment to put down what they see as a peasants’ revolt.
Impeachment is, in other words, an attempt to restore the old order that the voters overturned in 2016. It seeks to annul that election and return us to the nascent totalitarianism of the Obama era, an incipient autocracy the Democrats expected to be nurtured during the presidency of Hillary Clinton. Thus, when the hoi polloi got above themselves and put Donald Trump in the White House, his removal from office became the primary objective of Washington’s self-appointed Optimates. They began planning Trump’s impeachment before he was inaugurated because he is the leader of the insurrection, and they know full well that it can’t be put down until he is gone.
House Democrats must impeach the president despite the near impossibility of securing a conviction in the Senate. Indeed, their need to do so is more urgent now than ever because of the booming Trump economy and the weakness of their Democratic presidential candidates. As Rep. Al Green (D-Texas), who has introduced several abortive impeachment resolutions, put it in May, “I’m concerned that if we don’t impeach this president, he will get re-elected.” This was reiterated by Professor Allan Lichtman, who has accurately predicted the outcomes of the last nine presidential elections. Lichtman says that the Democrats can’t win in 2020 if they fail to impeach Trump:
It’s a false dichotomy to say Democrats have a choice between doing what is right and what is constitutional, and what is politically right. Impeachment is also politically right.… Right now, based on my system, there has to be six negative factors against the party holding the White House, the Trump party, to predict their defeat. They’re down only three. But an impeachment would nail down the scandal key, a fourth key, it might trigger other keys like a real challenge to his re-nomination.
This may, however, be the first presidential prediction that Lichtman gets wrong. His belief that impeachment would “nail down the scandal key,” for example, is probably incorrect. The Democrats and the media have been carpet-bombing Trump for more than three years based on false or wildly exaggerated accusations of wrongdoing.
By now there is almost certainly a considerable amount of “scandal fatigue” throughout the electorate. The Democrats have cried wolf, to coin a phrase, with such frequency that the voters are likely to disregard further alarms, even in the unlikely event that an impeachment inquiry actually manages to produce a genuine canine.
I applaud her honesty about her open Marxism. It’s only been recently that the demoncraps have been so clear about their socialist fantasies and that’s because the new crop of commies in Congress have opened their yaps wide and blared out the truth.
“Billionaires should not exist” does not mean certain people should not exist.
It means no person should have a billion dollars.
The ascent of billionaires is a symptom & outcome of an immoral system that tells people affordable insulin is impossible but exploitation is fine. https://t.co/fjxKOGIdc2
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) October 2, 2019
Nothing new from the demoncraps, as this idiocy has been rolled out before, but it’s logistically impossible.
There are about 175,000 transferable machineguns on the registry and about 1,500,000 suppressors, not to mention Destructive Devices and Any Other Weapons.
Right now it takes about 8-10 months, at a minimum, for a transfer to be approved by the bureaucraps at the NFA branch of BATFE. As there are an estimated, minimum, 15,000,000 to 16,ooo,000 AR & AK style rifles (10 times) in the hands of the people, any paperwork would take 10 times as long to be completed without a drastic expansion of the NFA branch personnel and budget. Of course, with demoncraps, that’s a feature, not a bug.
Joe Biden is proposing to force owners of assault-style rifles to either sell their firearms through a voluntary buyback program or register them with the federal government under the same law that was first used to strictly control sales of machine guns in the wake of the gangland shootings of the 1920s and ’30s.
The gun control plan that Biden’s campaign unveiled on Wednesday also aims to tackle urban gun violence with an eight-year, $900 million program that would go toward efforts to combat shootings in 40 cities with the highest rates of gun violence.
It would eliminate legal protections that prevent gun manufacturers from being held liable for how their products are used.
