Category: Crap For Brains

Gun-Control Exec Says Attempts to Sell Guns to Minorities, Women ‘Incredibly Dangerous’ .

The leader of a gun-control group decried efforts to sell firearms to minorities and women as “incredibly dangerous” on Monday.

“Gun makers are softening their image to ‘put a better face in front of people’ & ‘ramp up its appeal to women, children and members of minority groups,'” Igor Volsky, executive director of gun-control activist group Guns Down America, said in a tweet. Volsky, who is also a former vice president of the Center for American Progress, was commenting on a New York Times story about firearms marketing.

“That’s right,” Volsky continued. “Gun makers are increasingly advertising to WOMEN, CHILDREN & MINORITY COMMUNITIES. Firearm industry realizes that to survive into the future it must ‘broaden its reach beyond the aging white men who have been its core customers’—and so they’re now trying to sell their products to other demographics. This is incredibly dangerous.”

The comments caused a backlash among female and minority gun-rights advocates who said Volsky’s rhetoric harks back to the racist history of gun control in America. Maj Toure, head of the Black Guns Matter Tour that provides firearms training to African Americans in urban areas, told the Washington Free Beacon Volsky was “uninformed” about past attempts to deny black Americans their Second Amendment rights.

“The overt racism of gun control rears its ugly head again,” Toure said. “Imagine being either so uninformed on the racist roots of gun control or so full of yourself that you would not only think but also believe that melinated Americans owning guns would be incredibly dangerous. I wonder what he thinks of the thousands of melinated law enforcement officers and military personnel that carry firearms to protect life as well?”

Female activists also took issue with Volsky’s patronizing language. Robyn Sandoval, executive director of the shooting league A Girl and A Gun, said increasing gun ownership among women promotes safety.

“Self-defense is a basic human right regardless of gender or ethnicity,” Sandoval told the Free Beacon. “To suggest that minorities and women are less capable of making good decisions or do not have the same need to keep their families safe is condescending and irrational.”

Sandoval also said the growth in female-focused products and marketing is a response to women wanting to own firearms.

“Gun manufacturers aren’t luring more women into gun ownership,” she said. “Rather, the demand by women interested in self defense, hunting, and sport allows opportunities for manufacturers to provide firearms that meet women’s needs and goals.”

Dianna Muller, founder of the all-female gun-rights group DC Project, also called Volsky’s remarks “condescending.” She added that “The 2nd Amendment is for everyone” and that “Perhaps the women are going to the manufacturers and asking for specific features that suit their needs.”

Volsky did not elaborate on why selling guns to women or minorities is dangerous in his initial Twitter thread and did not respond to a request for comment.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the firearms industry’s trade group, said the gun control proposals backed by Volsky would deprive women and minorities of their gun rights……..

Leave It to Wacky Bernie to Create an Entirely New and Totally False Gun Control Talking Point

During a Monday night town hall with CNN, Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) was asked what he would do to prevent another mass shooting, like what took place at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston in 2015. Sanders raddled off the typical anti-gun talking points of passing universal background checks, ending the “gun show loophole” and banning so-called “assault weapons.” He did, however, create a new gun control argument that is totally false: the idea that a “strawman provision” takes place.

“It’s very clear to me that there’s a growing consensus in this country. I’m not going to tell you everybody agrees on every nuance, but there is a growing consensus between gun owners, non-gun owners, rural states like mine and urban states, about several things,” Sanders explained.

“Number one: we need universal background checks. People who have a violent past, including domestic violence, should not be owning guns,” he said.

“Number two: we have to end the so-called ‘gun show loophole,’ which allows people to legally purchase guns while avoiding a background check.”

“Number three: we gotta end the so-called ‘strawman provision,’ which allows you to walk in, buy as many guns as you want, and then sell them to gangs and criminal elements,” Sanders explained. “Number four: what we gotta do – and something that I have supported for like 30 years – is ban the sale and distribution of assault weapons in this country.”

We all know universal background checks won’t actually fix the issues we have had over the last several years. Just look at how many shooters passed their background checks because they didn’t have a criminal history (Las Vegas) or law enforcement agencies failed to properly flag or investigate warnings they received (Charleston and Parkland). Then there are the cases where the gunman illegally obtained their firearm (Sandy Hook).

The real solution here is to make the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) as wholesome as possible. The Fix NICS Act requires law enforcement agencies to submit criminal convictions to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), which oversees NICS. The first semi-annual report in November showed an additional six million convictions were added to the system, but many are still missing. And again, background checks are only helpful if a prohibited possessor decides to attempt to purchase a firearm through a gun dealer.

