You are currently browsing the archives for the Civil Rights category.


Archive for the ‘Civil Rights’ Category

This St. Cloud Times Our View editorial is littered with gun control advocates’ BS from beginning to end. It starts with “No matter the body count (and injury count) last week in Las Vegas. No matter how many will die in the next U.S. mass shooting, which statistically is expected to happen today. No matter how long this madness keeps up, don’t expect federal laws to help stem it anytime soon.”

I hate bursting Randy’s bubble but it’s pretty likely that Congress will pass a law prohibiting bump stocks. So much for not expecting new “federal laws” to stop gun violence. It doesn’t end there. The editorial continues, saying “That’s why this board, along with most Americans, sees a good starting point being the long-proposed plan to require background checks for all gun purchases online and at gun shows. It’s not the perfect answer alone. But it is a needed addition to existing laws.”

Actually, it isn’t a needed addition since it’s already the law of the land. Whether a person buys a gun at gun shop or gun show, the buyer must undergo a background check. Period. This paragraph is filled with misinformation:

This board stated in 2015 that’s worth a discussion, given rapid gunfire is common to so many mass shootings. Congress from 1994 to 2004 banned certain semi-automatic assault weapons and magazines holding more than 10 rounds. Did it help? Hard to say, but back then America was not averaging one mass shooting a day, either.

It isn’t difficult to say. Leah Libresco studied the subject.

Here’s what she discovered:

In real life, silencers limit hearing damage for shooters but don’t make gunfire dangerously quiet. An AR-15 with a silencer is about as loud as a jackhammer. Magazine limits were a little more promising, but a practiced shooter could still change magazines so fast as to make the limit meaningless.

It’s apparent that the Times Editorial Board haven’t done the extensive research that Ms. Libresco has done. If they had, they’d know the things that she’s written about.

Remember, though, the priority of any legislative package is to identify people who pose risks, not inanimate objects.

Tell that to the Democrats. Most Republicans understand that inanimate objects can’t kill people without help from people.

Watching Nancy Pelosi call for gun control in the wake of another shooting incident isn’t a pretty sight. Nonetheless, it’s part of the news cycle so I’ll cover it. In her letter to Speaker Ryan, Ms. Pelosi called for the creation of “a Select Committee on Gun Violence.”

Sen. Chris Murphy, (D-CT), posted this tweet, saying “To my colleagues: your cowardice to act cannot be whitewashed by thoughts and prayers.” One of the people responding to Sen. Murphy’s tweeted “There in lies the problem. We need to get the NRA out of politics and make common sense gun laws a priority!” That’s the only proof I need to show that Democrats oppose the First Amendment and the Second Amendment.

The queen of never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity, aka Hillary Clinton, outdid herself Monday by inventing “an ancillary argument that more people would have died if Paddock had used a ‘silencer.'” After that, Gregg Jarrett took Mrs. Clinton to the proverbial woodshed:

But Clinton’s claim that Paddock could have used such a device on his automatic weapon only underscores that Clinton is nothing, if not obtuse. Suppressors do not function well on automatic weapons. They tend to melt or malfunction under the intense heat of automatic fire. For this reason, there are only a few companies that even manufacture them for use on automatic weapons. And there is almost no marketplace for them.

Yet, Clinton is calling for a ban on a device that has no significant history of use in U.S. crime.

The law on suppressors is already strong. Pursuant to federal law, a person has to have a permit to own or possess one and only after undergoing a criminal background check. Violation of the law is a felony punishable by up to ten years in prison. If it is used during the course of a crime, the penalty is enhanced to 30 years.

I don’t recommend Speaker Ryan creating a commission/committee to study gun violence, I’d recommend that their first assignment is to study gun violence in Baltimore and Chicago, then publish a report on those findings.

As poorly as the politicians behaved, civilians quickly turned into that night’s heroes:

Thompson, a former EMT in Compton, California, and his friends broke into police cruisers to get medical supplies. “Our triage area was just civilians,” Thompson says. “I had a firefighter with me, a trauma nurse, and we were going down the line, doing what we could.” They marked their triage patients with Sharpies and lipstick, Thompson said.

I just wish our ‘leaders’ thought like this nation’s army of Davids.

DeMaurice Smith, the executive director of the NFLPA, is getting bent out of shape after President Trump trolled NFL players during a campaign rally in Alabama Friday night. First, President Trump said what thousands of NFL fans are thinking when he said “Wouldn’t you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say ‘get that son of a b***h off the field right now – he’s fired.” Republicans and independents everywhere cheered when he said that.

