Tag Archives: political parties

Two Examples of Gun Control

Posted on by
Reply

In January, a Houston homeowner successfully defended himself and his family against a large, violent home invasion—with a gun.

Authorities say the homeowner defended himself when the suspects entered the home. Following the shooting, the suspects fled from the scene.
…
At another scene, a vehicle was found about two blocks from the shooting, where a man was found dead in the backseat.
Authorities say that out of five people shot, three of them died. All were suspects in the alleged home invasion.

In Florida this week, another homeowner successfully defended his property—with a gun.

The Volusia County Sheriff’s Office said…a woman called 911 to report a stranger on her property.
When the woman’s husband walked outside [with his pistol] to check the situation out, he told deputies he found the man standing at the door to his garage with his hand on the doorknob.
…
Once deputies got to the home located south of Daytona Beach they allegedly found a syringe, tools and gloves on Edwards.
…
[The man] was charged with attempted burglary and possession of burglary tools, according to police.

No one was shot this time, either—it was only property at risk.

Imagine the mayhem that would have resulted in the first instance had the homeowner not been armed.  Imagine the theft, and the possible mayhem (because burglars really don’t like witnesses), in the second instance had the homeowner not been armed.

This is the gun control Progressive-Democrats and their accomplices of the Left want to take away from us.

Sexist Pandering

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Cory “Spartacus” Booker (D, NJ) says the first criterion he has for his Vice President candidate, should he get the Progressive-Democratic Party nomination, is that the person be a woman.

I’m not going to box myself in, but should I come to it, you know I’ll be looking to women first.

Think about that.  Booker won’t be looking to the best qualified first, and if that turns out to be a woman, great.  He’ll be looking to a woman first because she’s a woman.  How pandering is that?

Think about another implication of that criterion.  His looking to pick a woman because she’s a woman means he doesn’t think women are capable of competing on their own merit.  Women, he’s implying, are just incapable, and the only way they can aspire to the White House is by being selected on the basis of their gender.  How bigoted is that?

A Premature Impeachment

Posted on by
Reply

No, I’m not talking about the Progressive-Democrats’ efforts against President Donald Trump in the Federal Government’s House of Representatives.

This is about Virginia State Delegate Patrick Hope’s (D) move in the House of Delegates to impeach (and presumably get a State Senate conviction) Virginia Lieutenant Government Justin Fairfax over two women’s accusations of sexual assault.  Even though Hope has decided to HIA his push pending additional conversations that need to take place before anything is filed, it’s worth considering some implications of this rush to judgment.

What, exactly, has Fairfax done? Don’t waste bandwidth repeating those two accusations; say what he’s actually done.  The accusations are serious, and they should be seriously investigated, and depending on results, Fairfax certainly should face trial, and if convicted he should face criminal and political sanction.  Nothing has been shown, yet, though.

Thus: hang a man on the basis of accusation?  Skip the whole investigation and trial bit?

Aren’t Progressive-Democrats supposed to be better than that?  Oh, wait—the Kavanaugh hearing.

An Inquisition

Posted on by
Reply

The “hearing” by the House Judiciary Committee of Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker on Friday was just that.

It was more than that, too.  The number of times the Committee’s Progressive-Democrats talked over and interrupted Whitaker’s answers, even dictating what his answers must be (“Answer yes or no”), before he could complete them was breathtaking.  Not a single Progressive-Democrat let him complete his answers to each of their questions; most of them wouldn’t let him complete any of them.  Here’s the 6-hour C-SPAN video of the hearing; see for yourself.

When Whitaker protested his being blocked from answering, Committee Chairman Jerold Nadler (D, NY) insisted that the time allotted to each member is that member’s to do with as he sees fit: “The gentleman [the committee member] controls the time.”  That’s true, as far as it goes.

However.

Whitaker, as are all witnesses testifying before any House committee (or Senate committee, come to that), was sworn to tell the truth.

Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you’re about to give is true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information and belief, so help you God?

It’s impossible to tell the truth, to be correct, without complete answers containing all the truth, all the facts, as understood by the witness.  The Progressive-Democrats’ repeated prevention of Whitaker from telling all of the truth, stating all the facts, in answer to the question put before him comes perilously close to suborning perjury, if not outright do so.

Welfare Cages

Posted on by
Reply

Now Progressive-Democrats want to give cash payments, ostensibly without strings attached, directly to low income folks in addition to the many welfare payments they already receive.

The latest effort is more far-reaching and aims to move supplemental cash directly into the hands of low-income Americans.

Which they’ll lose were they to move up the economic ladder, thereby cynically trapping those Americans in the Progressive-Democrats’ welfare cage.