There is no such thing as the “gun show loophole.” Most of the sellers at gun showers are Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs). By law, they’re required to perform background checks on all sales, regardless of where the sale takes place (either at a gun show or at their brick and mortar store). A private transaction can take place in certain states without a background check. And it doesn’t have to happen at a gun show. If the seller believes the buyer is a prohibited possessor or is on any kind of controlled substance, the sale is actually deemed illegal.

“Assault weapon” is a made-up term for guns that are big, black and scary. And what makes a firearm, like an AR-15, legal vs. illegal? Cosmetic features, like a collapsible stock and a detachable magazine. Nothing that actually changes the function of the firearm. In anti-gunners’ minds, how the gun looks changes whether or not it’s a semi-automatic or fully automatic. Hint: it doesn’t.

The thing that Bernie said that was surprising is his “strawman provision” comment. It is definitely illegal for someone to complete a “straw purchase.” These purchases are when someone who has no criminal convictions or have not been deemed mentally incompetent decide to purchase a firearm on behalf of someone else. They fill out a 4473 form, which is used for the background check. They lie, say the firearm is for themselves. They then go to the black market and sell the gun or knowingly give it to a prohibited possessor.

People like Bernie need to quit reciting talking points handed to them from Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action. Instead, they should take an hour and learn the basics of firearm legislation before they propose making things illegal. They can’t make something even more illegal than it already is. And the sad part is people believe 100 percent of the things he says. But because he invoked the typical “I’ll take on the NRA” type of comment, his followers ate up what he said.

‘Intimidated and scared’: State senator wants to ban weapons from Capitol

This Nervous Nellie Nebraskan fails to get this:
“Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty.”–John Basil Barnhill, 1914

LINCOLN, Neb. —
State Sen. Machaela Cavanaugh believes the intent of the men who brought assault rifles to the Capitol Friday was to intimidate lawmakers.

“I was scared. I was worried about how someone might react to my bill and what I had to say might trigger a dangerous reaction,” Cavanaugh said.

Cavanaugh spoke from the legislative floor Monday to voice her concerns over the state’s open carry law.

“Allowing weapons in this building, especially into committee rooms suppresses the voices of those who stand in opposition to the gun holders,” she said. “It was clearly the intent to intimidate this body.”

Cavanaugh sponsors a bill that would prohibit someone convicted of a domestic violence crime from owning or possessing a gun. Her bill, LB 958 and John McCollister’s bill, LB 816 heard testimony Friday. McCollister’s bill deals with suicide prevention training, five-day background checks and a two-day waiting period.

Gordon Senator Tom Brewer, a staunch second amendment supporter also spoke about the turnout of hundreds of gun rights supporters Friday.

“I openly said I didn’t think there was a need for anyone to bring a gun into this building,” Brewer said.

That being said, he believes the 90-second committee rule to limit testimony did a disservice to the gun rights advocates who wanted to speak.

“All I’m asking, let’s not write dumb bills to cause people to get stirred up and come into this building and want to speak and then deny them the ability to speak,” he said.

Cavanaugh said she doesn’t want to see another gun brought into the Capitol and she is looking into how to end the open carry law at the state building.

“We clearly have no protocols in place to address this body and the public when 400 citizens converge on the Capitol to express their viewpoint, while likely carrying a deadly weapon,” she said.

The men with guns do have the support of Gov. Pete Ricketts.

“I support our Second Amendment rights and I support our folks who are going to take advantage of that with our right to open carry,” he said. “That’s what we have in the state of Nebraska and this is the people’s house.”

 

State lawmaker proposes statewide database for gun permit holders

Missouri started out in  way similar to this back in 2004, and a few years later it was discovered that the state was selling the personal information of permittees to commercial advertisers. Now each Sheriff issues and manages that county’s CCW system for those people who still desire to have a CCW permit for interstate reciprocity. Alabama should continue as they are because a centralized system has been shown to be ripe for abuse.

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. (WBRC) – One state lawmaker wants to create a statewide database of people with concealed carry permits.

Representative Proncey Robertson says a statewide database of concealed carry gun permit holders available to law enforcement is needed in Alabama. He claims the county-by-county application process in sheriffs’ offices isn’t secure.

“When you go in there and give them your personal information, addresses, social security numbers, date of birth… all this sort of stuff to put on that, its setting there in a very non secure location,” Robertson, (R)-District 7 said.

Robertson says the new system will be monitored by state law enforcement. Each sheriff’s office will have a log in to access the database. The system will also be updated to show who is prohibited from carrying weapons.

Guns rights groups like BamaCarry are unloading on this bill.

“They need to back off of trying to regulate people who lawfully carry weapons,” Eddie Fulmer with BamaCarry said.

Fulmer believes people who aren’t supposed to have a gun should be the only ones in the system

‘We’re All Going to Die of Climate Change!’, Warns Shock JP Morgan Report

Yeah, when the econuts go with the usual ‘carbon tax’ you know you’re simply looking at another method for graft.

