Category: Politics

American Communists Call for a Violent Takeover.. and the American People are Ready for Them

It is uncomfortable to face violent threats. We endure that discomfort because it is better to face them than run from them. Communists in the US have flocked to Senator Bernie Sanders’ campaign, and the things they want to do are horrible. Fortunately, we’ve faced threats like this before and we’re prepared to face them again. The US model of limited government and an empowered people is up to the dangerous task of defending liberty. We are made for this.

I’m not going to put words in the mouth of American Communists. Project Veritas recorded many Sanders’ staffers in candid conversations. These are their words, not mine. Please see my sources and listen to the Communists in their own words. It is worth your time to read what they said-

“Well, the Gulags were founded as Re-Education Camps…What will help is when we send all the Republicans to the Re-Education Camps.”

“I’m ready to start tearing bricks up and start fighting.. I’ll straight up get armed.. I’m ready for the ****** revolution, bro.. Guillotine the rich.”

“The Soviet Union was not horrible…I mean, for women’s rights the Soviet Union – I think – the most progressive place to date in the world.”

“So, do we just cease – do we just dissolve the Senate, House of Representatives, the Judicial Branch, and have something Bernie Sanders and a cabinet of people, make all decisions for the climate? I mean, I’m serious.”

“..I think the goal is just to build a..coalition… Their politics fall outside of the American norm, so their politics are Marxist/Leninist.. they have more of a mind for ‘direct action’ for engaging in politics outside of the electoral system.”

“…Once we break up Google, YouTube, Facebook, nationalize these things, then that would be a huge thing forward so far as education stuff goes.”

“We would need a federal government and labor union movement that is working together to strip power away from capitalists and preferably directing violence toward property.”

“..it’s gonna take militancy…like a militant labor movement that’s willing to…strike, and if necessary, you know, just destroy property and things like that.”

“A militant labor movement is kind of.. our last real chance before we try other means.” 

“After we abolish landlords, we don’t have to kill them, that’s my feeling I think it’s damaging to the soul, but um, there were plenty of excesses in 1917 (Russian Revolution) I would hope to avoid.”

“We don’t want to scare people off, you first have to feel it out before you get into the crazy stuff…You know we were talking about more extreme organizations like Antifa, you were talking about, Yellow Vests, all that but we’re kinda keeping that on the back-burner for now.”

“It’s unfortunate that we have to make plans for extreme action but like I said, they’re not going to give it to us even if Bernie is elected.”

Communists in the Sanders campaign said they would take power by force once elected, or burn cities if the convention, or the voters, rejected their candidate. Politicians who still call themselves Democrats also want ordinary citizens disarmed. That strange coincidence is no coincidence at all.

Bernie’s campaign workers are not alone in their ideas. Their fellow communists, the Ruling Council in China, said Americans should be disarmed. Remember that the Chinese government killed over 10 thousand unarmed students who were protesting in Tiananmen Square. The Bernie Bros want to bring that level of terror here. I’ll remind you that 10 thousand dead students at is a mere dust mote when compared to the 45 million people the Chinese government killed during Mao’s “Great Leap”. The Bernie Bros think a few million corpses here in the United States will bend us to their will.

Communists Utopia is always a few million corpses away.

Here’s the Transcript of the first 5 minutes – the final 90 seconds is a repetition.

During the proceedings, I asked a question that was disallowed, and I’m going to ask that question again this morning. Because the Constitution does protect debate, and it does protect the asking of questions.

I think they made a big mistake now allowing my question. My question did not talk anybody who is a whistleblower; my question did not accuse anybody of being a whistleblower; it did not make a statement believing someone was a whistleblower. I simply named two peoples’ names, because I think it’s very important to know what happened.

We are now finding out that the FISA investigation was predicated upon 17 lies by the FBI, by people at high levels who were biased against the President, and it turns out it was an illegitimate investigation. Everything they did to investigate the President was untrue, and it involved people using the government to do things that should have never been done in the first place.