In “The Education of Brett Kavanaugh,” Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly report that Leland Keyser —who was unable to corroborate high-school friend Christine Blasey Ford’s allegation of youthful sexual misconduct—says she felt pressured by a group of common acquaintances to vouch for it anyway. The book quotes an unnamed male member of the group suggesting in a text message: “Perhaps it makes sense to let everyone in the public know what her condition is”—a remark the reporters describe as reading “like a veiled reference” to Ms. Keyser’s “addictive tendencies.” (The authors quote her as saying she told investigators “my whole history of using.”)
A concerted effort to mislead the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Senate, especially if it involved threats to potential witnesses, could violate several federal criminal statutes, including 18 U.S.C. 1001 (lying to federal officials), 18 U.S.C. 1505 (obstruction of official proceedings) and 18 U.S.C. 1622 (subornation of perjury). Investigating and, if the evidence is sufficient, prosecuting such offenses would deter similar misconduct in the future.
The biggest Second Amendment case to reach the Supreme Court in nearly a decade, explained
Gun control supporters are desperate — and have already taken drastic steps — to get the Supreme Court to dismiss this case.
Last January, the Supreme Court announced that it would hear New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, the first major Second Amendment case to be heard by the Supreme Court in nearly a decade — and also the first since Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement shifted the Court dramatically to the right.
The case centers on an unusual — and recently changed — New York City rule that limited where gun owners with a certain kind of permit were allowed to bring their guns.
Gun control advocates, including policymakers in both New York City and the New York state legislature, fear a big loss in the Supreme Court and are desperate to make the case go away. Indeed, New York City changed their gun rules after the Supreme Court announced it would hear the case, and state legislators enacted a new law forbidding the city from bringing back the old rules — all in the hopes of obviating the need for the Court to weigh in. Because the legal controversy between the city and the plaintiffs is now over, the city asked the Court to dismiss this case as moot.
The justices are scheduled to discuss whether to dismiss the case at their October 1 conference……………..
Why gun rights advocates have so much to gain
A few months before his death this summer, retired Justice John Paul Stevens offered a surprisingly candid window into the Court’s internal deliberations.
In its 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. The Court split along familiar ideological lines, with Kennedy joining his fellow conservatives in the 5-4 majority.
Heller, however, was hardly a total victory for advocates of gun rights. Indeed, Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion is riddled with caveats. Heller suggests that “longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms” all remain valid, as are bans on “dangerous and unusual weapons.”
In a November interview with the New York Times’ Adam Liptak, Stevens revealed that Kennedy asked for “some important changes” to Scalia’s original draft of the Heller opinion. At Stevens’s urging, Kennedy requested language stating that Heller “should not be taken to cast doubt” on many existing gun laws. Without Kennedy’s intervention, in other words, Heller may not have included the important language limiting the scope of the Second Amendment.
But Kennedy is gone. And his replacement, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, appears very eager to expand gun rights.
Shorter after Heller was decided, the District of Columbia’s government passed legislation banning semi-automatic “assault weapons” and requiring gun owners to register their firearms. Dick Heller, the lead plaintiff in the Supreme Court’s Heller decision, also led the challenge to this new gun law, and the case — Heller v. District of Columbia — was eventually heard by a panel of three Republican-appointed judges.
Two of those judges largely upheld the law in 2011 (although they called for further proceedings on the registration requirement). The third judge was Brett Kavanaugh, who claimed that “both D.C.’s ban on semi-automatic rifles and its gun registration requirement are unconstitutional under Heller.” (This second iteration of the Heller litigation was never heard by the Supreme Court.)
And Kavanaugh’s dissent also went even further than that. The future justice did not simply argue that this specific DC law should be struck down. He also suggested that nearly a decade of Second Amendment jurisprudence should be tossed out.
Now you can see why the demoncraps decided that Kavanaugh’s nomination was a hill to die on.
And now you can see why they’re going crazy ape bonkers about impeaching Trump.
Pelosi and the rest of them know too well that they’re not going to get Trump ejected from office. What they hope to do is make the nomination for whoever is going to replace Ginsburg think twice about wanting to go through the same crap and/or also give them some sort of political cover “He’s tainted by being impeached!” if it happens before the 2020 election.
