New York legislature passes bill allowing state to prosecute people pardoned by the President

That a state legislature is that mentally deranged about Trump that they’ll pass a law that is -><- this close to being a Bill of Attainder is frightening.
If the clear idiocy of it eludes them, what’s next on their agenda?

How does a state claim jurisdiction over someone that was pardoned for a federal crime, or over a pardoned person if they’re a resident of another state and have never even set foot in NY? I’d like to see the extradition proceedings for that.

That this will get slapped down as unconstitutional is almost assured. But, the problem is that that means someone will have been charged and prosecuted, because the appeals courts demand someone have ‘standing’.

New York is one signature away from allowing prosecutors to pursue state charges against presidential associates who have received federal pardons.

The Democratic-controlled state assembly on Tuesday passed a bill 90-52 allowing the state-level prosecution of people pardoned of federal crimes, provided that they worked for or were related to the president at the time of the pardon.

If signed, it could short-circuit President Donald Trump’s ability to shield his associates from prosecution, including former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who was recently sentenced to more than seven years in prison on financial crimes stemming from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into the 2016 campaign.

The bill, which passed the state Senate earlier this month, now heads to the desk of Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, who is expected to sign the bill into law.

Jason Cornwall, a spokesperson for Cuomo, told CNN Tuesday the governor supports the bill.

Cuomo has previously criticized Trump’s statements on his pardon power, saying in a statement last August, “President Trump has shown that he is willing if not eager to abuse his executive authority, including pardon power, to protect himself.”

The bill allows for the prosecution at the state level of any individual who was employed by or served in the executive branch, served in a position subject to Senate confirmation, or worked for a presidential campaign or transition team, regardless of whether they had been pardoned or granted clemency by the president under which they served. It would similarly allow prosecution of presidential relatives regardless of pardon.

New York State Assembly Minority Leader Brian Kolb, a Republican, criticized the bill.

“The job of the State Legislature is to develop measures that help New Yorkers. This bill does absolutely nothing to achieve that,” Kolb said in a statement. “The endless political grandstanding involved in targeting President Trump at a state level is a total waste of time, energy and taxpayer money.”

School Intimidated Into Dropping Daily “God Bless America” Declaration

A Pennsylvania elementary school principal has been forced to stop saying “God Bless America” over the school loudspeaker, thanks to the intimidation of an organization apparently committed to deleting First Amendment guaranteed religious expression from the public square.

Principal Peter Brigg was accustomed to declaring “God Bless America” after leading students and staff in a daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance at Sabold Elementary School in Springfield, Pennsylvania. But a parent supposedly complained to the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), which sent a threatening letter to the Springfield school district demanding that the practice be halted immediately.

Claiming that the phrase “God Bless America” originated with the patriotic Irving Berlin song made iconic by singer Kate Smith and amounted to a prayer, an FFRF attorney insisted to the district that a prayer “hosted by a publicly-supported school does not pass constitutional muster. The phrase ‘God Bless America,’ repeatedly uttered by a public school, amounts to a declaration of orthodoxy in religion that falsely equates patriotism with piety.”

The euros never did have a strong pro-civil rights culture. Just another reason the colonists left there for more freedom and liberty.

Almost 64% of voters in Sunday’s referendum supported tougher restrictions on semi-automatic and automatic weapons, final results show.

Switzerland is not an EU member, but risked removal from the open-border Schengen Area if it had voted “no”.

Nearly 48% of Swiss households own a gun – among the highest rates of private ownership in Europe.

The EU had urged the country to tighten its laws in line with rules adopted by the bloc following the 2015 Paris terror attacks.

The rules restrict semi-automatic and automatic rifles and make it easier to track weapons in national databases.

The EU’s initial proposal sparked criticism in Switzerland, because it meant a ban on the tradition of ex-soldiers keeping their assault rifles.

Swiss officials negotiated concessions, but some gun activists argued that the rules still encroached on citizens’ rights.

Presentational grey line

What does the result tell us?

Analysis by Imogen Foulkes, BBC News, Geneva

Opponents of the new gun laws described them as a diktat from Brussels, being forced on non-EU member Switzerland against its will. The Swiss national identity, with its long tradition of gun ownership, was, they argued, being undermined.

But Sunday’s nationwide referendum shows voters think differently: they have overwhelmingly backed the new gun laws, following their government’s advice.

