More from Project Veritas, with more admissions and more info.
Seems to me this was the kind of reporting 60 Minutes used to do decades ago.
More from Project Veritas, with more admissions and more info.
Seems to me this was the kind of reporting 60 Minutes used to do decades ago.
O’Keefe promises a few more videos detailing more of this sort of corruption.
In the 1960s sit-ins, the purpose of the sit-in was as a demand for equal rights.
The reason was to sit down and show that you’re as good as anyone else and deserving of the same treatment.
While there’s an argument for property owner rights that a business should be able to reject service to anyone, this was also a cultural argument as well as a legal rights one, such that the property owner would get the idea that he was wrong and that those doing the sit-in were deserving of respect and that their patronage should be appreciated rather than rejected. Both ways, it was a movement to demand rights.
This is a demand by authorities for more authority.
This is a demand by those in power for more power.
This is a demand by those who control the country that the rights of the citizen be overruled.
They want due process suspended, they want gun rights suspended, they want your rights suspended. They’ve already managed it in a handful of states – despite the Constitution as written forbidding it – and now they want the rest of the nation to kneel. And their current method is by throwing a tantrum, mocking the actual sit-ins of the 1960s, and demanding that Congress vote to ignore the Fifth Amendment right to due process of law so they can suspend your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
Those guys at the lunch counter weren’t recognized as having a right to eat at the same counter that other folks did. Those rights weren’t recognized by the Democrats in power in the South. If they went to buy a gun in the South to protect themselves from the racist Democrat KKK night riders, when they went for a permit the racist Democrat sheriff would deny it and leave them defenseless.
Today, elected Democrat representatives who already have power are now squatting in the halls of power and demanding more powers and authorities to go after the citizenry – all to strip rights from those who now have them.
The guys at the lunch counter were fighting against Jim Crow laws. They were fighting for rights.
The Democrat representatives are fighting for more Jim Crow laws. They’re fighting against rights.
May as well start with the dumbest first. HuffPo is calling for complete disarmament of the US citizenry.
One may say that the Supreme Court, after 250 years in which the Second Amendment was read as allowing only a well-regulated militia to have guns, recently reinterpreted it to mean that there is an individualized right to own guns. This suggests that we may have to get to domestic disarmament through the back door.
Make the gun manufacturers liable for harm done with their products. Ban the sale of ammunition. And vote for a president that will add to the Supreme Court those who will read the Second Amendment as written.
Above all, domestic disarmament is a true, compelling vision which cannot be said about the small gun control measures that are currently promoted by some of the most enlightened people among us.
That’s a whole new level of smugness right there. Also, the Second Amendment as written would guarantee access to arms by American citizens, especially weapons used in a military capacity. It’s very clear what it says, as are the numerous state Constitutions that mirror it.
And the next stupidest, via HotAir, from Democrat Senator Chris Murphy:
Today’s gun vote wouldn’t stop recent mass shootings, admits leading proponent
Asked by guest host Jonathan Karl whether the so-called “gun show loophole” would have done anything to stop Orlando, Murphy stammered and finally responded as though he was Miss Teen Connecticut answering a pretty tough question about what his favorite color is.
MURPHY: So, it may have in the sense that if you partner together with the bill that stops terrorists from getting guns…
KARL: But wait a minute. He didn’t buy those guns at a gun show. And he would have passed the background—he did pass a background check.
MURPHY: He did pass a background check, but if the Feinstein bill was in effect, the FBI could have put him on the list of those who are prohibited from getting guns. And what if he went into the gun store and was denied? He could have just gone online or to a gun show and bought another one. *
KARL: OK. But what I’m trying to get at is that every time there’s one of these terrible tragedies, there’s these proposals. Your proposal would have done nothing in the case of Orlando. It would have done nothing to stop the killing in San Bernardino, and in fact, was unrelated to the killing in Newtown. So why are we focusing on things that have nothing to do with the massacres that we are responding?
MURPHY: First of all, we can’t get into that trap. I disagree. I think if this proposal had been into effect, it may have stopped this shooting. But we can’t get into the trap in which we are forced to defend the proposals simply because it didn’t stop the last tragedy. We should be making our gun laws less full of Swiss cheese holes so that future killings don’t happen.**
Couple important takeaways here.
1st, let your lefty, gun-grabbing brother-in-law see this so he can stop telling you that you are an accomplice in the murder of innocent people just because you exercise the right to self protection. And repeat it on your social media as many times as it takes: These laws will not stop bad people from doing bad things with guns. Full stop.
Yeah, that’s pretty much it.
We already know that the Orlando terrorist beat his ex-wife. He could’ve been denied based on that, but apparently his ex-wife never bothered to call the police. He wouldn’t have had a security job, nor been able to buy a gun legally. Wouldn’t have happened.
Speaking of wife-beaters not allowed to own guns, from ThisAin’tHell. Short version is a reporter went into a gun store to try to buy an evil toddler-killing black rifle and was denied. He claimed it was because he was a reporter. Really, it was because he slapped around his wife.