So I asked this question, and this is my question: Are you aware that the House Committee staffer, Sean Misko, had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella while they were at the National Security Council together? How would you respond to reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal House impeachment proceedings?

Why did I ask this question? Because there are news reports saying these two people, one of whom works for Adam Schiff, and one of them who worked with this person at the NSC, that they knew each other and had been overheard talking about impeaching the President in the first month of his office. In January of 2017, they were already plotting the impeachment.

And you say, well, we should protect the whistleblower, and the whistleblower deserve anonymity. The law does not preserve anonymity.

His boss is not supposed to say anything about him, he’s not supposed to be fired – I’m for that. But when you get into the details of talking about whistleblowers, there’s a variety of opinions around here.

The greatest whistleblower in American history in all likelihood was Edward Snowden. What do people here want to do with him? Half the people here want to put him to death; the other half want to put him in jail forever. So, it depends on what you blow the whistle on, whether or not they’re for the whistleblower statute.

I’m not for retributions on the whistleblower. I don’t want him to go to jail, I don’t want him to lose his job. But if six people who all worked together at the NSC knew each other and gamed the system, knowing that they would get these protections, they gamed the system in order to try to bring down the President, we should know about that.

If they had extreme bias going into the impeachment, we should know about that.

So, I think the question is an important one, and I think we should still get to the bottom of it.

Were people plotting to bring down the President? They were plotting in advance of the election – were they plotting within the halls of government to bring down the President?

Look, these people also knew the Vindman brothers, who are still in government. So, you’ve got two Vindman brothers over there who know Eric Ciaramella, who also know Sean Misko, who also knew two other people now working on Adam Schiff’s staff.

And Adam Schiff throws his hands up and says, ‘I don’t know who the whistleblower is, I’ve never met him. I have no idea who he is.’

So, if he doesn’t know who he is, the President’s counsel doesn’t know who he is, how does the Chief Justice of the United States know who the whistleblower is? I have no independent confirmation from anyone in the government as to who the whistleblower is.

So, how am I prevented from asking a question, when nobody seems to know who this person is?

My point is, that by having such protections, such overzealous protection, we don’t get to the root of the matter how this started. Because this could happen again.

When the institution of the bureaucracy, the intelligence community with all the power to listen into every phone conversation you have, has political bias and can game the system to go after you, that’s a real worry.

It’s a real worry that they spied on the President, but what if you’re just an average American? What if you’re just a supporter of President Trump, or you’re a Republican or you’re a conservative? Are we not concerned that secret courts could allow for warrants to listen to your phone calls, to tap into your emails, to read your text messages? I’m very concerned about that.

So, we’re going to have this discussion go on. It really isn’t about the whistleblower so much, it’s about reforming government. It’s about limiting the power of what they can do as secret courts.

Virginia Senate blocks another Northam-backed gun bill

The Virginia Senate blocked one of Gov. Ralph Northam’s top gun-control bills Monday, adding to the list of measures the Democratic governor supports that may not pass the legislature.

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted against a bill that would make it a felony to “recklessly leave a loaded, unsecured firearm” in a way that endangers a minor.

It’s one of eight gun-related proposals that Northam has urged lawmakers to adopt. Virginia has become ground zero in the nation’s raging debate over gun control and mass shootings as a new Democratic majority seeks to enact strict new limits. Last month, tens of thousands of guns-rights activists from around the country flooded the Capitol and surrounding area in protest, some donning tactical gear and carrying military rifles.

Two moderate Democrats — Sens. Creigh Deeds and Chap Petersen — joined with Republicans to defeat the bill Monday over concerns that law-abiding gun owners could be unfairly punished.

A similar measure has already passed the House, and the legislation could still pass the Senate later during this year’s legislative session.

Lawmakers have already signaled that at least one other Northam-backed gun-control bill — a ban on so-called assault weapons like the popular AR-15-syle rifles — may not pass.

