Believability

Some Progressive-Democrats really, strongly dislike Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden, and they said so in very explicit terms.

Senator Cory Booker (D, NJ):

Mr Vice President has said that since the 1970s, every crime bill, major and minor, has had his name on it. And, sir, those are your words, not mine, and this is one of those instances where the house was set on fire and you claimed responsibility for those laws. And you can’t just now come out with a plan to put out that fire.

Senator Kamala Harris (D, CA)

trained her attention on the former vice president—calling his comment about working with segregationists “very hurtful”—and went on to slam Biden for opposing school busing in the 1970s.
“There was a little girl in California who was a part of the second class to integrate her public schools and she was bused to school every day,” she said. “And that little girl was me.”

Senator Amy Klobuchar (D, MN) on Biden’s brag of being the most Progressive of them all:

He has been running things for a long time as a senator and as vice president, I’m sure he’ll be able to point to some major accomplishments that are progressive. And then he’ll have to explain things that weren’t as progressive.

Ex-Mayor Pete Buttigieg:

I hear Vice President Biden say that this is no time to take a risk on someone new. But history has shown us that the biggest risk we could take with a very important election coming up is to look to the same Washington playbook and recycle the same arguments.

Now all of them—every single one—think Biden is the cat’s meow; they’ve endorsed him and his campaign for President. This is the believability of Progressive-Democrat words.

Arms Rights

What’s the value of a law authorizing acknowledging our right to keep and bear when the Liberals in government routinely violate it?

Roosevelt Twyne, a 25-year-old African-American security guard, was arrested by Roselle Park Police in February after a traffic stop stemming from tinted windows on his car. Evan Nappen, Twyne’s attorney, told the Washington Free Beacon that his client was then erroneously charged for illegally carrying a firearm and being in possession of so-called hollow point ammunition.
“He was arrested for the hollow point ammunition,” Nappen told the Free Beacon. “Then they claimed he was transporting his handgun illegally. He had a permit to carry a handgun.”

And he wasn’t carrying hollow point ammunition, either. He was carrying Hornady “Critical Duty” ammunition, issued to him by his employer and explicitly identified as legal by the New Jersey State Police.

This is all clear-cut and should be open and shut—Twyne has his weapon and ammunition promptly returned to him with apologies for the mistake.

No.

The Union County [Roselle Park’s county] Prosecutor’s Office did not respond to questions about the charges against Twyne but did say his case will be heard next month in New Jersey Superior Court.

Next month.  In a few weeks.  The prosecutor will get around to Twyne’s case when the prosecutor damn well feels like it. Quit bothering him. In the meantime, Twyne remains with his lawfully possessed and carried weapon and his lawfully possessed ammunition in Government’s custody. And unable to work.

This is an example of why gun control laws must be doomed to fail. They’re just a step on the road to confiscation.

Working for the Opposition?

Rick Moran had a piece over at PJMedia, in which he described some folks on Mike Bloomberg’s erstwhile paid campaign staff who bragged about taking Bloomberg’s paycheck and going out and campaigning for Senator Bernie Sanders (I, VT).  Citing the Daily Caller, Moran wrote

“I would actively canvass for Bernie when I was supposed to be canvassing for Mike. I know of at least one team of ‘volunteers’ that was entirely fabricated by the organizers who had to hit their goals,” one staffer said, according to [Ken] Klippenstein’s report.
The person added: “It was easy enough to fudge the data to make it look like real people put in real volunteer work, when in reality Mike was getting nothing out of it.”

Then Moran closed his piece with this:

Whatever those staffers did to Bloomberg, he deserves it.

Because if we don’t like the guy, it’s perfectly OK to cheat him, to defraud him, to break laws doing him down.

Right. That’s certainly what liberals think and do. Maybe those Bloomberg staffers aren’t the only ones secretly working for the opposition.

A Progressive-Democratic Party Debate in Arizona

With the latest Progressive-Democratic Party realignment of who’s running for President, we’re down to two folks who are going to participate in the next primary debate, this one in Phoenix: Joe Biden and Senator Bernie Sanders (I, VT).

There is, though, one other candidate still active in Party’s contest for its nomination, and she is, to use Biden’s own phrasing,

[A] mainstream [American Samoan-Hawaiian] who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking [woman]. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.

You’d think with Party willing to make a late alteration of its rules to bring Michael Bloomberg onto its debate stage, it would be willing and able to make similar late accommodations to bring Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (D, HI) onto that Phoenix stage.

But wait—Gabbard doesn’t have the money to buy her way onto the stage. Besides that, she’s already shown herself fully capable of incisive, reasoned argument, and that’s anathema to Party.

On top of that, in a further illustration of Party’s level of integrity, it has made a different late alteration of its debate eligibility rules. A Phoenix participant now must have at least 20% of pledged delegates–a requirement that carefully excludes Gabbard.

Hmm….

(Double) Standards of Protection for Government Officials

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY) threatened two Supreme Court Justices if they didn’t rule his way on a Louisiana law requiring doctors to have hospital admission privileges as a prerequisite to doing abortions. (The case actually has little to do with abortions; it concerns whether third parties—doctors here—can sue on behalf of others, especially when those others have suffered no harm from the matter.)

Schumer stood on the steps the Supreme Court building in front of a noisy protest crowd and, pointing back at the Supreme Court building, said [the quote below starts at about 0:45],

I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.

The lack of “Justice” honorific might seem merely rude on Schumer’s part, but he omitted it to emphasize the directness and seriousness of his threat. The smirk on his face as he took in the crowd’s noisy approval illustrates the matter, too.

Schumer, of course, denied through his spokesman (apparently he didn’t have the courage to speak directly), that he was threatening the Justices, insisting that he was talking political retribution for Republican politicians. The video at the link demonstrates the lie of that. Schumer, in one paragraph of his speech was clearly addressing—facing, pointing at, calling by name—two Justices. It wasn’t until the next paragraph that he addressed—facing his crowd, no pointing, no Republican addressed by name (not even his chiefest opponent, the Senate Majority Leader so instrumental in getting those Justices confirmed)—Republican politicians.

On the floor of the Senate Thursday, Schumer doubled down on his threat. First, he lied about making a threat; his words weren’t intended that way, he claimed. He’s from Brooklyn and Brooklynites speak in strong language, he said—as if being his habit makes it all right. Then he tried to downplay his words by insisting that Republicans are creating the situation with their politics and with their “manufactured outrage” over Schumer’s remarks.

Then Schumer, still on the floor of the Senate at the end of his doubling down, refused even to apologize to the Justices. He just yielded back his time.

The Wall Street Journal, in its op-ed on the matter, mentioned President Donald Trump’s call for Justice recusal in emphasis of the seriousness of Schumer’s escalation of the Left’s political rhetoric:

Mr Trump recently tweeted that liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor should recuse themselves on cases involving his Administration.

It’s much more than this, though.  Trump didn’t threaten Ginsburg and Sotomayor, individually or together, if they didn’t comply. Not tacitly, especially not as nakedly as Schumer threatened Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

The Secret Service gets after folks who threaten Presidents. Don’t Justices—on the same government hierarchical level as Presidents—deserve the same protection? Apparently not, when it’s a Progressive-Democrat who makes the threat.