The Swiss seem keen to co-operate in the EU’s attempts to prevent terror attacks, and to keep their often tricky relations with Brussels as smooth as possible.

Presentational grey line

Why is the EU concerned about Swiss gun laws?

After the 2015 Paris attacks, the EU issued Schengen members with new restrictions on automatic and semi-automatic weapons.

The rules called for:

  • A ban on weapons capable of rapidly firing multiple rounds
  • Automatic and semi-automatic weapons to either be banned or heavily restricted
  • Each owner of such a weapon, and the weapon itself, to be known to police across Europe
  • All essential weapon components to be clearly labelled and registered electronically

The EU hoped the rules would help to protect people across Europe, and prevent a repeat of the 2015 attacks.

Failure to adopt the changes could have forced Switzerland to leave the Schengen zone and the Dublin joint system for handling asylum requests.

What did Swiss officials say?

The Swiss government urged voters to back the changes.

(and there you have it, a government – again -restricts the rights of the citizenry for mere political expediency.)

Does the term “climate change” need a makeover? Some think so — here’s why.

Greta Thunberg, a 16-year-old [mentally defective puppet] who [believes the lie that she] leads a global climate movement, asked in a recent tweet, “Can we all now please stop saying ‘climate change’ and instead call it what it is: climate breakdown, climate crisis, climate emergency, ecological breakdown, ecological crisis and ecological emergency?”

[No dear idjit child, the intellgent ones here aren’t going to be driven by emotion, but rather by logic, facts and real science, not your handler’s hyperbolic horse$#!+]

She’s not alone in her sentiment. Many of those engaged in environmental advocacy feel the termclimate changefails to convey the specificity or urgency needed to address the gravity of the climate challenge.

A new recent study shows they may be right.

New York City-based SPARK Neuro, a neuroanalytics company that measures emotion and attention, studied how participants responded to six terms — “climate crisis,” “environmental destruction,” “environmental collapse,” “weather destabilization,” “global warming” and “climate change.”

A total of 120 people — 40 Republicans, 40 Democrats and 40 independents — participated in the study, which measured the “emotional intensity” of responses to audio recordings of various controversial phrases, with each term inserted, like this example below:

“Sea levels will rise dramatically, to the point that many coastal cities will be submerged, as a result of [INSERT TERM].” 

The electrical activity of the participants’ brains and skin was rated on a scale of zero to five — five being the strongest. Those results were then compared to a traditional survey for reference.

Two terms stood out from the pack: climate crisis and environmental destruction.

Among Democrats, the study found a 60% greater emotional response to the term “climate crisis” than to “climate change,” and a tripling in emotional response among Republicans.

Spencer Gerrol, CEO of SPARK Neuro, said evoking emotion is vital to getting people to act. Because terms like climate change and global warming do not imply good or bad, they don’t spark passion, he said.

The Green New Deal is a path to a more militarized and authoritarian society.

“Until you do it, I’m the boss,” said Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the socialist congresswoman from the Bronx, responding to critics of her Green New Deal in February. Later that night, the freshman congresswoman doubled down on her comment, tweeting that people who “don’t like the #GreenNewDeal” should “come up with your own ambitious, on-scale proposal to address the global climate crisis. Until then, we’re in charge—and you’re just shouting from the cheap seats.”

Much has rightly been made of the Green New Deal’s fuzzy-headed utopianism and its impossible goal of reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to net-zero in 10 years. But we should also pay close attention to the plan’s authoritarian impulses, particularly in light of its historical inspirations: Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal and the command economy he established during the Second World War.

If proponents of the Green New Deal are serious—and there’s no reason to doubt them—then they’re proposing a return to a militaristic America where Uncle Sam’s heavy hand intervenes in all aspects of life, curtailing individual freedom in pursuit of their collectivist goals. And like the planners of the Roosevelt years, their intentions are clear and grandiose: They want the power to regiment a society of nearly 330 million people in pursuit of a pipe dream they liken to a war for survival…….

When she says “I’m the boss,” pay attention. She’s describing America under a Green New Deal: a place where you’ll do as you’re told.

Massachusetts teacher accused of planting live ammo at school, then calling police.

A Southbridge teacher is accused of leaving ammunition in a school stairwell Thursday morning before calling police to report it.

