Tag Archives: freedom

Look Who’s Talking

Posted on by
Reply

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton chastised Republican lawmakers on Sunday for a “paralyzed” Congress, saying they’ve fueled populist anger by refusing to “do their job.”

It’s Congressional Democrats and a Democratic Party President who are blocking the spending and tax cuts that would stimulate our economy and let people get back to work.

It’s a Democratic Party President whose Executive Branch creates rule after regulation that limits what people can do with their private property and that stifles innovation and economic growth, and it’s Congressional Democrats who block efforts to pull those rules and regulations back.

It’s Congressional Democrats who deliberately prevented the House from functioning at all because they couldn’t impose their minority will on the House, denying even the people’s House the ability to act democratically.

It’s Congressional Democrats who continually attack our 1st Amendment rights—every single one of them—and our 2nd Amendment rights, forcing Congress to spend valuable time protecting Americans’ individual liberties instead of positively pursuing the people’s business.

It would be good if the Democrats actually did start doing their jobs, instead of being cynically disruptive.

It would have been good had Clinton done her job as Secretary of State, instead of foisting off on us her Russian overcharge reset, with Russia now occupying Crimea and other parts of Ukraine.  It would have been good had Clinton done her job as Secretary of State, instead of napping through her 3pm call for help from our Benghazi consulate.  It would have been good had Clinton done her job as Secretary of State, instead of ignoring security strictures and running her State email communications, including classified correspondence, from her private, unsecured, unprotected email server.

It would have been good had Clinton done something positive during her stay as Secretary of State.

Dangers of a Liberal Court

Posted on by
Reply

The Supreme Court has refused its opportunity to overturn a Connecticut and New York ban on certain government-disfavored firearms.

The justices on Monday left in place a lower court ruling that upheld laws that were passed in response…mass shooting involving a semi-automatic weapon….

Never mind that had such firearms been in the hands of some of the adults present at mass shootings, the shooters could be stopped much earlier in their rampages.

And in a case in which evidence that was produced following an illegal traffic stop but that otherwise was legitimately collected—including pursuant to an active arrest warrant—was upheld by the Supreme Court as legitimate evidence, there were these Liberal Justice dissents.  From Justice Sonya Sotomayor:

The court today holds that the discovery of a warrant for an unpaid parking ticket will forgive a police officer’s violation of your Fourth Amendment rights.

Never mind that arrest warrant, which required a search and so was well within the 4th Amendment.  And

In a portion of her opinion that expressed only her own views, Sotomayor also described the “humiliations” of unjustified police searches and said that “people of color are disproportionate victims of this type of scrutiny.”

Aside from this being wholly irrelevant to the case at hand, “people of color” commit most of the crimes—but she won’t address the underlying cause of that disproportionality: Liberal economic policies that trap minorities in poverty.  No, it’s that the wise and empathetic Latina didn’t get her way.

And

…outstanding warrants are increasingly common.

Why is that, exactly?  Do the folks subject to those warrants have a government gun in their ears preventing them from answering the warrant and clearing it?  Or are these folks, of their own volition, simply ignoring the warrants—warrants which are issued on the assumption that most of these folks will honor their commitment to appear in return for not being arrested on the spot?

And Justice Elena Kagan:

the ruling “creates unfortunate incentives for the police—indeed practically invites them to do what Fackrell did here.”

Because all cops are crooked; we can’t treat the individual cases of abuse individually.  Oh, wait—is a Supreme Court Justice profiling?

This only gets worse with a Liberal majority of Justices on the Supreme Court.

Democrat Crocodile Tears and Gun Control

Posted on by
Reply

Congressman Louie Gohmert (R, TX) confronted Democrats during their gun control sit-in [Wednesday] night, shouting instead about the threat of radical Islam.

“Radical Islam killed these people!” he yelled during a speech by [Congressman (D, CA) Brad Sherman…referring to the Orlando terror attack.

A…Democrat…participating in the temper tantrum sit-in shouted back Don’t let terrorists have a gun! which only shows the disingenuousness of the House Democrats, if not their outright dishonesty.  That response is only a cynically offered straw man, and the Democrats should be encouraged to keep their dollies to themselves.

No one is arguing for letting terrorists—Islamic or otherwise—have guns.  The question, as Democrats know full well, is confronting and destroying terrorists like those that inflicted Orlando, San Bernardino, and on and on.  The first step in this is recognizing terrorism when it occurs and not pretending these are gun crimes so excuses for disarming Americans can be manufactured.  The second step in recognizing this is recognizing who the terrorists are and not pretending they’re isolated gun-toting criminals.  The third step in this is protecting the rights of honest Americans’ ability to defend themselves.

But as Gohmert put in a subsequent interview with Fox and Friends [emphasis added]

They were violating just a whole myriad of rules, and it didn’t matter at all.

Indeed, nor rule nor law matters to Democrats when they are inconvenient to Democrats out to make political points for personal political gain.

Keep it in mind this fall.

Dangers of a Progressive Senate

Posted on by
Reply

Last Monday the Senate voted down four gun control measures, the least offensive of which was Senator John Cornyn’s (R, TX) proposal to let DoJ delay a gun purchase by someone DoJ suspected but that also would require Justice to show probable cause in court within 72 hours in order to permanently block the purchase.

The Democrats’ response was as predictable as it was disingenuous.  Here’s Senator Chuck Schumer (D, NY), for instance.

It’s hard to believe, but still true, that our Republican colleagues voted to allow suspected terrorists to buy guns.  We will keep pushing until they see the light.

It’s hard to believe, but astoundingly still true, that Democrats continue to insist on depriving Americans of our rights whenever those rights become inconvenient to Democrat agenda goals.  Suspected terrorists.  Never mind conviction.  Never mind even probable cause, which isn’t anything more than a showing to a judge that a case that might be brought has a legitimate chance of success in court, in front of a jury.  Due process?  Democrats don’t need no stinking due process.

72 hours is too short?  The DoJ already has an extensive file on the suspected individual; that’s why they suspect him.  The long pole in this tent is the drive over to the local courthouse.

We must keep resisting because Democrats disparage American rights and refuse to see the light.

Elections have consequences.

Crony Capitalism

Posted on by
Reply

Hillary Clinton’s former chief of staff [Cheryl Mills] at the State Department had a Democratic donor with virtually no relevant experience appointed to a nuclear intelligence advisory board, according to a new report that also claims the aide tried to stall journalists examining his background.

And

[Rajiv K] Fernando, a Chicago securities trader, had been a fundraiser for Democratic candidates and a financial contributor to the Clinton Foundation and even traveled with Bill Clinton on a trip to Africa.  The board he was appointed to—the International Security Advisory Board—included nuclear scientists, members of Congress and former cabinet secretaries.

The ISA “advises” State’s Arms Control and International Security sub-secretariat, a section that does highly classified work because, pursuant to its “advice”-giving, it investigates nations like Russia, Pakistan, northern Korea and their arsenals and development plans.

Fernando had, supposedly, an unpaid position, but he also had that lack of qualification, and so he had no Need to Know.  And the spot puts him in well with any Clinton administration.

This is the sort of cronyism to which we can look forward, and it’s the new Ambassadorship-as-Reward.  Elections have consequences.