As the executive director of the NFLPA, aka the NFL players’ union, DeMaurice Smith had to say something, which he did when he said “Whether or not [NFL commissioner] Roger [Goodell] and the owners will speak for themselves about their views on player rights and their commitment to player safety remains to be seen. This union, however, will never back down when it comes to protecting the constitutional rights of our players as citizens as well as their safety as men who compete in a game that exposes them to great risks.”

Everyone gets it that players have the right to protest. It’s just that millions of people, literally, would prefer that they and other progressive celebrities, aka actors, would opt not to protest. Most fans just want to tune into a game to tune out the political world. DeMaurice Smith apparently hasn’t figured that out.

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell chimed in, saying in this statement “The NFL and our players are at our best when we help create a sense of unity in our country and our culture. There is no better example than the amazing response from our clubs and players to the terrible natural disasters we’ve experienced over the last month. Divisive comments like these demonstrate an unfortunate lack of respect for the NFL, our great game and all of our players, and a failure to understand the overwhelming force for good our clubs and players represent in our communities.”

What Commissioner Goodell omits from that statement is that the NFL gets a black eye when Commissioner Goodell initially treats domestic violence as a joke. When Ray Rice first struck his then-fiancé in a New Jersey casino, Goodell suspended him for 2 games. When Commissioner Goodell says that President Trump demonstrates “an unfortunate lack of respect for the NFL”, my reply is straightforward. The NFL’s tin-eared reactions to domestic violence and the players’ acceptance of disrespecting the National Anthem and the American flag has earned them tons of disrespect. If the NFL wants respect, they need to earn that respect. If they don’t learn that lesson, their TV and approval ratings will continue to sink.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

You’d think that a former California attorney general would understand the basics of our legal system. After reading Kamala Harris’s tweet about Education Secretary DeVos’s rescinding “Obama-era guidance on investigating campus sexual assault, puts interim rules in place.” In her tweet, Sen. Harris said “This is infuriating. We should be strengthening, not weakening, protections for sexual assault survivors.”

Sen. Harris’ statement assumes that all women who step forward are rape victims. Further, Sen. Harris’ statement doesn’t say a thing about protecting the right of defendants to question their accusers. Does Ms. Harris think it’s ok for women to be able to accuse men of raping them anonymously? In what universe is that ok?

In her Twitter bio, Sen. Harris said that she is “dedicated to fighting for justice & giving voice to the voiceless.” That sounds nice but I don’t think she means it. Instead, I think she’s just another man-hating mad woman from California. We finally got rid of Sen. Boxer, one of the original man-haters of the Senate, and she’s replaced with another man-hating woman.

With a state as populated as California, wouldn’t you think that they’d be able to find someone more interested in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

John Kass’s latest article is part of today’s must reading. The main topic discussed in the article is the subject of offensive statues. Specifically, Kass wrote about toppling offensive statues and monuments.

In part, Kass wrote “As an African-American, Sharpton believes that using federal tax dollars to subsidize the Jefferson Memorial is wrong. And even though the flames of Cultural Revolution are burning hot, you can understand this. History is important, but history can also be quite offensive. But there’s one thing wrong with Sharpton. It’s not that he goes too far. It’s that he doesn’t go far enough. Because if he and others of the Cultural Revolution were being intellectually honest, they’d demand that along with racist statues, something else would be toppled. The Democratic Party.”

Kass then makes that case, saying “The Democratic Party historically is the party of slavery. The Democratic Party is the party of Jim Crow laws. The Democratic Party fought civil rights for a century.” Then he sticks the knife in, then gives it a sharp twist:

The Democratic Party’s military arm in the South was the KKK. The Democratic Party opposed the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, making the former slaves citizens of the United States and giving them the vote.

Kass then adds “You can’t say the Democratic Party wasn’t the slavery party. It’s historical fact.” The truth is that Robert Byrd, the long-time Senate Majority Leader and former leader of the KKK, and Albert Gore, Sr., the father of Vice President Gore, both filibustered the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. They weren’t alone.

Kass isn’t most upset with the toppling of statues. He’s most worried about this:

My guess is that most Americans are afraid of social punishment. So, the offensive statues will go, and then perhaps offensive iconography, offensive images, offensive books.
One book comes to mind. Let me quote a passage from it.