Southbridge police said high school biology teacher Alfred Purcell III, 57, of Woodstock, Connecticut, reported to staff that he had just found one live round of 9 mm ammunition in the rear stairwell. The school was placed on lock down.

During the lockdown, police and Southbridge High School staff reviewed video footage and saw Purcell removing the live round of ammunition from his pocket, dropping it on the floor and quickly leaving the area, police said.

About 10 minutes later, the video shows Purcell standing over the ammunition and taking a picture of it with a cellphone, police said.

Police said Purcell then used a school-issued portable radio to request assistance in the stairwell from the school administration and school resource officer.

Purcell then returned to his class with his students during the lockdown, which lasted about an hour, police said.

“There was no kids that were injured, nobody was seriously impacted by this other than we went into a lockdown for an hour and we had to investigate a teacher who was doing things he shouldn’t be doing,” said Chief Shane Woodson of the Southbridge Police Department.

Purcell was arrested at the school. Police said he admitted to intentionally dropping the live round of ammunition in the stairwell to “prove to the school that they needed to get metal detectors.”

Police said officers detected the faint odor of an alcoholic beverage on Purcell’s breath, but he denied consuming any alcoholic beverages.

“This individual acted in a disgusting manner. I feel very badly for our students because it is an adult who failed them,” said Jeffrey Villar, the superintendent.

A search of Purcell’s vehicle yielded 102 live rounds of .20 gauge shot gun ammunition in the trunk, police said. It was later confirmed that Purcell’s license to carry a firearm was expired in Connecticut, police said.

Purcell was charged with two counts of the unlawful possession of ammunition, two counts of carrying ammunition on school grounds, disturbing a school assembly, disorderly conduct and disturbing the peace.

Kirsten Gillibrand: The NRA’s greed leads to ‘dumb’ ideas like arming teachers

Demoncraps are a deathcult.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., voiced her opposition to the idea of having armed teachers during school hours during her interview with CNN on Wednesday. She blamed the idea being presented in the first place on the National Rifle Association’s “greed.”

“I’ve got three kids and I said very openly that I’m not particularly comfortable with teachers walking around with loaded weapons. I wonder what’s your response is to that,” CNN’s Jim Sciutto asked.

Gillibrand said, “I think it’s a dumb idea and I think it is something being pitched by the NRA because all they care about is gun sales. They are absolutely corrupted. They are focused on greed and they want to sell guns to people on the terror watch list, to people with grave mental illness, with violent backgrounds or people with criminal convictions for violent crimes, which is why they’re against the universal background check bill that people support across this country, and it’s also why they oppose the Violence Against Women’s Act.”…………..

Gillibrand has been struggling to reach the 65,000 unique donor minimum needed in order to qualify for the primary debates.

Political Correctness Is a Tool for Socialist Censorship and Thought Control

Nothing really new here, just a good reiteration.

In the novel “Nineteen Eighty-Four,” part of the dystopian government that George Orwell imagined was its use of the language of “Newspeak,” a simplification of the English language to serve the needs of the state. Newspeak altered thoughts, so that people were rendered incapable of thinking outside Party lines.

We now see this same principle at play in political correctness, in which concepts behind words are being altered to fit political narratives, and people are censoring their thoughts to not violate the artificial morals of the state.

The effects of political correctness can be found most clearly where the concept originates: under the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) as Mao Zedong created the concept in 1967 to control public dissent at the start of the Cultural Revolution. The idea was simple: support the regime’s policies and you are politically correct. Oppose them, and you can be targeted and destroyed.

In its details, the CCP’s use of political correctness is different from the way it’s used in the United States and Europe, yet underneath it has the same purpose. Under the Chinese regime, it’s used as an artificial moral system to guard the policies of the CCP. In the United States, it’s used as an artificial moral system to guard socialist policies.


Disturbing Bit Of Trivia: In 2003 Interview, Comey Admitted To Voting Communist In The 70s – Just Like Brennan

In a 2003 interview with New York Magazine, Comey said that before voting for Carter in 1980, he’d been a Communist. He admitted, “I’d moved from Communist to whatever I am now.”

Former CIA Director John Brennan’s ties to communism are well known. Although I’ve never heard about James Comey being connected to communism, the words do come straight out of the horse’s mouth.

Just asking, does anyone else find it unnerving that America entrusted the CIA and the FBI to individuals who were, at one point, self-declared communists?
This disturbing bit of trivia comes to us from journalist Paul Sperry.