 

Washington: House Committee Passes Mag Ban & CPL Restriction Bills

When I was stationed at Ft Lewis way back when even dirt was new, I applied for and got my first ever CCW permit as there was no such thing, except for Law Enforcement officers,  in Missouri at that time (Missouri is now a permitless carry state, surpassing Washington- sorry  Bob) . The only thing required then was that I could pass a background check. While I have always advised people get as much training as they can handle, having gubbermint mandate it is just another form of a poll tax.

On January 31st, the House Civil Rights and Judiciary Committee voted to pass bills to ban most standard capacity magazines and make it more difficult to obtain a CPL. These bills will now go to the Rules Committee awaiting being pulled to the House floor. Please contact your state Representative and ask them to OPPOSE House Bills 2240 and 1315.

House Bill 2240, as passed out of committee, bans the manufacture, possession, sale, transfer, etc. of magazines that hold more than fifteen rounds of ammunition. This measure is strongly supported by the Governor and the Attorney General. These so called “high capacity” magazines are in fact standard equipment for commonly-owned firearms that many Americans legally and effectively use for an entire range of legitimate purposes, such as self-defense or competition. Those who own non-compliant magazines prior to the ban are only allowed to possess them on their own property and in other limited instances such at licensed shooting ranges or while hunting. These magazines have to be transported unloaded and locked separately from firearms and stored at home locked, making them unavailable for self-defense.

House Bill 1315 requires onerous government red tape and further training to obtain a Concealed Pistol License. Mandatory training requirements are yet another cost prohibitive measure intended to ensure that lower income Americans are barred from defending themselves.

Again, please contact your state Representative and ask them to OPPOSE House Bills 2240 and 1315.

Gun rights advocate Dick Heller, left, and Kentucky U.S. representative, Thomas Massie, get the crowd fired up during a second amendment rally in Frankfort, Ky. on Friday. Jan. 31, 2020

Gun rights advocate Dick Heller, left, and Kentucky U.S. representative, Thomas Massie, get the crowd fired up during a second amendment rally  today at the state capitol in Frankfort, Kentucky.

Signs are raised high during the Second Amendment gun rally at the Capitol in Frankfort, Ky on Friday morning. Jan. 31, 2020

VEXIT: West Virginia governor invites Virginia counties to join his state amid gun control push back
West Virginia Governor Jim Justice and Liberty University President Jerry Falwell, announced that legislation has been passed to send an open invitation to any Virginia county that wants to join West Virginia amid gun control push back in Richmond.

It’s an interesting idea.

The only problem is that the Virginia legislature as well as the U.S. legislature have to sign off on it too.

Michael Bloomberg Isn’t Really Running For President, And That Should Worry You
The staff, the ad spending, the campaigning — Michael Bloomberg was going to do all of this to defeat President Donald Trump already. Doing it as a ‘candidate’ exempts him from limits on PACs and political donations.

Everyone was saying he was running just because he’s a narcissistic ass, but figuring it’s personal since they’re both NooYawk billionaires and he hates Trump’s guts is more reasonable. And just because he is a billionaire and apparently doesn’t mind spending a billion here and a billion there doesn’t mean if he can figure out a good deal, he won’t use it.

There is very good reason to believe Michael Bloomberg isn’t actually running for president.

Of course, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. For one, he declared he is. He’s also hired more than 1,000 staff and is still expanding, offering salaries far above campaign averages. This week, he became the first of the declared candidates to have campaigned in all 14 states of March 3’s Super Tuesday primary battle, and he’s spent a quarter billion on political advertising so far. All would point toward Bloomberg indeed running for president.

But here’s the snag: He wanted to do all of this anyway. Everything, that is, but the declaration bit. That, he was loathe to do. But the staff, the ad spending, the campaigning — he was going to do all of this to defeat President Donald Trump already, and we know this because he told us so.

