Search
Archives

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

Categories

Archive for the ‘Civil Rights’ Category

Democrats have criticized Israel for rejecting Rep. Ilhan Omar’s and Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s planned visit to Israel. That criticism falls into the category of faux outrage. Part of the key to understanding why the Democrats’ outrage is artificial is because of information on the Omar-Tlaib itinerary. Another key to understanding the Democrats’ faux outrage is because of what isn’t in that itinerary. Here’s that information:

Congresswomen Tlaib and Omar are leading activists in promoting the legislation of boycotts against Israel in the American Congress. Only a few days ago, we received their itinerary for their visit in Israel, which revealed that they planned a visit whose sole objective is to strengthen the boycott against us and deny Israel’s legitimacy. For instance: they listed the destination of their trip as Palestine and not Israel, and unlike all Democratic and Republican members of Congress who have visited Israel, they did not request to meet any Israeli officials, either from the government or the opposition.

If this was a serious trip whose purpose was to gather information on what’s happening in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, why would Omar and Tlaib only plan on visiting Palestine? If this was a fact-finding mission, why didn’t Reps. Omar and Tlaib request meetings with Netanyahu’s ministers?

Here’s the truth that Reps. Omar and Tlaib don’t want you know. This was a PR stunt from the beginning. Think of this timeline. First, Omar and Tlaib co-sponsor a bill that endorses the BDS movement. Shortly after that, Omar and Tlaib announce that they’re planning a visit to Israel during Congress’s August recess. Finally, Omar and Tlaib announce that they’re heading to a conference where anti-Semitism likely will run high.

Of course, Rep. Omar and Rep. Tlaib are playing the victim card flawlessly:

If Democrats send Rep. Omar back to DC as expected, it’ll count as proof that the center of the Democratic Party is anti-Semitic. As for leadership Democrats, their statements are rather rich. Speaker Pelosi said this:

Isn’t that rich? Democrats are silent when Antifa mobs stifle speakers with whom they disagree (think Ben Shapiro, Andy Ngo, Dennis Prager or Guy Benson.) but they’re outraged when Israel rejects 2 American politicians who support Israel’s destruction through boycotts and sanctions. That doesn’t pass the ‘shoe is on the other foot’ test.

I’d love to say that I’m surprised but I’m not. Rep. Omar is just a nasty individual.

UPDATE: Israel has granted Rep. Rashida Tlaib permission to visit her family in the West Bank:

Israel’s interior minister said Friday he has received and granted a request by Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib to enter the Israeli-occupied West Bank on humanitarian grounds. The decision marked the latest sharp reversal over what had been a planned visit by Tlaib and fellow Democrat, Rep. Ilhan Omar, to Jerusalem and the West Bank.

After reading this monthly column, which wasn’t particularly well-written, I went to the comments section to see what foolishness was buried there. John Ellenbecker’s comment is instructive. Let’s pick it apart.

First and foremost the 1st Amendment is a limitation on the government, it IS NOT a limitation on citizens or the private sector. The government has made no attempt to shut Trump up. Second – none of us are trying to shut Trump up. We want him to keep talking and tweeting – it tells the world who he really is.

I agree with Mr. Ellenbecker that the First Amendment is supposed to be “a limitation on the government.” I further agree that it isn’t supposed to be “a limitation on citizens or the private sector.” That statement is a bit surprising for a Democrat. I thought Democrats hated the Citizens United ruling.

What I don’t agree with is the part where Mr. Ellenbecker said that the “government has made no attempt to shut Trump up.” While that’s technically true, it’s also true that Joaquin Castro emphatically stated that he wanted President Trump’s supporters to “twice about contributing to his campaign.” As a congresscritter, Joaquin Castro is certainly part of the government. Further, Rep. Castro’s stated intent was to silence President Trump’s supporters.

Call me crazy but I’m pretty certain that constitutes “a limitation on citizens.” It isn’t surprising that Democrats are using these tactics against people who don’t side with Democrats. Unfortunately, that’s a time-tested Democrat tradition.