The author, Chris Smith, wrote that, “Comey has been savaged by William Safire and lauded by Chuck Schumer; just what kind of Republican is he, anyway?”

Comey apparently howled with laughter.

He explained, “In college, I was left of center, and through a gradual process I found myself more comfortable with a lot of the ideas and approaches the Republicans were using.” He voted for Carter in 1980, but in ’84, “I voted for Reagan—I’d moved from Communist to whatever I am now. I’m not even sure how to characterize myself politically. Maybe at some point, I’ll have to figure it out.”

Perhaps his “gradual” move away from communism had something to do with his chosen career path. It may have dawned on him that communist leanings might be a serious disqualifier when one is hoping for a career in government law enforcement, especially during the Cold War.

It shouldn’t really surprise that Obama would nominate former communists to two of the most important offices in the U.S. government. Underneath it all, Obama really is a socialist – who surrounded himself with other socialists like Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Joe Biden: 2nd Amendment Doesn’t Say Americans are ‘Entitled’ to Own Guns

It’s nearly unbelievable just how stupid these politicians are and believe the people are as well.
You see, technically, he’s correct even though he doesn’t know it, and this is not his point.
The amendment simply states that the right shall not be infringed.
So, there’s nothing there that ensures you owning a gun and getting one given to you, say if you can’t afford one, kind of like the ‘entitlement’ to Social Security if you qualify, but, of course, we know what he actually means.
He believes that people really don’t have this right, even though it’s been adjudicated several times in the past that the people do have it as an individual right.

Former Vice President Joe Biden admitted that the “Second Amendment exists” but stressed during his speech in New Hampshire on Tuesday that it does not say everyone is “entitled” to own a gun.

Biden, who was taking questions at a small outdoor venue, then added, “By the way, if one of you left the keys in your car down the street, and a kid comes along and jumps in it and takes off, you could be held liable civilly for that. So if you own a gun, put a damn trigger lock on it. Put it in a case. You have an obligation.”

Biden also spoke about past gun bans he supported. He specifically referenced the 1994 “assault weapons” ban and noted that it also “limited the number of bullets in a clip.” Additionally, he spoke about being former President Barack Obama’s point man for gun control following the December 14, 2012, attack on Sandy Hook Elementary School.

He said, “There are so many other things we can do to make schools safer, other than arming teachers.” He did not specify, however, what those other things are. Rather, he pivoted to the next question.

Gun control in New York: Here’s what Democrats plan to pass next

Hey! Lets make something more illegaler! (As in, our Fed congresscritters outlawed ‘undetectable’ guns way back in 1988 with the Undetectable Firearms Act .

ALBANY – Senate Democrats on Wednesday passed another gun-control bill after the Legislature and Gov. Andrew Cuomo approved sweeping changes in January.

The latest measure would ban undetectable guns, including 3D-printed guns, from being manufactured and sold in New York.

The bill, also likely to be approved by the state Assembly, comes after a series of gun-control laws passed earlier this year, including a ban on bump stocks and allowing New Yorkers to report people deemed dangerous from possessing guns.

Senate Democrats said the bill was initially scheduled to pass Tuesday, but it was approved 51-5 on Wednesday.

Democrats Start To Perceive Debacle They Face.

The Democrats have, evidently, no idea how to deal with this president, and their moral crusade against him is about to be swamped by the unmasking of the skullduggery and chicanery of the Clinton and Obama Democrats in 2016.

The last fact that the Democrats have not begun to deal with in the effort to unseat the president is his extraordinary success. The economic performance is phenomenal, and the pathetic attempts of President Obama to claim credit for the economic recovery, like his fatuities about “the magic wand,” will be mocked with vicious hilarity. The success of this president in proclaiming a border emergency and doing something about it will be noted.

New Zealand prime minister: ‘I do not understand’ US lack of action on gun control

That’s because the Euros that populated NZ never had a constitution that restricted the government from infringing and abridging the people’s rights it was supposed to be protecting. NZ doesn’t even protect the right of free speech and a free press as the police there jailed and charged someone for posting the murderer’s manifesto online.

New Zealand Prime Minster Jacinda Ardern expressed shock at the lack of action in the United States to implement gun control laws.

“You can draw a line and say that does not mean you need access to military-style semi-automatic weapons and assault rifles. You do not. And New Zealand has by and large absolutely agreed with that position,” Ardern said in a CNN interview.