“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street and building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And that process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

George Orwell. “1984.”

This nation’s founding fathers didn’t envision the U.S. as a thin-skinned nation. They envisioned the U.S. as a nation of overcomers. The Party of the Perpetually Offended, aka the Democratic Party, aren’t overcomers. They’re a bunch of whiners who’d rather play the victim card than become part of the nation of overcomers.

This is what the Democratic Party has devolved into:

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

During his testimony, Jim Comey admitted that President Trump had the right to fire Comey. Comey also admitted that President Trump had the right to instruct the then-FBI Director to stop his investigation into Gen. Flynn. We know from this transcript, during Sen. Rubio’s cross-examination that Sen. Rubio said “He said, ‘If one of my satellites’ — I imagine, by that, he meant some of the other people surrounding his campaign — ‘did something wrong, it would be great to know that, as well”?

At that point in Mr. Comey’s testimony, it’s pretty clear that President Trump wasn’t interrupting the FBI investigation. Later in Mr. Comey’s testimony, Mr. Comey admitted that he’d sent some information to friend of his so his friend could leak the information to the NYTimes and trigger the appointing of a special counsel.

Here’s what I’m questioning. President Trump wasn’t attempting to hinder Mr. Comey’s investigation. Further, Comey’s a skilled litigator so he knows that many elements of obstruction of justice aren’t present. Gregg Jarett wrote comprehensively about the required elements of obstruction in this article. Specifically, Jarrett wrote “Felony obstruction requires that the person seeking to obstruct a law enforcement investigation act ‘corruptly.’ The statute specifically defines what that includes: threats, lies, bribes, destruction of documents, and altering or concealing evidence. None of that is alleged by Comey.”

I’m questioning Mr. Comey’s integrity because he’s testified that President Trump acted within his authority when the president terminated Comey and because the required elements of obstruction don’t exist.

If that’s true, then what’s Mr. Comey motivation for pushing for a special counsel? President Trump acted lawfully. He certainly didn’t threaten or bribe investigators. He certainly didn’t destroy documents or conceal evidence. At some point, shouldn’t people admit that there’s nothing here? Alan Dershowitz seems to think that we’ve reached that point:

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

To: Larry Jacobs, Walter F. Mondale Chair for Political Studies at the University of Minnesota
From: Gary Gross, Uppity Peasant
Subject: The US Constitution

Dr. Jacobs, during your appearance on Almanac this past Friday night, you said that conservatives should be “on high alert” because President Trump didn’t mention the Constitution in President Trump’s Inaugural Speech. While that’s technically true in a narrowly defined way, it isn’t reality.

Early in President Trump’s Inaugural Speech, he stated “Today’s ceremony, however, has very special meaning because today, we are not merely transferring power from one administration to another or from one party to another, but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the people.” Perhaps you didn’t recognize this constitutional principle but I definitely noticed it. I wasn’t alone, either, because that constitutional principle is called federalism.

The Tenth Amendment says “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” In other words, the things that aren’t affirmative responsibilities of the federal government are sent to the states or the people by the Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution.

Dr. Jacobs, it’s time you started reading the US Constitution so you don’t miss obvious constitutional principles like federalism.

Frankly, Dr. Jacobs, I’ll be thrilled if President Trump moves power out of Washington, DC. Based on the articles I’ve read, I think that’s quite possible.

Cory Booker didn’t testify in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s confirmation hearing yesterday. In article after article, TV segment after TV segment, pundits and announcers insisted that Sen. Booker testified. This article is one such article that fits that description.

Caitlin Huey-Burns wrote that “one could almost mark January 11, 2017 as the day the 2020 presidential race began: That was the day New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker took the unprecedented opportunity to testify against colleague Jeff Sessions, Trump’s choice for attorney general.”

I watched parts of Sen. Booker’s performance. I couldn’t watch all of it because it was a lightweight’s performance masquerading as a hit job. His emotions appeared contrived or manufactured. His sincerity was totally missing. He didn’t add anything substantive to the confirmation hearing. Mostly, it was an appeal to be the next identity politics warrior for the Democratic Party. (As though they don’t have enough of those already.)

Putting it bluntly, Sen. Booker is superficial and a lightweight. Watch for yourself:

Then there’s this:

But as they settle into life in the minority in Washington, Democrats have the opportunity “to test-drive the opposition,” says Democratic strategist Jesse Ferguson. “We don’t have to accept the course of the next four years as a foregone conclusion.”