When it comes to constitutional chicanery, California can’t be beat. Let me rephrase that. When it comes to constitutional chicanery, California can’t be beat, except in court. In this instance, it’ll get beaten like a drum.

Harmeet Dhillon lays out what’s happening when she writes “No one, not Congress, not the president, and certainly not a state government, may unilaterally change the requirements to be president of the United States without first amending the U.S. Constitution.” Then she writes “The U.S. Constitution is very clear as to the requirements to run for president: one must be a “natural born Citizen,” 35 years old, resident in the United States for 14 years. That’s it.”

That didn’t prevent California’s Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom from signing a bill that attempts to add additional criteria to the Constitution through making new state law. It’s nothing but a PR stunt. That doesn’t mean action shouldn’t be taken. That’s where Harmeet’s law firm comes in:

On behalf of the Republican National Committee, the California GOP, and three Trump-supporting Republican voters in California, my law firm filed for a preliminary injunction in federal court to block this unconstitutional law before it can interfere with the 2020 presidential election. The president and his campaign have done the same.

Good for her. Good for them. It’s what I’d expect from California Democrats. It’s what I demand from Republicans.

I didn’t realize just how much Gov. Tim Walz had bought into the DFL’s anti-mining agenda until now. According to this article, Gov. Walz has gone the full Al Gore on environmental stupidity.

Awhile back, Gore was in town for “the Climate Reality Leadership Corps training at the Minneapolis Convention Center.” Gore said Walz is helping Minnesota change the energy landscape, saying “What’s happening here in Minnesota represents some of the best of what’s happening all across the country. If Washington is not going to lead, Minnesota will.”

The ‘leadership’ that Vice President Gore is talking about is anything but leadership. It’s Democrat stupidity running rampant. During his presentation, Gov. Walz was interrupted by protesters who oppose the Line 3 Pipeline. When they were shut down, Gov. Walz tried winning their trust. Check out the video in this tweet:


Check this out:

Walz said even a head of state has to work in concert with lawmakers — and Minnesota is the only state in the nation where control of the legislature is divided. “We want to move to a totally carbon-free Minnesota,” said Walz, noting that the Republican-controlled state Senate has refused to hear a DFL-led climate bill modeled after aggressive plans in California and Hawaii. “We don’t have the Senate.”

Gov. Walz’s betrayal of his southern Minnesota farming roots is complete. He’s wholly owned by the environmentalist wing of the DFL. Long ago, the DFL sold out totally to the environmentalists. Further, the DFL doesn’t deserve its name because the Democratic-Farmer-Laborer Party has become the party of socialists. The DFL has abandoned farmers and laborers.

It’s impossible to picture a farm in a carbon-free environment. The protesters that interrupted Gov. Walz’s speech are protesting the Line 3 Pipeline. The DFL has already tried stopping the PolyMet and Twin Metals projects. They stopped the Sandpiper Pipeline project. If they won’t support those types of projects, how can the DFL credibly call themselves pro-labor?

California’s once-great agricultural land is virtually worthless. They’re blaming it on climate change but it’s mostly attributable to foolish policies pushed by environmental activists. The last thing that Minnesota should want is to become a cold California. That isn’t anything that any state should aspire to. California is quickly becoming the capitol of homelessness, illegal immigration and rat infestation.

Tim Walz isn’t from southern Minnesota anymore. He isn’t pro-farmer. He isn’t pro-gun rights anymore. He’s quickly becoming the most progressive governor in Minnesota history.

The sellout is complete.

When it comes to Robert Mueller’s report, the Loony Left can’t resist hearing what Mueller didn’t say. That’s the take I got from this dishonest diatribe masquerading as journalism.