“Australia experienced a massacre and changed their laws; New Zealand had its experience and changed its laws,” Ardern said, referring to the country’s mass shooting at Muslim mosques in March. More than 50 people were killed during the gunman’s attack

In response to the mass shooting, Ardern pushed for more gun control, saying New Zealand “had pretty permissive gun legislation.” Ardern did say firearms have a use for hunting, but only certain guns should be sold.

“To be honest with you, I do not understand the United States,” she said.

Some of the new gun laws the New Zealand parliament passed after the mass shooting at Christchurch included a mandatory gun buyback, with an amnesty period until September 2019. The Evening Standard reports said there are only two exemptions: If the weapon is used for pest control on private and nonconservation land and if the weapon is a family heirloom.

Rashida Tlaib’s Lies Remind Us Why Israel Must Exist.

As the Peel Commission Report, a British paper recommending partition in 1936, noted, “the Arabs have benefited by the development of the country owing to Jewish immigration, this has had no conciliatory effect. On the contrary… with almost mathematical precision the betterment of the economic situation in Palestine meant the deterioration of the political situation.”

Even Palestinian “moderates” like Musa Alami told Zionist leader David Ben-Gurion “he would prefer the land to remain poor and desolate even for another hundred years” if the alternative was collaboration with Jews. Neither Alami nor Amin al-Husseini, the grand mufti of Jerusalem and leader of the Palestinian cause, nor the father of modern terrorism, Yasser Arafat, nor his protégé, Mahmoud Abbas, ever shared in their deprivations of their people. It was the opposite, in fact. Palestinian leaders have always enriched themselves on this conflict.

“Why can’t we all be free and safe together?” It’s a good question. Long before the Holocaust, every single major Jewish Zionistic organization, even the right-wing ones, saw the Jewish state as giving equal rights to the Arab population. As they do today.

So AOC Was Just Kidding When She Said We Only Have 12 Years Left?

“12 years left, 12 years left, 12 years left… psyche!”

I call this technique Clown Nose Off, Clown Nose On. I first noticed it with Jon Stewart 15 years ago, when he went on CNN’s Crossfire and supposedly owned Tucker Carlson by being a passive-aggressive jerk. First, Stewart would present an argument and insist on being taken seriously. Then, when he was challenged on it, he’d backpedal: “Hey, what’s the big deal? I’m just a comedian!” Once I noticed Stewart doing that with Carlson, I realized that he did it all the time. It was cheap, it was dishonest, and it made Jon Stewart rich and famous.

At least he had the excuse of being a comedian. AOC is an elected official, and she only makes people laugh unintentionally.

Bill Allowing Illegal Aliens to Work in Congress Approved by House Committee

Illegal aliens are now eligible for driver’s licenses in some states, and in March the House voted in favor of extending the vote to people who disregarded the law and entered the United States illegally. Now there’s another bill trying to give Illegal Aliens the same rights as legal Americans has advanced through the House Appropriations Committee by a party-line vote. The bill would lift a ban on Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients from being able to apply for positions on the staffs of elected officials. 

U.S. law doesn’t “pick on’ dreamers or illegal immigrants per se.  It expressly bars most non-U.S. citizens from working for the feds.

Annual appropriations enactments prohibit the use of funds for the compensation of any federal government employee or officer in the continental United States unless that person is (1) a U.S. citizen, (2) an LPR [legal permanent resident] who is applying for naturalization, (3) a person admitted as a refugee or granted asylum who has filed a declaration of intent to become an LPR and eventually a U.S. citizen, or (4) a non-citizen, U.S. national who owes allegiance to the United States (e.g., a person born in American Samoa)………..

In April Kamala Harris introduced a similar bill in the Senate:

 “The giant sign outside my office says ‘DREAMers Welcome Here’ because we know and value the contributions that these young people have made to their communities,” Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., one of the bill’s sponsors, said in a news release. “But right now, those same young people are banned from giving back to their country by working for Congress. That has to change. Government works best when it reflects the people it represents. Our nation’s DREAMers are some of our best and brightest, and it’s time they had the opportunity to get a job or paid internship on Capitol Hill.”