The folks at Maxon Shooter Supplies and Indoor Range, who claim to be TAH fans, send us a link to the story about them in the Chicago Sun Times, wherein the Times sent Neil Steinberg, one of their reporters, to write about his experience buying and firing an evil black, scary gun (known in journalistic circles as an assault rifle). Steinberg does the handwringing thing about guns and journalistic integrity thing during his drive to Des Plaines, Illinois to the Maxon “lemonade stand” as the owner described it to me.
Driving to Maxon Shooter’s Supplies in Des Plaines on Wednesday to purchase my first assault rifle, I admit, I was nervous. I’d never owned a gun before. And with the horror of Sunday’s Orlando massacre still echoing, even the pleasant summer day — the lush green trees, fluffy white clouds, blue sky — took on a grim aspect, the sweetness of fragile life flashing by as I headed into the Valley of Death.
Earlier, in my editor’s office, I had ticked off the reasons for me not to buy a gun: this was a journalistic stunt; done repeatedly; supporting an industry I despise. But as I tell people, I just work here, I don’t own the place. And my qualms melted as I dug into the issue.
At 5:13 Sarah from Maxon called. They were canceling my sale and refunding my money. No gun for you. I called back. Why? “I don’t have to tell you,” she said. …
A few hours later, Maxon sent the newspaper a lengthy statement, the key part being: “it was uncovered that Mr. Steinberg has an admitted history of alcohol abuse, and a charge for domestic battery involving his wife.”
Well, didn’t see that coming.
This would be on the 4473:
From the Maxon Facebook page;
Mr. Steinberg was very aggressive on the phone with Sarah, insisting he was going to write that we denied him because he is a journalist. “Journalist” is not a protected class, BTW. We contacted his editor and said that, while we don’t normally provide a reason for a denial, in this case to correct the record before you publish, here’s why; we pasted a couple links of press accounts of his past behavior and his admission of same. He’s free to believe or disbelieve that’s why he was denied, but that *is* why he was denied. There was no “We’ll see you in court!!!!” type of language from us – we simply want to set the record straight. That it undermined his thesis and rendered the column incoherent isn’t really our problem, is it? Thanks for your support.
The problem we have—and really, the firewall we have right now, is due process. It’s all due process. So we can all say, ‘yeah, we want the same thing,’ but how do we get there. If a person is on a terrorist watch list like the gentleman—the shooter—in Orlando, he was, twice by the FBI, we were briefed yesterday about what happened. But that man was brought in twice. They did everything they could. The FBI did everything they were supposed to do. But there was no way for them to keep him on the nix list or keep him off the gun buy list. There was no way to do that. So can’t we say that if a person is under suspicion, there should be a five year period of time that we have to see if good behavior, if this person continues the same traits? Maybe we can come to that type of an agreement. But due process is what’s killing us right now.
Haven’t committed a crime but the government wants to restrict your rights because you’re on a secret list somewhere? No problem! Just do away with due process.
How to get rid of the 2nd Amendment? Easy – just get rid of the 5th Amendment first!
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
5 years of rights restriction based on being put on a watch list? A watch list that Ted Kennedy had to fight to get off of?
How about… no.
Via AEI, a study from the Arab Center for Research and Policy studies:
…a disturbing subset of 13% of Syrian refugees say their view of ISIS is “positive” or “positive to some extent.”
Yeah, I’d say that’s disturbing. That’s 1 out of 8 admitting they have a positive view of ISIS. I’d wonder what the actual numbers are, because the poll may well be tainted by skepticism of the pollster. Saying “yes, I like ISIS” to a pollster you don’t know could be an easy way to get your house hit by a drone strike, so I suspect the numbers are probably lower than reality.
On the other hand, an important nuance of this is that there may also be some in the “positive to some extent” category who hate Assad more than they do ISIS, or who loathe Sykes-Picot and the effects of it enough that they don’t mind ISIS breaking down borders. They could also be the kind of people who think that ISIS is justified in their terrorist attacks, like US Secretary of State John Kerry.
Either way, 1 out of 8 admitting to positive views of the Islamic State should be a warning to any nation opposed to the Islamic State that it’s unwise to bring in swarms of Syrian refugees.
That’s yet another example of why so many people in the US are opposed to importing Syrian “refugees”.
The Democrats have taken this opportunity to use it to push their favorite agenda – disarming the American people.
It looks like Senate Democrats are going to try to attach a new gun law onto the Republican bill trying to do more oversight on Syrian refugee entry into the U.S. Washington Examinerreports Democrats may try to slip that in the refugee bill next week.
The Senate could take up the House-passed refugee bill as early as the week of Nov. 30. At that point, Democrats will likely try to attach the gun control provision as an amendment, although it will be up to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., to decide whether he’ll allow it.