Still, Ferguson cautions that the trick is to oppose Trump’s agenda because “it is the wrong direction for the country, not … merely for the sake of obstructing.”

Thus far, they’re looking like mean-spirited obstructionists. If they continue with that tactic, it won’t be long before they’ll have to accept the course of the next four years as a foregone conclusion. After 2018, the Democratic Party will be reduced to rubble in the Senate. They’re already rubble in the House. If the Democratic Party doesn’t figure out what the voters told them this election, they’ll be in the wilderness an additional decade. That’s certainly the direction they’re heading.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Betsy DeVos has the chance of being one of the best secretaries of Education ever. According to this WSJ article, Mrs. DeVos has gone toe-to-toe with the ‘education establishment’ and lived to tell about it. In fact, she didn’t just live to tell about it, she defeated them. In fact, she didn’t just defeat them, she kicked some serious ass.

According to the WSJ article, “Mrs. DeVos is a philanthropist who has devoted years and much of her fortune to promoting school reform, especially charter schools and vouchers. She chairs the American Federation for Children (AFC).”

This year, “AFC was especially successful … as 108 of the 121 candidates it supported won their elections. AFC candidates in Florida won 20 of 21 targeted races. The group’s biggest coup was ousting a scourge of school choice in a Miami-Dade Senate district where Democrats are a majority. The teachers’ union dumped $1 million into the race but still lost.” [Editor’s note: winning 108 of 121 elections is a winning percentage of 89.25%, which certainly qualifies as kicking ass.

It’s especially heartening to see this many school choice advocates getting elected. They’re the future civil rights leaders of the next 15 years. Even more importantly, being seen as school choice advocates will help Republicans in minority communities irrespective of what Randi Weingarten said in this interview:

In Ms. Weingarten’s over-the-top statement, she said “In nominating DeVos, Trump makes it loud and clear that his education policy will focus on privatizing, defunding and destroying public education in America. DeVos has no meaningful experience in the classroom or in our schools. The sum total of her involvement has been spending her family’s wealth in an effort to dismantle public education in Michigan. Every American should be concerned that she would impose her reckless and extreme ideology on the nation.”

This is a perfect illustration of the left’s wanting money out of politics … if the money is spent opposing the left’s monopolies. Mrs. DeVos has spent a portion of her wealth trying to increase educational competition in the hopes of forcing the forces of the status quo into providing a better product. The reason why the minority community likes school choice is because public schools have failed their children too often.

Here’s hoping that Mrs. DeVos carries out President-Elect Trump’s school choice agenda when she’s confirmed.

Regardless of who wins tonight, the inescapable truth is that society’s institutions need rebuilding. No institution needs rebuilding more than journalism, with the justice system close behind. After watching the DC media act like Mrs. Clinton’s campaign communications team, it isn’t a stretch to think that Americans don’t trust the media to tell the truth. The American people are right in thinking that the media isn’t impartial. They’re right in thinking that large parts of the media are the portrait of partiality.

For those of us who’ve been at this awhile, we remember how journalists couldn’t be bothered into checking Jeremiah Wright’s church in Chicago but couldn’t wait to hop a jet to Wasilla, Alaska to surveil the GOP vice-presidential nominee. It didn’t surprise conservatives when the lefty media tried explaining away JournoList. JournoList officially disbanded but they didn’t disappear. They just changed names and went to work for Mrs. Clinton or the DNC.

We know this thanks to WikiLeaks:

In 2008, ‘journalists’ slobbered all over themselves to help their messiah get elected. In 2016, Dana Milbank wrote a column based on DNC research. I get it that newspapers and networks separate their pundits from their reporters. Frankly, it’s time to start ignoring the blindly partisan pundits. Mr. Milbank fits that description. Ditto with E.J. Dionne, Sean Hannity and Eric Bolling. They contribute nothing valuable to the debate this nation needs to have.

The Obama Justice Department is the most politicized (and corrupt) Justice Department in US history. Between Eric Holder refusing to turn over Fast and Furious documents to Congress, to not prosecuting Lois Lerner for violating American patriots’ civil rights to Loretta Lynch fixing things with Bill Clinton on a secluded air strip so Mrs. Clinton wouldn’t get indicted. That’s without mentioning Eric Holder dropping voter intimidation charges against the New Black Panther Party:

Over the coming days, I’ll go through a list of institutions that need rebuilding. Make sure you tune into these reports.