Human life ‘as we know it’ is threatened by climate change and there may be ‘catastrophic outcomes’ unless urgent action is taken, two house economists at JP Morgan have warned in an explosive report ‘Risky Business – the Climate and the Macroeconomy’.

The report’s authors, David Mackie and Jessica Murray, warn that ‘climate change would not only impact GDP and welfare directly but would also have indirect effects via morbidity, mortality, famine, water stress, conflict, and migration.’

“We cannot rule out catastrophic outcomes where human life as we know it is threatened”, they add darkly, urging the immediate introduction of a global carbon tax to avert potential disaster.

Then again, they say, covering their bets, it may do none of those things because climate change is very unpredictable.

Their report has been greeted with undisguised rapture by the leftist media – including the BBC and the Guardian – delighted to have all its prejudices confirmed by an apparently rigorous study produced by a bank which it has previously criticised because of its investments in fossil fuels.

Wiser heads, however, recognise that the report is yet another climatological nothingburger cobbled together from the usual, compromised, dubious alarmist studies by a pair of economists with no special knowledge to bring to the party.

The report is not merely wrong but culpably misleading – the kind of false prospectus which would normally get any financial organisation promoting it into heaps of legal trouble.

Where it particularly falls down is in its reliance on RCP8.5. This is the so-called ‘business as usual’ (BAU) scenario which climate alarmists have for years being using on their computer models to predict potentially catastrophic temperature rises of the kind mentioned in the JP Morgan report.

The problem with RCP8.5 is that as Judith Curry, Roger Pielke Jr and others have pointed out, there is no real world evidence to support its hysterical predictions. On the contrary, as time goes by, the doomsday predictions of the RCP8.5 models look like a risible fantasy of no scientific value whatsoever.

As Jaime Jessop writes:

In the absence also of any observably catastrophic global rise in temperature throughout the 21st century (which not even ‘pause-busting’ adjustments to temperature data could conjure up), alarmists have turned to inventing imminent future catastrophes via the invocation of highly speculative ‘tipping points’ which supposedly will be ‘triggered’ at imaginary and entirely ad hoc global warming thresholds (1.5C, 2C, 3C etc. relative to pre-industrial baseline). They have also increasingly employed the highly unrealistic ‘business as usual’ scenario RCP8.5 to supercharge their global warming projections in order to manufacture climate alarmist narratives in the media, a strategy which only in the last couple of months has started to be seriously questioned. Roger Pielke Jr has recently been at the vanguard of the movement to expose the misuse of this nightmarishly unrealistic scenario as ‘business as usual’.

Apart from being alarmist propaganda bilge, the report’s other most dishonest feature is the way that it is being spun as something uncharacteristic of the financial industry.

In fact, the financial sector has long since capitulated to climate alarmism, not least because its dodgier operators – see Al Gore as an early example of this – have recognised the green scam as a route to easy profit.

It is, in fact, probably the single most alarming thing about the great global warming con: that big money is now so heavily involved in promoting it that it may be impossible for honest science or economic and political integrity to win the battle against all the mendacious and cynical vested interests seeking to profit from it (at the expense, of course, of all the little people).

This is what Terence Corcoran warns of here:

New plans to overthrow market-driven investment systems are a constant feature of today’s global financial scene. The recent appointment of Bank of England Governor Mark Carney as the UN’s special envoy for climate action and finance signals a renewed international effort to turn the world’s energy investors into pawns of state climate activists and agitators for market-distorting policies.

The movement to subvert markets, however, is much bigger than Carney. It is now accepted dogma globally that the financial markets are unreliable, twisted by greed and even corrupt. In Carney’s words, markets are based on “selective information, spin, misdirection.” That’s a mild criticism compared with the views of others. “Capitalism as we know it is dead,” said Salesforce chief Marc Benioff, one of many business leaders who have joined the anti-corporate left in claiming the financial and capital markets are destroying the planet.

In short, there is nothing surprising about JP Morgan throwing its weight behind the $1.5 trillion plus climate industrial complex because this is what all the world’s crony capitalists and rent-seekers are doing right now, so why should JP Morgan miss out on the party?

But the report needs to be taken with a very large pinch of salt. And if there’s anyone who doubts this, I’ve got an amazing deal just for you: a huge bridge, going cheap; and my vast and potentially hugely profitable portfolio of Enron and Solyndra shares.

Political Cartoons by Tom Stiglich

Sotomayor issues blistering dissent, says Republican-appointed justices have bias toward Trump administration

Supreme Court Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a scathing rebuke of the court’s decision to allow the Trump administration to enforce its “public charge” rule in the state of Illinois, limiting which non-citizens can obtain visas to enter the U.S.

