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.
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.
Via Power Line; source otherwise unknown.
Permanent link to this post
(40 words, 1 image, estimated 10 secs reading time)
That’s the focus and modus operandi of the Democrats.
Congressional Democrats are renewing their push for gun control measures in the wake of the Orlando terror massacre, arguing the best way to prevent suspected terrorists from carrying out acts of violence is to legally limit their access to firearms.
They’re right this far—certainly such limits would be a large help. The problem is how to do it without disarming American citizens. And that leads to the real problem: Democrats don’t care about American citizens and our right—our obligation—to defend ourselves and each other. Democrats just want us disarmed.
This is a preview of
Tragedy Equals Excuse to Inflict Gun Controls
. Read the full post (332 words, estimated 1:20 mins reading time)
British Left style.
The Mayor of London today took action on a pledge made during his election campaign to ban advertisements that could pressurise people to conform to unhealthy or unrealistic body images.
Because speech of which the Left disapproves must be barred. After all, the Left Knows Better. This is an aspect of Europe that our own Left so desperately wants our nation to emulate.
Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is rather well-known for exchanging emails with classified information in them, and for relaying others with classified information in them, via her unclassified, connected to the Internet, personal email server which she maintained in your New York digs. She’s also well-known for her claim that nothing she handled on that server—which was all of her State Department work as well as legitimately personal emails—was “marked classified.”
I’ll skip over the fact that the emails containing classified information were classified by that content, regardless of any markings or lack of markings, and that it’s a felony to mishandle classified materials in that way or any other, regardless of intent.
Recall the blatant dishonesty of Department of Justice lawyers.
Now Attorney General Loretta Lynch has chosen to fight District Judge Andrew Hanen’s order that her lawyers actually undergo documented ethics training—training that any pre-law pupil might undergo.
In filings Tuesday, the department said the order would “far exceed the bounds of appropriate remedies” and would cost the department millions.
Because requiring lawyers to understand the ethics of their profession is unreasonable for a DoJ lawyer. Sure.
The Department of Justice responded in the court filing Tuesday, saying that it “emphatically” disagrees with the judge’s ruling, claiming that none of its lawyers intended to deceive.
Here are the comments of a number of those pushing climate change/global warming/global cooling without regard to whether humans play any sort of significant role in…whatever it is.
On the one hand we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but, which means that we must include all the doubts, caveats, ifs and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. … So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.
…but a correct rationale, also.
US District Judge Henry Hudson upheld Virginia’s voter ID law that requires prospective voters to show a State-approved photo ID before they vote. In response to the Democratic Party’s (it was the plaintiff, of course) claim that the law was politically motivated, Hudson held in part
The court’s mission is to judge not the wisdom of the Virginia voter ID law, but rather its constitutionality[.]
Hear, hear. Hudson went on:
While the merits of this voter identification law, and indeed all aspects of Virginia’s voting regime, can be reasonably debated, it remains true that Virginia has created a scheme of laws to accommodate all people in their right to vote[.]