If you want to see how extreme the Democrats have gotten on gun control, you just had to listen to a House Judiciary Committee hearing last week.
It is one thing for Democrats such as
BetoBetaBob O’Rourke and Rep. Eric Swalwell (R-CA) to call for confiscating AR-15s and civilian versions of AK-47s. But in the committee hearing this past Wednesday, the loudest applause came when Democratic witnesses called for bans on all or at least the vast majority of guns.
“I believe that any weapon that can be used to hunt individuals should be banned,” announced Charlottesville Police Chief RaShall M. Brackney in the hearing. Brackney and other witnesses showed just how far the Democratic Party has gone on gun control in only a few years.
Brackney was given a chance by Congressman Greg Steube (R-FL) to correct the record if she might have misspoken, but she only doubled down. Steube pointed out that any firearm could be used to hunt people down, and Brackney responded by repeating the point. She only clarified that police and the military would still be able to have guns.
Ten years ago, if a Democrat witness had suggested banning all guns, one can only imagine that Democratic congressmen would be desperate to disassociate themselves from those comments. But not now. Not one, single Democrat expressed any disapproval.
Kristen Rand of the Violence Policy Center claimed that detachable magazines are the “most important and deadly feature” of assault weapons. But a ban on detachable magazines would result in the ban of virtually all semi-automatic guns, the most commonly-owned type of firearm in the United States.
Again, none of the Democratic politicians raised any word of caution.
Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) claimed: “Assault weapons have become the favorite of many mass shooters.” But only 13 percent of all mass public shootings since 1998 involved just a rifle. Fifty-six percent involved only a handgun. Eighty-three percent involved either just a handgun or a handgun plus some other type of firearm…………
Assault weapons were singled out in the hearing because they have such features as accuracy and stopping power. But civilians value those same features for their own self-defense, especially if the attacker is bigger and stronger than they are.
Democrats are coming out for banning most or all guns, and virtually no one in their party even challenges such ideas anymore. But these views aren’t even shocking any longer, so it’s hardly surprising that the media didn’t view them as newsworthy.
New York City is seeking to use an overly broad ordinance against discriminatory harassment to restrict speech about illegal aliens, such as use of the word “illegal alien” to describe workers or tenants. That violates the First Amendment. Its Commission on Human Rights is targeting such speech in recent “immigration guidance.” The Commission states, “Even an employer’s single comment made in circumstances where that comment would signal discriminatory views about one’s immigration status or national origin may be enough to constitute harassment. The use of the terms “illegal alien” and “illegals,” with the intent to demean, humiliate, or offend a person or persons in the workplace, amounts to unlawful discrimination under the NYCHRL.”
That forbids speech based on its viewpoint, even though the First Amendment, above all else, was intended to prevent viewpoint-based restrictions on speech. And it’s not just employers whose speech about immigration the Commission seeks to restrict. The Commission states, “It is illegal for a person’s employer, coworkers, or housing provider such as landlords to use derogatory or offensive terms to intimidate, humiliate, or degrade people, including by using the term ‘illegal alien,’ where its use is intended to demean, humiliate, or offend another person.” It also cites tenants as an example of people whose speech is restricted.
The city also is trying to forbid most if not all reporting of illegal aliens to the federal government. The Commission forbids such reports if the person making the report is “motivated” by the illegal alien’s “immigration status.” But what other motive could a reporting party legitimately have? The whole reason to report an illegal alien to the federal government is precisely because of their immigration status.
Yet, the Commission bans not just the threat of reporting, but also most if not all actual reports as well. It declares: “Employer threats to call federal immigration authorities can constitute unlawful harassment under the NYCHRL when motivated, in whole or in part, by animus related to the employee’s actual or perceived immigration status….While reporting a violation of the law to the police is otherwise permitted, it is a violation of the NYCHRL when such action is taken or threats to take such action are made based solely on a discriminatory or retaliatory motive.”…………..