From the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS):

Introduction

Public charge has been part of U.S. immigration law for more than 100 years as a ground of inadmissibility and deportation. An individual who is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible to the United States and ineligible to become a legal permanent resident. However, receiving public benefits does not automatically make an individual a public charge. This fact sheet provides information about public charge determinations to help noncitizens make informed choices about whether to apply for certain public benefits.

Sotomayor accuses the other justices of ‘pro-Trump’ bias?
I accuse her of anti-American bias.

Biden: Online Russian Bots Tell People “Biden is a Bad Guy”

It doesn’t take Roosians for anyone to know the Plugs is a bad guy.
All you have to do is listen to him for a couple of minutes.

Presidential candidate Joe Biden has made a claim that negative online comments telling people “Biden is a bad guy” are coming from Russian bots.

In an interview with CBS News, Biden claimed that Russians had spent “a lot” of cash on an army of bots that are out to make him look bad.

Remember, Mussolini made the trains run on time.

Maybe the demoncraps should worry less about partisan politics and more about possibly nominating a open commie lover. 

Microsoft, the ID2020 Alliance, universal digital identification and you

I don’t know what it may sound like to you, but to me, I remember something in a book written by a man named John, that was along the lines of referring to something like an issued universal identity being needed for any and all commerce.

Last year Microsoft joined ID2020, a global Alliance whose goal is to create universal digital identities for everyone. What are the social, economic and ethical implications of such an initiative?

Our digital activity increasingly parallels our real-world activity. Participation in the modern economy, the ability to buy and sell, attain employment, healthcare, social services and more are virtually impossible without a digital identity. In May of 2016, at the United Nations Headquarters in NY, ID2020, an alliance of governments, non-profits, academia, over 150 private sector companies and 11 United Nations agencies collaborated on how to provide a unique digital identity to everyone on the planet.

Most coverage of the ID2020 Alliance focuses on its noble objective to provide digital identities to the over one billion refugees, women, children and others without any form of identification. The message of providing digital identification for this “invisible” portion of the earth’s population to enable their participation in society places a human face over the true mission. It also creates a rallying point that this open alliance hopes other entities will, like Microsoft, embrace and become a part of this global effort.

The fundamental mission of creating a universal identification system that incorporates every person on the globe, using modern technology and the support of various governments, financial institutions and more is the goal hidden behind the humanitarian cause.

The ID2020 Alliance and its 2030 goal

According to the Alliance’s Governance material “by 2030 it aims to have facilitated the scaling of a safe, verifiable, persistent digital identity system, consistent with the Sustainable Development Goals” agreed upon by the United Nations.” It’s short-term focus toward that goal is the development and testing of the best technological solutions for digital identity; and working with governments and other entities in their implementation. The focus on the 1.5 billion people without identification is part of that short-term vision.

The long-term vision revolves around the Alliances “Case for Action” which states a convergence of trends provides an unprecedented opportunity to make a coordinated, concerted push towards the goal of universal digital identity. Those trends include political accord among United Nations members, growing global connectivity, emerging technologies and global calls for a new model of identity.

  • Political Unity: In 2015 all United Nations countries made a global commitment to provide legal identity for everyone by 2030.
  • Global connectivity: Smart device proliferation allows new registration methods and enables consistent interaction with identity data.
  • Emerging technology: Block-chain technology, like that used with Bitcoin, and into which Microsoft has invested to create a decentralized id (DID) makes secure and verifiable tech accessible to the masses.
  • New Identity Model: Consumers want a seamless and secure digital experience.

Microsoft, in a recent announcement regarding using blockchain technology for decentralized identification further articulated its support of this initiative stating, “Each of us needs a digital identity we own, one which securely and privately stores all elements of our digital identity.”

There is no doubt now that Plugs has Alzheimer’s.
The only reason he’s running for President has to be that he gains political cover for the corruption of him and his son Hunter in Ukraine (Since you know any investigation of a presidential candidate must be for partisan purposes /s).

The Democrats’ Strategy Against The Trump Economy? Schizophrenia

Well, they always did had demoncrap-for-brains, so this is not surprising.

I&I Editorial

It is extremely difficult if not impossible to defeat an incumbent president when the economy is doing well. Just ask 1984 Democratic nominee Fritz Mondale, or 1996 Republican nominee Bob Dole.

In the case of Donald Trump, the economy isn’t just healthy; it’s reached unprecedented milestones. America is enjoying the longest expansion in history. Unemployment reached and remains near a 50-year low. Nearly 7 million full-time jobs have been generated under Trump, including nearly a half million manufacturing jobs, after two decades of serious manufacturing decline widely viewed as irreversible.