As early as February 2019, the billionaire pledged he’d spend at least $500 million to defeat the president as either a candidate or as what Politico called “a shadow political party for the Democratic nominee.” That massive spend, the report continued, represents “just 1 percent of Bloomberg’s estimated net worth.”

Just a month later, the wealthy New Yorker laughed at the idea he would ever run for president, mocking “Amtrak Joe” Biden for apologizing “for being male, over 50 [and] white,” and Beh-tóh O’Rourke, who Bloomberg joked had “apologized for being born.” Well, a few months later he jumped in anyway. But does the world-renowned winner have any intention of actually winning the nomination?

We might all agree it is strange to hear the hyper-competitive Bloomberg declare he will pay his sizable staff to work on behalf of the people who are supposed to be his primary opponents. His “army of some 500 staffers will march on through the general election in November even if he loses the Democratic nomination, campaign officials [told] NBC News” back when he employed a measly 500 staffers.

Of course, Bloomberg has said the same of the now $2 billion he’s reportedly willing to spend for any campaign to defeat Trump.

This magnanimity in defeat doesn’t seem to square with Michael Bloomberg, cut-throat capitalist billionaire, but it does make sense when viewed in the light of his Bloomberg News empire, which loses money every year. The losses don’t seem to bother Bloomberg, because in this aspect of business he is a man who wants his ideas in the world and is willing to pay to make it happen.

So why declare? Simply put, the billionaire mayor gets a lot more for his money as a candidate than he ever could as a donor or even as the operator of a super PAC.

First, there are limits to what a donor can give a campaign, and $2 billion is way out of the question. Even so, Bloomberg could pour billions into an organization to sway elections, as Charles Koch and George Soros seek to do. Then, there’s something campaigns have that no PAC has — and that’s access to the best rates the market has to offer.

See, super PACs pay more for everything. And not a little more: Depending on the spend, these outfits pay maybe double what a candidate for office must pay for advertisements in digital, radio, cable, newspapers, network television, and even mail.

By law, candidates for office are entitled to the best treatment a station can give. “In the 45 days before a primary and the 60 days before a general election,” Radio & Television Business Report explains, “legally qualified candidates get the lowest rate for a spot that is then running on the station within any class of advertising time and particular daypart.”

If a private entity earned a bonus spot, the ability for his ads to preempt other ads, or any other perks, those must also be made available to the person running for office. Someone is getting a deal for buying in bulk? Then so is the candidate, even if the campaign isn’t buying in bulk. And on and on.

Sanders Campaign Rocked Again: More Staff Caught Advocating Violence Against Opponents

2020 Democratic Party presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) campaign was rocked again on Tuesday after James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas released more undercover footage exposing paid Sanders campaign staffers appearing to advocate for violence against political opponents.

The new video from Project Veritas allegedly shows Sanders campaign South Carolina field organizers Mason Baird and Daniel Taylor advocating for “extreme action” and “militancy” against political opponents and private property.

I Was Wrong – They Want War

Q: Marta, why in the world would you have ever thought otherwise?
A: Look, I’m a veteran. I’ve been deployed to warzones. Violence is the last damn thing I ever want to see – especially violence that tears this nation apart. I wanted every possible, honest, honorable chance to settle this peaceably. But I’m beginning to realize, that’s not what the Democrats want. Period. That’s why.

I admit it – I was wrong.

Last week I advised that the best course of action as the left attacks our rights is to keep a civil course, wow them with facts, decency, and knowledge and defend our rights with knowledge, passion, and eloquence.

I felt that we could win based on logic and rational discourse, but having watched the events of this week unfold in front of my eyes, I realize just how wrong I was.

I thought that after engaging with our political opponents en masse, peacefully stating our concerns, and rationally discussing the issues of due process and Second Amendment rights in Richmond, the Democrats would step away from their insane assault on our freedoms.

I was wrong.