Jill Lawrence’s dishonesty is only exceeded by her writing deficiencies. This is what passes for journalism? That’s frightening. Apparently, Ms. Lawrence’s column is based on what she thinks Robert Mueller really thinks. It’s apparent that she doesn’t understand the US legal system. I’ll give Ms. Lawrence an A in creativity but that’s the only passing grade I’d give her. Check out this paragraph:

If I could stand up to raise my right hand, I’d swear to tell the truth. And it would be this: Of course I would have indicted Donald Trump if I could have. What don’t you get about “if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that”? Or 10 textbook cases of obstruction of justice? Or the difference between “no collusion” and insufficient evidence to nail down a criminal conspiracy with the Russians?

One of the cornerstones of the Mueller report was what he said about collusion/conspiracy. The American Bar Association quoted from the report, saying this:

The special counsel found that Russia did interfere with the election, but “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”

There’s nothing in that paragraph that says they didn’t have enough evidence to charge. There’s nothing in that paragraph that suggests that the Trump campaign was that receptive to the Russians. So much for Ms. Lawrence’s theories, which, by the way, doesn’t constitute proof.

Then there’s this:

I regret being overly considerate of the president and his right to a “speedy and public trial.” We faced so many limits on our investigation and obstacles in our path, I should not have added more restrictions of my own free will and out of a sense of good sportsmanship. We are in a crisis that demands clarity and, alas, I did not recognize just how dire our circumstances — Barr’s perfidious misrepresentations, maddening Democratic caution, scandalous Republican indifference — until too late.

Ms. Lawrence thinks that a person’s right to a “speedy and public trial” is a nicety? I suppose she thinks other parts of the Constitution’s Bill of Rights are niceties, too? Here’s what the Speedy Trial Clause says:

“[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy trial”

As for the statement that Mueller’s investigation faced tons of limits and obstacles, that’s ridiculous. Over 1,400,000 documents were turned over. Not once during the investigation did President Trump invoke Executive Privilege. In fact, he let the White House Counsel testify for over 30 hours. The Trump administration’s level of transparency was historic in a positive way. It’d be interesting to see what Ms. Lawrence thought of when she said that Mueller’s investigation faced lots of limitations.

What the hell was Lawrence thinking when she wrote about “10 textbook cases of obstruction of justice?” We don’t know whether any of the charges met the probable cause burden of proof. If those examples couldn’t meet that level of proof, they certainly couldn’t meet the “beyond a reasonable doubt” level of proof that’s required to convict. It’s frightening that journalists have left that field to become published activists while masquerading to be journalists. The truth is that Ms. Lawrence is just a paid political hack.

Now that it’s over, let’s review President Trump’s Salute to America event. The Democrats’ unpresidential presidential candidates took to the airwaves to predict that President Trump would politicize his “Salute to America” event on Independence Day. Predictably, these Democrat presidential candidates got it badly wrong. Tulsi Gabbard got it wrong, saying “The self-serving politician that he is, Trump has succeeded in making July 4th about himself, and in doing so, further divided our country. This on a day when our nation’s president should be uniting us.”

Joe Biden, aka Sleepy Joe, criticized President Trump, saying “Will he speak to the example America must set to inspire the world? Will he offer a robust defense of the democratic values that have always been our strength in times of crisis? We all know the answer to that. Donald Trump is incapable of celebrating what makes America great — because he doesn’t get it.”

Biden is a bull-shitter. He’s always been a gaffe machine. He’s a total idiot in this interview:

Starting at around the 10:00 mark, Biden made these idiotic statements:

Look what’s happening with Putin. While Putin is trying to undo our elections, he is undoing elections in Europe. Look what’s happened in Hungary. Look what’s happened in Poland. Look what’s happened in Moldova. Do you think that would’ve happened under my watch? Or under Barack’s watch? You can’t answer that but I can. It wouldn’t have. And it didn’t.

That’s a pile of BS. Apparently, Biden thinks we’re stupid. The Mueller Report stated quite clearly that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. You can’t blame the Trump administration for not doing anything to stop that attack because, at that point, there officially wasn’t a Trump administration. The administration that let the Russians tamper with our election was the Obama administration. That’s an indisputable fact.