There are two tacks from which to choose in confronting this politically. Democrats can argue that our prosperity is grossly exaggerated. Or they can claim they deserve the credit for the Trump economy.

Which of these strategies, both decidedly dubious in their chances of success, have the Democrats picked?

Both.

House Majority Whip James Clyburn is considered a kingmaker in the upcoming Democratic primary in his home state of South Carolina, where black support is vital. “I talk to African Americans. I go to church with them. And I know they’re not doing better,” Clyburn told ABC on Sunday. “If you go with unemployment numbers to determine people’s status, then you have to say that slaves were in very good shape because they were fully employed,” the House’s number three Democrat added. Later in the week, Clyburn repeated himself to Fox’s Neil Cavuto.

What an insult to more than 19½ million of Clyburn’s fellow blacks currently working, to suggest that they’re not really laboring for themselves and that their jobs are lacking in dignity.

Similar to Clyburn’s contention that employment statistics don’t really have value as an economic indicator, Nobel economics laureate, Bill Clinton economic adviser, and “Third Way” theorist Joseph Stiglitz has actually called for the abandonment of using gross domestic product to measure economic health. Sore losers always blame the rules when their opponents win.

Obama Credits Economic Policy He Admitted Failed

The very day after Clyburn’s outrageous claim appeared on ABC, Barack Obama tweeted that he was actually the one responsible for “paving the way for more than a decade of economic growth and the longest streak of job creation in American history” because of his economic stimulus, enacted 11 years ago this week.

Republicans were quick to respond, including Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana, who threw Obama’s own words regarding the private sector back at him – “You didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” And Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, who pointed out that, just days before, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was getting the word out to her Democrats that, as Blackburn put it, “We need to stop giving Obama credit for the economy, it’s a losing message.”

It’s quite remarkable that Obama is brandishing his so-called Recovery Act today, over a decade after he signed it. That’s because two and a half years after its enactment it was so clear to him and everyone else that it was a failure – a stimulus that wasn’t stimulating – he requested an emergency address before a Joint Session of Congress in September, 2011 to call for action. Democrats were in a state of panic because of how obvious it was that their stewardship of the economy was failing.

“Tonight we meet at an urgent time for our country,” he declared. “We continue to face an economic crisis that has left millions of our neighbors jobless.” His solution was yet another stimulus of nearly $450 billion. Again and again, in tones of desperation, Obama implored Congress to “pass this jobs bill.” But Congress wouldn’t, even though he warned Republicans, now in control of the House of Representatives, that “doing nothing is not an option.” In the end even a significant number of congressional Democrats opposed it.

Later in the speech, he condescendingly said, “I realize that some of you have a different theory on how to grow the economy. Some of you sincerely believe that the only solution to our economic challenges is to simply cut most government spending and eliminate most government regulations.”

Nearly a decade later, Trump, subscribing to that “different theory,” massively cut regulations and drastically reduced tax rates, in particular our globally non-competitive corporate rate, and suddenly the U.S. economy outperformed the experts’ projections.

That 2011 speech is a dim memory today, but at the time it was obvious that the Obama presidency was at its nadir because it was so clear his economic policies weren’t working. First Lady Michelle looked crestfallen as she took her seat in the visitors’ gallery. The “hope and change” president’s rhetoric that night was all about dampening expectations. “I don’t pretend that this plan will solve all our problems,” he told the chamber in his concluding remarks. “It should not be, nor will it be, the last plan of action we propose. What’s guided us from the start of this crisis hasn’t been the search for a silver bullet. It’s been a commitment to stay at it – to be persistent – to keep trying every new idea that works, and listen to every good proposal, no matter which party comes up with it.”

Fast forward to today, nearly eight and a half years later, and it sure sounds like Obama considers the 2009 stimulus to have been “a silver bullet” for which his golden-haired successor is wrongly taking credit. In truth, Obama’s trillion-dollar stimulus caused the recovery from the 2008 financial crisis to be the most lethargic in American history.

Democrats are going to have to decide which side of their split personality they think gives them any chance of ousting President Trump in November. Unfortunately for them, as we’ve seen, both Clyburn’s claims that the jobs boom is a slave economy, and Obama’s assertion that the policies he admitted were failing two and a half years after their implementation are now succeeding under Trump, are equally absurd.

Democrats Didn’t Care When Obama Granted Clemency to a Terrorist, But Want to Investigate Trump’s Pardons

Trump can’t seem to even breathe without Democrats wanting to launch an investigation or expressing outrage. The recent commutation of former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s prison sentence is the most recent thing to trigger Democrats. “Today, Trump granted clemency to tax cheats, Wall Street crooks, billionaires, and corrupt government officials,” tweeted Bernie Sanders. “Meanwhile thousands of poor and working-class kids sit in jail for nonviolent drug convictions. This is what a broken and racist criminal justice system looks like.”