The 5 Questions Everyone Should Ask About Single-Payer Health Care

With Sen. Bernie Sanders introducing a new “Medicare for All” bill this month and several other Democratic presidential candidates co-sponsoring it, health care is once again a top campaign issue. The Democratic Party’s Socialist wing has hijacked the health care debate, and a closer examination of Medicare for All reveals its grim prognosis.

This plan is co-sponsored by four other senators running for president: Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Cory Booker. It represents a radical change in how Americans pay for and receive health care. Medicare for All ends private health care insurance, granting the federal government total control. Employer-based health care will disappear.

Ironically, Medicare will also vanish as it is rolled into this massive new program. The plan’s authors have attempted to disguise this fact by calling it Medicare for All, but that is one gigantic lie. They claim you will be able to visit any doctor or hospital, get care whenever you want, and not need to worry about cost, because everything will be covered.

1. How will we pay for this?

No one has specifically answered this question, but everyone’s taxes will increase — and possibly even double.

2. Will Medicare for All be free for patients?

There is no such thing as “free” health care. Confiscating the wealth of all millionaires and billionaires wouldn’t even come close to paying for this plan. The only way to make it work is by limiting the demand.

3. What happens to seniors who currently have Medicare?

Despite the intriguing sound of Medicare for All, this plan is just the opposite — Medicare for None. The $700 billion from the current annual Medicare budget will be redirected, and seniors’ benefits will change. Bureaucrats will make decisions regarding who receives treatments, something that also happens in England.

4. If I am unhappy with Medicare for All, can’t I just get care elsewhere?

No. This plan outlaws all private health care. So, if you had to wait six months for an operation in America, your only other option would be leaving the country.

5. At least I can still see my doctor, right?

Doubtful. Your doctor might not be around to take care of you. More than 50% of the doctors in this country are over 55 years old. This plan would slash physician reimbursement. Many older doctors will not tolerate that outcome, choosing instead to leave medicine altogether.


What These Wannabe Dem Presidents Plan For U$.

• Slap a new tax on banks with more than $50 million in assets. Kamala Harris especially likes this one, which would bring in an estimated $61 billion. Banks are big and bad, unless you want or have home mortgage.

• Increase by 88 percent the amount of income Americans must pay Social Security taxes on from the current $132,900 up to at least a quarter-million. Maybe more. Yeh, sure, some middle-class families will be caught in the cash net. But see, silly person who doesn’t understand how government works, they’re spending all the current Social Security tax income already. So, they need more for new programs, probably another $800+ billion.

• People are making too much money from investments that can help create jobs. So, jack the capital gains by 50 percent to 30 percent. That might rake in more than $600 billion, assuming it doesn’t stop much investing..

• And let’s cut into that mortgage interest tax deduction. Too many Americans are owning or buying homes and affording it. That’s worth a good $972 billion at least.

• Here’s a good one: Hike the federal tax on a gallon of gasoline by “only” 10 cents, which is actually 65 percent. This should bring in another $170 billion. Sure, it hits regular working folks the hardest, but we all must make financial sacrifices for the greener good. Also, tell town halls the money will pay for infrastructure repairs. That’s a good line. Some Republicans might even go for it, unless they know Grover Norquist.

• Oh, and index that enlarged gas tax to inflation so it’ll increase automatically forever and politicians won’t have to wait another 26 years for new revenues.

• Finally – well, it’s not really final because there are many other tax ideas – let’s install a value-added tax. This will be a five percent levy on every step of any item’s production process. Europe loves them. Yes, yes, it would hike consumer prices considerably. But it would bring in – are you sitting down? – nearly $6.2 Trillion.

Joe Biden: Soul Man.
The former senator and veep thinks Trump-era America needs some moral straightening out.

I’m not sure the country wants to hear lectures on morality from a hypocrite who made his son filthy rich playing footsie with Moscow and Beijing.

The current field of Democratic presidential candidates is no gift to the science of politics, but in some ways Joe Biden may be the most alarming of the crop crap.

The Democratic aspirants mostly want to invite government more deeply into our lives as arbiter of who gets how much money. Biden wants—or says he wants—to go to work on our souls.

“We are in battle,” said the former vice president, throwing his metaphorical hat into the metaphorical ring, “for the soul of this nation. If we give Donald Trump eight years in the White House, he will forever and fundamentally alter the character of this nation—who we are. And I cannot stand by and let that happen.”