The Democrat idea is that anyone on the no-fly list or terror watch list should be disallowed from owning a gun. Which sounds great, until you consider that it’s depriving someone of their Constitutional rights with no recourse, no trial, no conviction, and no knowledge of what’s happened or why.
The idea sounds reasonable enough until you dig into the details and realize that the proposed Democratic legislation is a shocking assault on the constitutional right to due process. What makes the proposal even worse is that the Democrats’ assault on due process isn’t necessary to accomplish what they say is their only goal: preventing “dangerous terrorists” from legally purchasing or possessing a firearm.
You don’t get told you’re on the list and if you’re a person of normal means you can’t get off the list.
Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy was put on the no-fly list in 2004 and it took him a month to get off the list – and that’s as one of the most connected, influential people in the US at the time.
U.S. Sen. Edward M. “Ted” Kennedy said yesterday that he was stopped and questioned at airports on the East Coast five times in March because his name appeared on the government’s secret “no-fly” list. …
“That a clerical error could lend one of the most powerful people in Washington to the list — it makes one wonder just how many others who are not terrorists are on the list,” said Reginald T. Shuford, senior ACLU counsel. “Someone of Senator Kennedy’s stature can simply call a friend to have his name removed but a regular American citizen does not have that ability. He had to call three times himself.”
A Kennedy aide said the senator nearly missed a couple of flights because of the delays. After the first few incidents, his staff called the Transportation Security Administration, which maintains the no-fly list. But even after those discussions about getting his name removed, the senator was stopped again, according to Kennedy spokesman David Smith. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge finally called to apologize about the mix-up, and the delays stopped in early April, Smith said.
“If his name got on the list in error, is that happening to other citizens and are they experiencing such difficulty in resolving the problem?” Smith said.
Good luck to the average citizen if they find the secret system has secretly chosen them for targeting:
Under the Democrats’ proposal, the government doesn’t have to tell you why your name is on the list. The proposed law allows the government to keep that information secret. And if you decide to take the government to court over it, the Democrats’ bill creates a brand new legal standard that tilts the scales of justice against you.
Unlike a standard criminal trial, in which a jury must decide beyond a reasonable doubt whether you have violated a criminal law, under this proposed law the government must only show a preponderance of evidence–evidence which will almost certainly be redacted–in order to strip you of your Second Amendment right to defend yourself and your family from terrorists…
This is an issue where the Democrats can scream that anyone opposed to their “common sense gun control” scheme is supporting terrorism, when really we’re just opposed to the idea of a totally unaccountable secret government system that disarms the citizenry with no recourse… which is exactly what they’re asking for.
And of course, as is pointed out at the Federalist, the government could already stop terrorists from buying firearms legally:
All the attorney general has to do to prevent “dangerous terrorists” from legally purchasing firearms is to indict them. That’s it. Charge these terrorists with terrorism, and their legal right to purchase firearms goes up in smoke. That’s because existing federal law states that anyone who’s been indicted for any crime that carries a prison sentence of more than one year–and felony indictment for conspiracy to commit terrorist certainly satisfies that standard–automatically becomes ineligible to purchase or possess a firearm.
But this isn’t about going after terrorists (as one example, otherwise the Tsarnaev brothers would’ve been kicked out of the country after Russia warned us about them being terrorists), this is about going after you.
Can the states reject them? Judge says legally “no”, and says if you offer any services or welfare to anyone, you have to offer it to everyone – including aliens and refugees.
The Judge also points out that last time Obama tried to dump “refugees” on states, he’s been held up in courts. Problem with that is that the illegal aliens from those groups – the imported teenager “children” swarms from Central America – are still here, and the longer they stay, the harder it is to remove them. Since the 1960s or so when Ted Kennedy was part of a movement to create chain migration – the idea of working with “families” in a touchy-feely way that was intended to garner sympathy and import Democrat voters – the immigration system hasn’t been about what’s good for the country, it’s been about what’s good for Democrats who have been able to manipulate the laws over and over.
The 50,000 interpreters from Iraq and Afghanistan that actively helped US forces there aren’t being helped along, in part because Democrats know they’re not going to vote for Democrats (either legally after they get citizenship or illegally when given bus rides from polling place to polling place by ACORN).
The answer to this whole mess from governors is to do exactly what the left has been doing in illegal alien sanctuary cities. Illegal alien sanctuary cities, like San Francisco, have ignored federal immigration law and have left their citizens at the mercy of illegal aliens who’ve killed American citizens. Most recently in San Fran was the case of Kathryn Steinle, murdered by an illegal alien criminal who’d been deported multiple times and the city wouldn’t turn in for deportation. In 2008, again in San Fran, an illegal alien criminal was released by the city and allowed to murder a father and his two sons.
All of those actions by cities are violations of immigration law. If cities ignore and violate federal law in order to allow citizens to be murdered, it stands to reason that states could just as easily ignore the same federal laws in order to protect citizens from murder.