But Democrats aren’t just expressing faux outrage over Trump using his presidential clemency power. According to Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), his party plans to investigate Trump’s commutations and pardons.

“I mean, we will, of course, I expect, have hearings on this,” he told CNN. “There’s a process that the president is expected to follow in granting pardons or granting clemency. We’ll try to bring attention to this issue on behalf of the American people. We will continue to do oversight.”

Oversight? I think “harassment” would be a better word. We’re way beyond oversight at this point, considering all the bogus investigations that Democrats have had against Trump. The most absurd comment Cicilline made was when he said, “I think past presidents have used restraint,” with the use of clemency powers.

Really?

Was it really restraint when Obama commuted the sentence of convicted terrorist Oscar Lopez Rivera? Lopez Rivera was a leader of the Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional Puertorriqueña (FALN), a Puerto Rican terrorist group responsible for 130 attacks in the United States, and at least six deaths. An unrepentant Lopez-Rivera was serving a 70-year sentence when Obama set him free. Democrats showed no outrage at this commutation.

And what about when Obama commuted the sentence of Bradley Manning (you may also know him as Chelsea), who leaked hundreds of thousands of sensitive documents to WikiLeaks? A traitor in every sense, in 2013 Manning was convicted and sentenced to 35 years in prison. But, Bradley Manning became a hero of the political left for declaring himself to be transgender, and Obama made this controversial commutation days before leaving office. Was this “restraint” or pandering to the LGBT lobby?

Washington: New Mag Ban Introduced

Despite the bills to ban standard capacity magazines failing to meet the crossover deadline, anti-gun legislators are playing procedural games in an attempt to resurrect this legislation. They introduced House Bill 2947 with much of the same language as the previous bills plus a “buy-back” provision in order to make this an appropriations bill that is not subject to the same deadlines. Additionally, the title of the bill has been changed in an effort to limit amendments on the floor.

House Bill 2947 bans the manufacture, possession, sale, transfer, etc. of magazines that hold more than fifteen rounds of ammunition. It appropriates funds for the State Patrol to conduct a “buy-back.” Such turn-in events serve as nothing more than propaganda for gun control advocates while failing to promote public safety in any measurable way.

Activism Counts According to Virginia Dem Who Helped Nix Northam Ban

I had read several blogs where the authors were degrading the efforts and warning people that the planned demonstration at the Virginia capitol was not just useless, but would actually be counterproductive to the cause.

Several  comments to that they were either ‘taking counsel of their fears’,  or, since they weren’t in control of the protest process, they wouldn’t be able to take any credit.

Even in the face of the evidence above, some of these naysayers are unable to acknowledge they were wrong and take responsibility for their wrong headed beliefs.

So, I consider them the same as  Thomas Paine who called them “Sunshine Patriots” who actually were simply afraid of putting it on the line for what they supposedly believe in.

Fact Check: Klobuchar’s ‘Solutions’ to Gun Violence Are Straight Up Lies

During a CNN town hall on Wednesday, a survivor of the Las Vegas shooting asked Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) how she would prevent gun violence without provoking the “gun debate.”

“My state is a pretty big hunting state and so I look at these proposals and say, ‘Do they hurt my uncle Dick in the deer stand?’ And they don’t,” Klobuchar responded with a smile.

She stated a Fox News poll from last summer showed that the majority of hunters approve of universal background checks.

“Let’s think about the reason why we don’t have them. I think the first thing is that there are a lot of politicians out there that are afraid of the NRA and I saw this first hand after the Parkland shooting because I’ve been working on legislation that would make things safer. One of the bills that I’ve always led is to close the ‘boyfriend loophole,’ that basically says that if someone has been convicted of domestic abuse, then they cannot go out and get an assault weapon,” the Minnesota senator explained as the audience applauded. “They cannot go out and buy a gun.”

According to Klobuchar, there are three bills that are currently sitting on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s desk waiting to be taken to the Senate floor. She was specifically referring to the House’s two gun control bills that would develop universal background checks and close the so-called “Charleston loophole.” The other bill she said would close the so-called “boyfriend loophole.”

“Why aren’t these [bills] passing? Well, the NRA wields so much clout right now with some of these Republicans that we basically need to shake things up,” she said.

After Parkland, Klobuchar said she sat across the table from President Donald Trump and counted the number of times he said he wanted to pass universal background checks (her final count being nine). She said after Trump met with leaders from the NRA, he “folded,” something that she promises she won’t do.

What’s interesting is Klobuchar said Congress could have put a ban on bump stocks, which would have been helpful in preventing the Las Vegas shooting.