Despite concerns which the Democrats admitted to have had about the proposed “red flag law” during discussions with the press and with gun rights advocates, they advanced this appalling legislation the very next day after the massive rally in Richmond, disingenuously claiming that the measure is “thoughtful” and preserves due process. They jammed through other appalling bills, limiting the ability of peaceable Virginians to exercise their rights, without so much as a second thought, claiming that “elections have consequences.”

A Democratic-led House committee voted Friday for several pieces of gun legislation that a Republican majority has blocked for years. Those bills include limiting handgun purchases to once a month; universal background checks on gun purchases; allowing localities to ban guns in public buildings, parks and other areas; and a red flag bill that would allow authorities to temporarily take guns away from anyone deemed to be dangerous to themselves or others.

Based on previous interactions with some of these legislators, I thought they would give consideration to the people whom they represent, even if those people didn’t vote for them or disagree with them politically.

I was wrong.

Virginia Democrats are now in the process of jamming bills down our throats that threatens our First Amendment rights. It’s already illegal to threaten to kill, injure, bomb, etc. government buildings or officials in Virginia, but Senate Bill 1627 goes a step further.

The bar for harassment is already as low as “vulgar language” in Virginia’s code 18.2-152.7:1: If any person, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass any person, shall use a computer or computer network to communicate obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language, or make any suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature, or threaten any illegal or immoral act, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. Bourne’s bill proposes adding the following amendment: A violation of this section may be prosecuted in the jurisdiction in which the communication was made or received or in the City of Richmond if the person subjected to the act is one of the following officials or employees of the Commonwealth: the Governor, Governor-elect, Lieutenant Governor, Lieutenant Governor-elect, Attorney General, or Attorney General-elect, a member or employee of the General Assembly, a justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, or a judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia.

Bourne’s Bill also changes the language of “he shall be guilty” to “he is guilty” of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

Not only do the twisted, power-hungry politicians in Richmond want to relieve you of your right to keep and bear arms, but they want to criminalize criticism of the very elected officials Virginians put into office!

Let’s remember, boys and girls. These pernicious ***** work for us, but they’re trying to keep themselves in power by silencing detractors and appealing to fetid ignorami.

And if you think this trend is limited to Virginia, you would be wrong too.

The proglodyte sociopaths have a chokehold on the Democrats, so much that they feel they have to pander to their insanity by promising abortions on demand for biological males and paying off billions of dollars in college loans at taxpayer expense, while screwing Americans who have been fiscally responsible with their earnings.

I thought there were sane Democrats left in this country.

I was wrong.

There may be some decent leftists here and there, but the shrieking, perpetually aggrieved progressive parasites have taken over, and they want you silenced and stripped of any dignity and freedoms.

The “Wax My Balls” and “Make My Cake, Bigot” woke fascists want war, and they might just get it……….

I thought the Democrats wanted the same things for our nation as we do, and we merely disagreed on the best way to accomplish this.

I was wrong.

They don’t care about human rights, as they claim. They care about giving themselves power over you, over your thoughts, over your achievements and earnings. They don’t consider you human.

They want to burn it all down, and they will do whatever is necessary to ensure that happens. OK, let’s see what happens.

They want you gone. Act accordingly.

Let the word go forth:

This is the most conservative of all the Democratic presidential candidates, note well.

So, as the man says, let’s be clear: if you think it might be a bad idea for biological males to compete against your daughter in the high school women’s sports league, or that biological males do not belong in your daughter’s or wife’s locker room, or even if you dissent from gender ideology at all, as the left-wing feminist J.K. Rowling did publicly late last year — then you are on the same side as Bull Connor and the Ku Klux Klan, and will deserve the hatred you receive.