President Trump’s Salute to America featured a speech that was really more of a history lesson than anything else. He talked about inventor like Orville and Wilbur Wright, Thomas Edison, trailblazers like Amelia Earhart and Lewis and Clark, civil rights leaders like Harriet Tubman, Fredrick Douglass and Clarence Henderson. President Trump didn’t shy away from telling the stories about the US military’s acts of bravery. Here’s one story that jumped out at me:

A generation later, the Army returned to Europe, and embarked upon a great crusade. With knives and rifles in hand, the Rangers scaled the cliffs of Normandy. The 101st Airborne leapt into the danger from above, illuminated only by enemy flares, explosions, and burning aircraft. They threw back the Nazi empire with lightning of their own, from the turrets of Sherman tanks and the barrels of the M1 rifle. In the darkness of the Battle of the Bulge, with Nazis on every side, one soldier is reported to have said: “They’ve got us surrounded again, the poor bastards.”

If that’s the Democrats’ definition of a self-serving speech, then they need a different dictionary because that one’s worthless.

Let’s be honest, though. It isn’t that Democrats are stupid. It’s that their hatred of President Trump is that intense. It isn’t disputable that Democrats, time after time, let this hatred get the better of them. At times like these, it’s virtually all-consuming.

Just once, I’d love to see Democrats put the US first for an extended period of time rather than put partisanship first. If that ever happened, the average person would be astonished at the great things that could get accomplished.

If Democrats don’t adopt that mindset, they should prepare for an electoral landslide in November, 2020.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller has agreed to testify before the House Judiciary Committee, then the House Intel Committee. In both instances, the hearings will be public hearings. Democrats are touting this as a big win for the American people and Democrats. I’ll agree that it’s a win for the American people but I’m betting it’ll be a loss for Democrats.

Fox News had panel after panel, interview after interview on the potential ramifications of Mueller testifying. Capitol Hill Producer Chad Pergram is exactly right when he said “We’ve had some explosive hearings on Capitol Hill before. You think of James Comey testifying, Jeff Sessions in the Senate a couple of years ago. You think about Michael Cohen in February. This will dwarf that. The pure magnitude of this will be off the Richter scale.” Democrats will rue the day they insisted on calling Mueller to testify.

Speaker Pelosi issued this statement:

“We are pleased that the American people will hear directly from Special Counsel Mueller. Our national security is being threatened and the American people deserve answers. The Mueller Report revealed that the Russians waged a ‘sweeping and systematic’ attack on our elections, and America’s top intelligence and law enforcement officials have warned that the Russians will attack our elections again. Yet, sadly the President calls it a hoax, and suggests that he would welcome Russian interference again. Members of Congress must honor our oath and our patriotic duty to follow the facts, so we can protect our democracy.”

That’s PH.D. worthy spin, as in Pile it High and Dry worthy.

President Trump is right in calling the investigation being a hoax. Russia attacking our electoral system isn’t a hoax. The Obama-Biden efforts to prevent the Russians’ attacks weren’t a hoax. They were either a joke or an embarrassment. Team Obama-Biden flunked that national security test. (Remember, it was Democrats that controlled the levers of government at that point. It wasn’t Republicans.

Alan Dershowitz laid it out pretty nicely on what Democrats should expect. Dershowitz said Democrats should expect Republicans to question Mueller about the basis of the FISA warrant against Carter Page. There’s lots of fertile ground that Republicans can plow through. Rest assured that they’ll persist in getting answers to questions that Mueller didn’t investigate.

Mueller has stated repeatedly that his report is his testimony. When news broke Tuesday night, Mueller confirmed that his testimony would stay “within the 4 corners of the report.” Further, DOJ guidelines prevent prosecutors from going beyond saying who they refused to prosecute and who they prosecuted. Tuesday night, Dershowitz said that the questions that Democrats want to ask about are questions that DOJ guidelines prevent Mueller from talking about. Dershowitz said that the questions that Republicans want to ask can be asked because they weren’t part of the Mueller investigation.

Imagine how sensitive Mueller will be when (not if) a Republican asks him why he exclusively hired partisan Democrats to his attorney staff. Imagine the follow-up question to that initial question. Does anyone think that’ll turn out well for Democrats? I don’t.