The Commission threatens to impose $250,000 fines in the guidance, as authorized by the City’s “human rights” ordinance. The Commission also fails to describe any real-world example or situation in which it would be legal under the ordinance to report an illegal alien to the federal government. The specter of such huge fines and no safe harbor for reporting will have a huge chilling effect on citizens, discouraging them from exercising their First Amendment right to petition federal officials to remove illegal aliens.
Fred Fleitz, president of the Center for Security Policy, served in 2018 as deputy assistant to the president and to the chief of staff of the National Security Council. He previously held national-security jobs with the CIA, the DIA, the Department of State, and the House Intelligence Committee staff. He remarks on the whistleblower complaint.
I am troubled by the complaint and wonder how an intelligence officer could file it over something a president said to a foreign leader. How could this be an intelligence matter?
It appears likely to me that this so-called whistleblower was pursuing a political agenda.
I am very familiar with transcripts of presidential phone calls since I edited and processed dozens of them when I worked for the NSC. I also know a lot about intelligence whistleblowers from my time with the CIA.
My suspicions grew this morning when I saw the declassified whistleblowing complaint. It appears to be written by a law professor and includes legal references and detailed footnotes. It also has an unusual legalistic reference on how this complaint should be classified.
From my experience, such an extremely polished whistleblowing complaint is unheard of. This document looks as if this leaker had outside help, possibly from congressional members or staff.
Moreover, it looks like more than a coincidence that this complaint surfaced and was directed to the House Intelligence Committee just after Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), an outspoken opponent of President Trump, expressed numerous complaints in August 2019 accusing President Trump of abusing aid to Ukraine to hurt Joe Biden. This includes an August 28 tweet that closely resembled the whistleblowing complaint.
House Republicans need to ask the whistleblower under oath whether he spoke to the press or Congress about his complaint.
Also very concerning to me is how the complaint indicates intelligence officers and possibly other federal employees are violating the rules governing presidential phone calls with foreign leaders.
The content and transcripts of these calls are highly restricted. The whistleblower makes clear in his complaint that he did not listen to a call in question, nor did he read the transcript — he was told about the call by others. If true, intelligence officers have grossly violated the rules as well as the trust placed on them to protect this sensitive information.
I refuse to believe that the leaking, timing and presentation of this complaint is coincidence. I don’t think the American people will buy this either.
I’m more worried, however, that this latest instance of blatant politicization of intelligence by Trump haters will do long term damage to the relationship between the intelligence community and US presidents for many years to come.
In the midst of all the impeachment crap -and let us not mince words, it is all crap – New York Democratic Socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez announced a package of six bills as part of what she calls “A Just Society.” This is her latest attempt to turn the United States into a socialist nation since the Green New Deal really has not gone anywhere, aside from the fantasies of eco-fundamentalist freaks rife with delusional climate anxiety. The key promises of this “Just Society” is your right to not to be fat and have perfect mental health, illegal immigrants receiving endless federal welfare and benefits, and national rent control, among other policies that would hurt American workers. In short, it basically wants to put the government in every aspect of your life and your money in efforts the United States should not be supporting.
Rep. Ocasio-Cortez introduced her ambitious plans on Wednesday. Here are just six plans, none saying how the American people will pay for them. Of course, we know it will be through higher taxes.
Here are the six bills:
(1) A Just Society Recognizes & Eradicates Poverty: The Recognizing Poverty Act directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in collaboration with the Bureau of the Census and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, contract with the Committee on National Statistics (CNSTAT) to propose a new official poverty guideline. This guideline would account for costs related to geographic variation, health insurance, child care, and “new necessities” such as internet access. This would ensure the accuracy of our current poverty measure, which determines eligibility for much of the social safety net including — Medicaid, Food Stamps, Family Planning Services, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and the National School Lunch Program.