“We can put in the assault weapon ban, background checks, magazine limits, all of these things,” she explained. “And I think the public is with us.”

On paper, some of the proposals sound great. There are problems though.

Universal Background Checks

Whenever someone purchases a firearm from a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL), the buyer has to go through a background check. That is standard procedure and already part of the law. Universal background checks are supposed to make it impossible for criminals to get their hands on firearms. Sounds great but universal background checks do nothing but expand a flawed system. Right now, convictions are missing from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) because not all law enforcement agencies send that information to the FBI.

Back in November, Attorney General William Barr released the first-ever semi-annual report on the Fix NICS Act, which Congress passed in 2018. The head of each federal department or agency is required to submit convictions to the Attorney General twice a year. Convictions that took place from January 1 to June 30 have to be submitted by July 31. Convictions that took place between July 1 and December 31 are to be submitted by January 31 of the following year.

That report showed the Fix NICS Act is making an impact, with over six million convictions added to the three national databases used during background checks. That’s a 6.2 percent increase.

The “Charleston Loophole”

Gun control advocates use the term “Charleston Loophole” to described how the gunman who shot up a church obtained his firearm. A reporting error allowed the gunman to obtain the firearm, although he had previously been arrested for drug possession. By law, Dylann Roof was a prohibited possessor. He should have failed the background check but flaws in the system allowed him to obtain the gun.

If a person attempts to purchase a firearm and the background check is not completed in three days, the FFL has the right to complete the sale, although they’re not required to do so. Roof’s background check was delayed and the firearm was ultimately transferred to him five days after the initial check. Removing the three day grace period wouldn’t have changed the reporting error that resulted in him obtaining the gun he used to commit his heinous crime.

The “Boyfriend Loophole”

The “boyfriend loophole” is one of the most interesting claims. People like Klobuchar say a domestic abuser can obtain a firearm if they’ve been convicted of a domestic violence, as long as they’re not currently or formally legally married to their partner. That claim is a flat out lie.

Anyone convicted of a misdemeanor or felony domestic violence is a prohibited possessor. It’s already a law on the books. They’re not allowed to own a firearm. There is no loophole.

The NRA

Anti-gunners love to say it’s the NRA’s fault that “common-sense gun safety laws” aren’t in place. The truth is this: the NRA has clout because it’s made up of five million members. Those members are average, everyday Americans. They rely on their Second Amendment rights for self-defense and to provide food for their families. The NRA advocates on behalf of gun owners across the nation. And guess what? Just because Republicans side with the gun rights group doesn’t mean that they’re being bought off or are scared of the organization. It means they value the Second Amendment, the very amendment that so many of their constituents cherish.

ILLINOIS POLITICIANS MOVE TO REQUIRE $1M OF INSURANCE FOR FOID CARD

According to the US Supreme Court it is unconstitutional to:
-Require a precondition on the exercising of a right.
(Guinn v US 1915, Lane v Wilson 1939)

-Require a license (government permission) to exercise a right.
(Murdock v PA 1943, Lowell v City of Griffin 1939, Freedman v MD 1965, Near v MN 1931, Miranda v AZ 1966)

-Delay the exercising of a right.
(Org. for a Better Austin v Keefe 1971)

-Charge a fee for the exercising of a right.
(Harper v Virginia Board of Elections 1966)

-Register (record in a government database) the exercising of a right.
(Thomas v Collins 1945, Lamont v Postmaster General 1965, Haynes v US 1968)

“If the State converts a right into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right with impunity.”
(Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262)

 

{395E8140-10ED-4C70-81B9-2673676BF467}Illinois demoncrap State Representative Jennifer Gong-Gershowitz  has introduced HB-5170 , which “Amends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act.

Provides that an applicant for a Firearm Owner’s Identification Card or for renewal of that Card must submit to the Illinois State Police that he or she has proof of liability insurance coverage of at least $1,000,000 for accidental injuries caused by a firearm.

Provides that the Illinois State Police may require annual proof of the person’s liability insurance coverage and may suspend a person’s Firearm Owner’s Identification Card for failure to maintain that coverage or for failure to provide the Illinois State Police with proof of that coverage.

Provides that the proof of liability insurance coverage required under these provisions is required for both an initial application for a Firearm Owner’s Identification Card and for renewal of that Card.”

As noted by Edgar County Watchdogs, “If passed this legislation would create a financial burden on anyone that simply wants a FOID card, let alone those wanting a gun or to keep their guns. This is a clear attempt to trample people’s Constitutional Rights to bear arms, both State (State Bill of Rights – Section 22)  and Federal (US Constitution – 2nd Amendment).

Bloomberg: We Can No Longer Provide Health Care to the Elderly

Bloomberg is nothing more than elitist snob, and a stupid one at that.