After he chases the Trumpmonster out of public life, will he then and thereupon explain what politics has to do with human souls? That would be a start, and a challenging one. The notion that Biden or any other political figure, from far Left to far Right, will be shaping our souls as well as our economic prospects is ludicrous and, in many contexts, frightening. Therein lies the deep dark shadows of 1984: “He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.”……

Biden, the Moses who would straighten us all out if you take him at his word, has in mind a miracle nearly as large as the parting of the Red Sea. He would turn America into the first nation ever saved by the wringers of hands at election rallies; by the solicitors of campaign cash, the beady-eyed inquisitors at televised committee hearings.

AOC And Bernie Have A Brilliant New Idea For Banking

There are dumb ideas and then there’s whatever this is.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders have teamed up to introduce the idea of “non-profit banking services” done via the post office, where sub-prime loans would be given out to people who are terrible credit risks, thereby causing high default rates. Because absolutely nothing bad could come of that.

Wait, didn’t we have a financial crisis the last time this was tried?

This is simply moronic and I don’t use that term lightly.

No one “discriminates” against people of color when it comes to loans. Banks want to turn a profit, full stop. That’s their only motivator. They don’t care if you are purple. The reason minority groups have a harder time getting loans is because they include higher rates of individuals who do not have the credit nor capital to be lent to. Loans are not handouts or a right. They exist with the sole supposition being that the person given the loan must pay it back with interest. Handing out loans to high credit risks is how you get a crash like we had in 2008.

Yet, here’s AOC and Bernie suggesting that not only should banks give out junk loans, but that the Postal Service should be doing the lending. That’s the same Postal Service that lost $3.6B last year alone. Now these two socialists want them to take on even more losses via giving out bad loans? It’s completely insane.

Never mind how big of an invasion of privacy it would be for the government to have round the clock, full access to everyone’s banking records.

What’s happening here is obvious though. AOC is just a crazy person, but Bernie is doing this to help bolster his floundering Presidential campaign. Biden has stepped in and cleaned his clock since announcing. Bernie is now losing to Elizabeth Warren in some polls. He needs to get back in the news and this is his way of doing so.

Nancy Pelosi Says the United States Is in a ‘Constitutional Crisis’

Horse hockey.

The only constitutional crisis is in Democrats’ synapses

I’m surprised they have any functioning brains cells.

This is all just more Democrat theater of the absurd.

House Democrats not getting their way is not a constitutional crisis. At some point the issue will land in court, and a court will determine whether the Executive Branch properly is withholding the material. Then more judges will rule on the appeal, and it will end up at the Supreme Court, in all likelihood.

If the Supreme Court rules that the material must be turned over, and if the administration defies that court ruling, then we have a crisis. I’m not sure it’s technically a constitutional crisis, because the constitution does not provide for judicial supremacy. But the norm since Marbury v. Madison in 1803 is that the judiciary’s interpretation of the law prevails.

Remember what is at issue. Congress has been offered the entire Mueller report except for grand jury material, which DOJ say it is prohibited from disclosing. Nothing in that slight percentage of grand jury material in the Mueller report changed Mueller’s conclusions, so it’s unlikely to be helpful to Democrats. Nadler and crew refused even to view the redactions related to classified material and ongoing investigations, which DOJ offered to provide for viewing. What Democrats want is not the grand jury material, but the ability to cry “constitutional crisis!” over being denied access.

At issue also are underlying investigation documents, which DOJ is not required to disclose (it didn’t even have to disclose the Mueller report), and would not normally be disclosed. Those files would contain unfiltered personal information about people, such as bank account and telephone records, and personal information about their lives. To turn that material over to the Democrats so it could leak within minutes would be the height of irresponsibility and would lead to the type of doxxing and savage internet and physical attacks we have seen #TheResistance carry out.

This is all part of the attempt to unwind the 2016 election. Trump and DOJ should play hardball, since Democrats are acting in bad faith.

At Sturm Ruger Annual Meeting, Activist Investors Push For ‘Smart Gun’ Products

For these ‘so-called activists’ (pro-marxist, anti-gun/American civil rights/capitalist system leftist Social Justice Warriors, FIFY) the ‘change in internal policy’ is to try and make the company do something that will eventually bankrupt the company and force closure. One more step on the road to the goal of only the government and other ‘approved’ people having access to arms.

