Daily Archives: 18 March 2019

Gillibrand Declares

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D, NY) has entered the Progressive-Democratic Party’s primary contest for President.  Her statement of entering can only show her campaign to be satirical rather than serious.

We need a leader who makes big, bold, brave choices. Someone who isn’t afraid of progress. That’s why I’m running for president.

Bold choices.  Like the one she made during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings in which she rejected the American legal position of innocent until proven guilty and replaced it with her own legal theology of guilty by woman’s accusation.

Progress: to boldly run before the wind—wherever it blows.  She was for the 2nd Amendment, even getting an A rating from the National Rifle Association, before she was against it.  Indeed, the political winds changed her course so sharply that an ardent anti-gun Progressive-Democrat, then-Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy (D, NY) advised her

Don’t change your mind so fast—learn the issue first[.]

But Gillibrand had learned the issue quite clearly: the issue that her political fortune depended on her new position, whatever “new” might work out to.

She was against same-sex marriage as a Representative—insisting on having civil unions—before she was for them as a Senator.

On immigration, she was against amnesty for illegal immigrants as a Representative—in any of its many forms—before she was for it—in any of its many forms—as a Senator. As a Representative, she favored deputizing local policemen to act as immigration agents before, as a Senator, she was for abolishing ICE.

She was staunchly pro-Israel, even as a Senator, insisting there should be no daylight between the US and Israel on matters related to Iran, before she moved away from Israel, supporting ex-President Barack Obama’s (D) and Motorboat Skipper and part-time Secretary of State John Kerry’s (D) nuclear weapons deal with Iran.  She’s become an ardent supporter of Tamika Mallory, Bob Bland, Carmen Perez, and Linda Sarsour—all of whom are themselves public and ardent supporters of Louis Farrakhan.

She even took money from the Clintons to support her various campaign expenses—and then she said Bill Clinton should have resigned over his…affair…with Lewinski.

Regardless of one’s own position on any of those questions and others, Gillibrand will take the one that benefits herself politically, and she’ll take it the moment the wind shifts.

Who can trust such a one?

When the Bad Man Comes

Posted on by
1

Forty-nine people were murdered in their house of worship in Christ Church, New Zealand last Friday. The thug

slaughtered worshipers at Al Noor [mosque] in a roughly two-minute rampage within that building. He then left for about two minutes before re-entering the building and firing on people on the ground for a further minute.

Left and came back.  Then he drove five miles across town to another mosque and started in again.

The butcher was active for thirty-six minutes before police arrived—that’s thirty-six minutes from the first call to the police, not from the start of the shooting.

When the bad man comes and seconds count, the police will be only minutes away.

Our Progressive-Democrats want to disarm us with their idiotic gun “control” laws.  New Zealand’s gun laws already require a citizen to satisfy the local police in order to get permission to bear any arm at all, and they want to tighten gun laws further.

The nature of this pseudo-logic is succinctly laid out by Rogério Mendonça of Brazil’s Chamber of Deputies, the lower house of the Brazilian Congress:

The logic of the left is always the same: if a crazy guy uses guns to kill people, the solution is to take guns away from people who have nothing to do with what happened[.]

This would be criminal were it not so self-evidently insane.

Mendonça then supplied the right answer:

Now imagine if a decent person had been armed at that school [referring to a Brazilian school attack in which eight children were murdered]. They could have stopped the attack from ending in the bloody way it did.

Just as is often done in the US; after all, the first responders are those already at the scene.  However, these successful defenses don’t get the publicity that mass killings in gun free zones get.