(2) A Just Society Creates a Place to Prosper: The Place to Prosper Act would protect low-income tenants and rein in corporate landlords by, among other things – creating an access to counsel fund for renters facing eviction, imposing a 3 percent national cap on annual rent increases, and imposing disclosure requirements on the nation’s largest landlords.
(3) A Just Society Is Merciful: The Mercy in Re-entry Act ensures that notwithstanding any other provision of law, an individual may not be denied any Federal public benefit solely on the basis that the individual was convicted of a criminal offense (whether under Federal, State, tribal, or foreign law).
(4) A Just Society Embraces Our Immigrants: The Embrace Act ensures that notwithstanding any other provision of law (including title IV of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996), an individual may not be denied any Federal public benefit solely on the basis of the individual’s immigration status.
(5) A Just Society Uplifts Our Workers: The Uplift Our Workers Act would direct the Department of Labor (DOL), in collaboration with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), to create a “worker-friendly score” – similar to LEED certification – for federal contractors. This score would consider factors including, but not limited to, paid family leave, scheduling predictability, hourly wage, and union membership. Thereafter, DoL and OMB are to provide federal agencies with recommendations on how to evaluate – and give systemized preference to – “worker-friendly contractors as it makes contracting decisions.
(6) A Just Society Guarantees the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of All: This resolution would direct the Senate to give its advice and consent to the ratification of the U.N. Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. This Covenant recognizes the right to just and favorable conditions of work, the right to form trade unions, the right to adequate food, clothing, housing, and the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.
Bill number four on this list seems particularly outrageous. This massive welfare state for illegal immigrants would encourage only more border crossings from every nation in the world. We can barely afford to help our veterans and American citizens who need welfare, let alone open the floodgates to illegal aliens who could come here solely for federal public benefits.
Can anyone keep them all straight? They rise like noxious bubbles from the cauldron of deep-state anti-Trump sentiment, only to pass away almost immediately, carried off by their own insubstantiality and the contrasting bright-light series of real achievements on the part of the Trump Administration.
Just this last week, we saw the New York chapter of the left-over Left make a last-ditch effort to smear Justice Brett Kavanaugh by fabricating yet another spurious complaint that an 18-year-old Kavanaugh had been over-served and acted rudely to a fellow female student at Yale. Only the student in question had no memory of the incident.
Like every other complaint against the teenaged Kavanaugh, it was a matter of “my cousin Ernie’s brother’s girlfriend heard from her college roommate that three people whose names she cannot remember told her best friend that someone who might have been Brett Kavanaugh was rumored to have exposed himself at a drunken white-privilege party at Yale 35 or maybe 36 years ago.” …………
But back to the Ukraine. On Friday, the oyez, oyez, oyez boys in the press whipped up the big display type to announce that someone in the “intelligence community” (we don’t know whom) issued an official complaint that President Trump made a “promise” (we don’t know what) to an unnamed foreign leader that the complainant, whoever it is, found “troubling.” …..
Stepping back for a moment from that snarling imbroglio, I do wonder whether the latest “Trump abused his powers, let’s impeach him!” gambit is not rather an impressive deployment of a rhetorical-political gambit known as the “preemptive tu quoque I-tagged-you-first” strategy. The media and anti-Trump commentariat is jumping up and down in unison saying, “Trump is leaning on a foreign power in order to gain a political advantage.”
But what is that charge cover for? A chap called Robert Barnes, writing on Twitter, reminds us of a pertinent fact. “The same Democrats who used all the powers of the Presidency to spy on an opposing campaign, and continue to use every power of the House to invade the privacy of the President, are deeply offended that Trump would want corruption investigated involving a former Vice President?” That’s what Latinists called a nonne question, one that expects the answer “Yes.”
Something they’ve been doing for the past 50 years
You’d think if he was going to lie like that, he could do a better job.
Either he’s sliding into Alzheimer’s, or he actually thinks were that stupid.
I know, I know. Embrace the mighty power of ‘and‘.