This is how left-wing identity politics works today. The Age of Entitlement, Christopher Caldwell’s dark, provocative new book illuminates how the concept of “civil rights” has been weaponized to demolish constitutional principles. If you’ve heard anything about the book, it’s probably something along the lines of this Jonathan Rauch review in the NYT. Excerpts:

In Caldwell’s telling, the Civil Rights Act, which banned many forms of discrimination, was a swindle. Billed as a one-time correction that would end segregation and consign race consciousness to the past, it actually started an endless and escalating campaign of race-conscious social engineering. Imperialistically, civil rights expanded to include “people of color” and immigrants and gays and, in short, anyone who was not native-born, white and straight — all in service of “the task that civil rights laws were meant to carry out — the top-down management of various ethnic, regional and social groups.”

With civil rights as their bulldozer, in Caldwell’s view, progressive movements ran amok. They “could now, through the authority of civil rights law, override every barrier that democracy might seek to erect against them”; the law and rhetoric of civil rights “gave them an iron grip on the levers of state power.”

Perhaps the author should have come up for oxygen when he found himself suggesting that the Southern segregationists were right all along. Reading this overwrought and strangely airless book, one would never imagine a different way of viewing things, one that rejects Caldwell’s ultimatum to “choose between these two orders.” In that view — my own — America has seen multiple refoundings, among them the Jackson era’s populism, the Civil War era’s abolition of slavery, the Progressive era’s governmental reforms and the New Deal era’s economic and welfare interventions. All of them, like the civil rights revolution, sparked tense and sometimes violent clashes between competing views of the Constitution and basic rights, but in my version of history, those tensions proved not only survivable but fruitful, and working through them has been an engine of dynamism and renewal, not destruction and oppression. I worry about the illiberal excesses of identity politics and political correctness, but I think excesses is what they are, and I think they, too, can be worked through. Being a homosexual American now miraculously married to my husband for almost a decade, I can’t help feeling astonished by a history of America since 1964 that finds space for only one paragraph briefly acknowledging the civil rights movement’s social and moral achievements — before hastening back to “But the costs of civil rights were high.”

Perhaps most depressingly, Caldwell’s account, even if one accepts its cramped view of the Constitution and its one-eyed moral bookkeeping, leads nowhere. It proffers no constructive alternative, no plausible policy or path. The author knows perfectly well that there will be no “repeal of the civil rights laws.” He foresees only endless, grinding, negative-sum cultural and political warfare between two intractably opposed “constitutions.” His vision is a dead end. Unfortunately, it also seems to be where American conservatism is going.

Rauch is not wrong in his description of the most controversial part of Caldwell’s book. Caldwell really does see the Civil Rights regime as where things went badly wrong. But Rauch, in my view, doesn’t take on Caldwell’s actual argument, but only asserts that these conflicts “can be worked through.” Boy, is that ever whistling past the graveyard. However, I have to admit that I never would have read a book that claimed the Civil Rights movement went wrong had it not been written by someone I respect as much as I do Christopher Caldwell. I read the book last week, and I’m glad I did, though I doubt I will read a more unsettling book all year………..

I strongly urge you to read Caldwell’s book, and not to assume that you understand it from reviews. Let me get one thing out of the way now: Caldwell does NOT say that segregation was right. For example, he denounces the Jim Crow South as a confederacy of “sham democracies,” and agrees that its apartheid system had to change. Yet the manner in which the state demolished segregation had dramatic unintended consequences. Caldwell’s argument is more like that of Sir Thomas More in this famous exchange from the Robert Bolt play A Man For All Seasons:

Roper: So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law?

More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!

More: Oh? And, when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you – where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast – man’s laws, not God’s – and, if you cut them down – and you’re just the man to do it – d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.

Caldwell argues that to get at the devil of segregation, we cut down constitutional principles that are now destroying constitutional principles that few people in 1964 imagined would one day be at risk.

 Trump at the March for Life Seals Irrelevancy of Never Trumpers.

Even Reagan never did this.
Trump did it because he’s Trump.

Like Donald Trump, I attended my first March for Life this year. I didn’t march. Instead, I was there to record the faces and screams of the angry ugly left as I often do at these sorts of events.