Another video of former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has resurfaced. Back in 2011, the billionaire paid his respects to the Segal family for the passing of Rabbi Moshe Segal of Flatbush. During that time, Jewish families undergo Shiva, a 7-day mourning period. Bloomberg stopped by to issue his condolences to the family.

Interestingly enough, the then-mayor used the opportunity to talk about overcrowding in emergency rooms, Obamacare and a range of other issues, The Yeshiva World reported at the time. One of those topics included denying health care to the elderly.

“They’ll fix what they can right away. If you’re bleeding, they’ll stop the bleeding. If you need an x-ray, you’re gonna have to wait,” Bloomberg said. “All of these costs keep going up. Nobody wants to pay any more money and, at the rate we’re going, health care is going to bankrupt us.”

But don’t worry. He believes he has a way of addressing cost concerns.

“Not only do we have a problem but we gotta sit here and say which things we’re gonna do and which things we’re not. No one wants to do that,” he said. “If you show up with prostate cancer, you’re 95-years-old, we should say, ‘Go and enjoy. Have nice– live a long life.’ There’s no cure and there’s nothing we can do. If you’re a young person, we should do something about it. Society’s not willing to do that, yet. So they’re gonna bankrupt us.”

Who is Michael Bloomberg to decide who should and should not receive health care treatments? He has a ton of money and we know he’d do everything in his power to get the best doctors and treatment available if he or his loved ones became ill. They wouldn’t be told they’re too old or too broke, would they?

And who would be impacted by this decision? At what point is someone too old to treat? 60? 75? 80? What’s the arbitrary number, Mike? Whatever random number you decide on?

What about those who have chronic illnesses, like diabetes or multiple sclerosis? Do they suddenly stop receiving treatment once they hit a certain age, because they’re no longer deemed worthy?

And here I thought Democrats were supposed to want to take care of anybody and everybody. Guess not.

https://twitter.com/CANCEL_SAM/status/1229127380402393088

She’s Completely Lost It: Now Pelosi Is Claiming ‘There Was No Acquittal’

I think her doctors need to reevaluate her Alzheimers medication as it seems to have stopped working.

If you were wondering how Nancy Pelosi has been handling the events of the past few months, it’s safe to say she’s not taking it well. She’s been keeping a low profile after making a spectacle of herself at the 2020 State of the Union address, but over the weekend she gave an interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour that must be seen to be believed. If reality won’t do what Nancy wants, she’ll just deny it’s happening to her.

She thought the footage you’re about to see was so important that she shared it herself. After babbling for a bit to Amanpour about why she tore up Trump’s speech at the SOTU, Nancy got even crazier:

Denial is the first stage of grief, and Nancy has been stuck there for over three years. Despite all her sputtering, Trump was indeed acquitted. She doesn’t have to like it, she doesn’t have to think it’s fair, but it happened. She has no control over the United States Senate, and they don’t answer to her. They voted. It’s over. The End.

As for Trump being “impeached forever,” so is Bill Clinton. If Trump isn’t vindicated, neither is Slick Willie. And if the Dems had their way, Bill would be back in the White House right now!

I don’t see how blatantly lying about Trump’s impeachment is going to help the Dems in November, but then, I never understood why they impeached him in the first place. Is there anybody who voted for him in 2016 who isn’t going to vote for him now that he’s been impeached? Is there anybody who didn’t vote for him in 2016 who would vote for him whether he was impeached or not? What did any of this accomplish? How did all this wasted time and money help anybody? What was the point?

 

Zuckerberg tells world leaders to decide what people are allowed to say
Zuckerberg’s shock proposal was made at the Munich Security Conference.

Mark Zuckerberg has given in to government pressure to regulate speech on the internet.

During a meeting with world leaders, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has asked governments to define what people are allowed to say online.

New attack on free speech

There have been multiple countries in the world that have tried to impose restrictive measures on the comments that can be published on the internet.

In most cases, politicians have argued that these laws would be a way to prevent the spread of false information and a solution to eliminate harassment on the internet.

Against all odds, one of the most popular social networks in the world, Facebook, seems to have given the green light to politicians to apply the controversial rules to control public opinion.

Zuckerberg’s decision

During the Munich Security Conference 2020, held between February 14 to 16, multiple world leaders gathered to discuss today’s social security policies.

On Saturday 15, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg attended the conference as a participant, offering a series of controversial statements that could be the result of pressure from European countries and the United States.

Zuckerberg told the assembly of Western leaders at the Munich Security Conference that:

“There should be more guidance and regulation from the states on basically – take political advertising as an example – what discourse should be allowed?”

In simple terms, Zuckerberg asked governments to define what types of speech or comments they are willing to accept on social networks and other websites.