The realization that there are people that can and who will be armed and that can and who will take ‘exception’ to tyrants– in any guise -concerns them since it’s a direct threat to the plans of forcing their idea of Utopia on Earth down the throats of the benighted masses who don’t know any better.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”— C. S. Lewis

At Sturm Ruger’s annual shareholder meeting in New London, N.H., Wednesday, the gun manufacturer defended its business model and rejected a push to unseat two board members.

In recent years Ruger, which is based in Connecticut and employs approximately 1,000 people at a facility in Newport, N.H., has been targeted by so-called activist investors who buy shares in publicly traded companies and then attempt to change internal policies.

Led by several faith-based groups who are members of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, those investors are pushing the company to reduce the risk of gun violence, in part, by developing “smart gun” products that can’t fire without an owner’s fingerprint or other unlocking feature.

Ruger CEO Christopher Killoy responded during the meeting that rolling out a line of these weapons would be a financial loser.

“While people think there is often a great market for ‘smart guns,’ or user-authorized technology, we are not seeing it,” he said.

The company’s decision to not pursue smart guns frustrated Colleen Scanlon, an activist investor with Catholic Health Initiatives, which is based in Colorado, where a school shooting on Tuesday killed one student and injured others.

“We find management’s decision dangerously short sighted. It ignores a significant business opportunity, as well as one of the most promising prospects for reducing gun violence,” Scanlon told shareholders.

Last year, Scanlon and other faith-based activist investors successfully persuaded Ruger shareholders to adopt a resolution requiring the company to produce a reportinvestigating the viability of smart guns and how the company assesses risks related to gun violence.

This year, the activist group failed in its efforts to remove two members of the board of directors, including Chairman Michael Jacobi and Sandra Froman, who served as NRA president in the mid 2000s……

David Harsanyi: Why Jerry Nadler’s ‘constitutional crisis’ talk is utter bull.

From the moment the central claim of the Russiagate conspiracy was decimated by the Mueller Report, Democrats have generated a series of manufactured outrages to keep the conspiracy dream alive.

Why the theatrics? Well, the scope of the Trump “collusion” theory has radically contracted from its heyday.

What was once “Donald Trump personally colluded with Vladimir Putin to steal the 2016 election for the Kremlin!” is now “Why won’t the attorney general release the entire unredacted version of a report that exonerates the president of collusion!” It doesn’t have quite the same bite.

So Democrats have moved from conspiracies about Russia to conspiracies about the report debunking the conspiracy.


Confused? No.
I’d say he’s stupid and -obviously – ambitious, which is dangerous

Presidential hopeful and New Jersey U.S. Senator Cory Booker has made headlines recently for his list of wildly unconstitutional gun control proposals. At the top of his list is requiring a government license to buy and own a firearm.

To make his case, Sen. Booker argues that if one needs a license to drive a car, the same should be required to own a gun. What he misses is that unlike the privilege of driving a car on public roads, owning a firearm is a Constitutional right. A better analogy is requiring a license to exercise the right to freedom of speech or to practice one’s religion. Of course, then even he would have to admit that would constitute a dangerous threat to our rights as Americans.

Barriers to Rights

He is arguing that it is ok to set up barriers to make it harder for law-abiding citizens to exercise their Constitutional right. As if requiring fees and photos and fingerprints will not necessarily prevent some from their right to protect themselves and their families is somehow acceptable, particularly those with less income and free time to spend in government lines. It wasn’t ok to require a poll tax for voting, why should it be ok to restrict the rights of citizens now?

So maybe he is just confused, and he hasn’t really thought this through. After all, why would he also be arguing for a return of the so-called assault weapon ban that did nothing to prevent criminals from committing crimes, or for microstamping technology that doesn’t actually exist?

Real Solutions

Perhaps if he actually wants to help ensure that those who should not have guns don’t get them, he should call for making sure all states and federal agencies submit their disqualifying records to the FBI’s background check database? Or help educate law-abiding citizens about options to safely store their firearms?

If he wants to know what policies actually work, we can help. The firearms and ammunition industry has real solutions for safer communities. And none of them require limiting any of the fundamental Constitutional rights we enjoy as U.S. citizens. Whether he is aware or not of how dangerous it is to toy with American freedoms, we hope he does his homework and supports actual solutions to the real problems in our country.

Meanwhile, if you are a firearms owner or anyone who cares about protecting the Constitution, you should be sure to register to vote