Stunningly, the angry ugly left didn’t show up. That’s understandable because whenever the momentum is against the left, they ignore their opposition. I see this firsthand all the time when it comes to voter fraud and especially when racial discrimination is done by the traditional victims of discrimination.

What did become clear was that Never Trump Republicans looked even more ridiculous at the end of the March for Life than they did that morning.

Trump was embraced by the largest gathering of pro-life Americans and Trump embraced them. Trump at the March for Life:

Sadly, the far-left is actively working to erase our God-given rights, shut down faith-based charities, ban religious believers from the public square, and silence Americans who believe in the sanctity of life. They are coming after me because I am fighting for you and we are fighting for those who have no voice.

Never Trump Republicans can’t imagine a man like Trump attending the March for Life.

Never Trumpism is built on a foundation of sanctimony.

These sanctimonious few don’t like how Trump speaks. They don’t like his bombast. They don’t like his past. He’s not George Bush.

Get over it. He’s winning.

‘Ready To Move On’: David Axelrod Says Focus Group Of Democrats Didn’t Care About Impeachment

By November the demoncrap electorate will have nearly forgotten about this. I hope the Republican electorate hasn’t and thrashes the opposition hip and thigh.

Staunton City Council puts Second Amendment discussions on work session agenda

Hobie! Can you keep us informed?

STAUNTON, Va. (WHSV) — Thursday’s Staunton City Council work session agenda includes consideration of a discussion about the city’s Second Amendment status, focusing on whether or not to allow a public hearing on the topic of becoming a ‘Second Amendment Sanctuary.’

Staunton City Council

While members of the public have voiced their opinions on the issue at regularly scheduled Staunton City Council meetings in recent weeks, Councilwoman Andrea Oakes said the council has not had any type of discussion as a body of government yet.

“We normally do not have a public hearing for a resolution, so in order to allow the public hearing, the council has to be in the majority vote to allow it, and that’s what I want,” Oakes said.

The Second Amendment status has not been on the agenda for the past few meetings, but community members still showed up to voice their opinions during the ‘matters of the public period’ period.

Around two dozen people spoke on Jan. 10, with the majority speaking against the idea of the city adopting a resolution, but others speaking in favor of the resolution and against proposed bills in the General Assembly.

Oakes said having an official public hearing for the people of Staunton would allow council to have a better idea of what the people want, and how the council should move forward.

Oakes said she’s in favor of having the discussion.

“Having it as a public hearing would put it on the record. I will be official. We will advertise it so everyone will know about it, and then we will have a proper venue, where folks can come out, have a platform and have their voice heard,” Oakes said.

If the council is able to agree to have a public hearing, Oakes hopes it will happen at the council’s next meeting in February.

 

Republicans Note How Schiff Just Threw Nadler ‘Under the Bus’

I actually set up late and watched this charade. As you might think, the House Managers; Shiff & Nadler act like whiny junior high schoolers.

Chief Justice Roberts, probably our of the desire to remain to be seen as ‘neutral’, gave both sides a pretty stern warning for a Senate proceeding.

Lead impeachment manager Adam Schiff is doing some damage control on Wednesday. Damage that was done by his own colleague, fellow chairman and fellow impeachment manager Jerry Nadler. Late Tuesday night, as the Senate was debating (and rejecting) the amendments presented by Chuck Schumer, Nadler accused the GOP senators of breaking their constitutional oaths and of engaging in a White House “cover up.”

“The only one who should be embarrassed, Mr. Nadler, is you for the way you’ve addressed this body,” White House lead counsel Pat Cipollone said in reply.

The back and forth was so tense that Chief Justice John Roberts had to admonish the teams and urge them to keep it civil.

“I wouldn’t have done that,” Trump counsel Jay Sekulow said of Nadler’s comments. “And then pointing that out on multiple times and talking to the United States Senate about their oath, I thought was a very dangerous move.”

Perhaps that’s why Schiff shielded Nadler from answering any reporters’ questions on Wednesday.

https://twitter.com/EliseStefanik/status/1220048755732500481