Democrats were already tiptoeing past a minefield. Thanks to Tuesday night’s decision, Democrats face the possibility of tiptoeing through that minefield — while wearing snowshoes. Good luck with that.

In this opinion piece, former VP Joe Biden wrote that “We are a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants.” He continued, saying “Our country is made up of hard-working, aspirational people from every culture, from every nation — and that is an indisputable strength. There’s no better example of the richness that’s possible when the United States is closely knit together with our neighbors in Latin America and the Caribbean than the city of Miami.”

After that, Sleepy Joe gets a little confusing. He said “That starts by recognizing that DREAMers are Americans, and Congress needs to make it official. The millions of undocumented people in the United States can only be brought out of the shadows through fair treatment, not ugly threats.” Which is it, Joe? Are we a nation of laws or are we supposed to ignore people that are now flooding into the US due to loopholes in our asylum laws? Those folks aren’t DREAMers. They’re an entirely new categorization of illegal immigrants.

Our asylum system needs to be improved, but the answer is to streamline and strengthen it so that it benefits legitimate claims of those fleeing persecution, while reducing potential for abuse.

Joe’s actually right for a change. Our asylum system needs to be improved. Why Biden doesn’t tell Democrats to get off their posteriors and help fix the problem is puzzling, though. Thus far, Democrats have done exactly nothing to fix that crisis. Then there’s this:

And it’s imperative that we secure our borders, but “Build the wall” is a slogan divorced from reality.

National security isn’t Joe’s strength. The MSM reports it to be but former Defense Secretary Robert Gates said “I think he’s been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue of over the past four decades.”

It won’t stop the flow of illegal narcotics or human trafficking, both of which come primarily through legal ports of entry. Nor will it stop asylum seekers fleeing the most desperate conditions imaginable and who have the right to have their cases heard. Nor will it stem the numbers of undocumented, most of whom overstay legal visas.

This isn’t difficult to translate. The Obama-Biden administration did virtually nothing to fix asylum laws. They didn’t build the wall, which is essential. (Joe says it isn’t. Israel says it’s highly successful. I’ll side with the Israelis.)

Under Trump, there have been horrifying scenes at the border of kids being kept in cages, tear-gassing asylum seekers, ripping children from their mothers’ arms — actions that subvert American values and erode our ability to lead on the global stage.

Joe, it isn’t President Trump’s fault that the MSM showed pictures of children in cages that were from the Obama-Biden administration. You, not President Trump, locked kids in cages:

Biden suffers from Democrat Syndrome. Its prominent tell-tale sign is the inability to tell the truth. That’s been a frequent problem with Joe. He’s a serial plagiarist. He’s campaigned by telling blacks that Mitt Romney wanted to “put y’all back in chains”:

The good news is that VP Biden isn’t the strongest frontrunner I’ve ever seen. Then again, he isn’t running against a strong group of candidates. This might be the worst list of presidential candidates that the Democrats have ever put forward.

It’s indisputable that the US is a nation of immigrants. What’s disputable is whether we’re a nation of laws anymore. It’s disputable because former FBI Director Jim Comey appropriated the authority given to the Attorney General. It’s disputable because the FBI used information that it knew was fraudulent to get a warrant to surveil the Trump campaign. Further, the FBI got that warrant by telling the FISA Court that the fraudulent information had been verified.

That isn’t what a nation of laws does. That’s what a bunch of criminals do.

Let’s be blunt. The things that Joe Biden outlined in ‘setting the record straight’ about President Trump’s record are extreme distortions. They aren’t lies but they’re extremely misleading.

For instance, Biden said “Let’s be clear: President Trump inherited a growing economy from the Obama-Biden administration. And now, he’s in the process of squandering it.” This coming from the administration whose economic growth was the most pathetic since WWII. Let’s be exceptionally brutally honest about this.

During the Obama administration, the economy grew at a feeble rate. The energy industry was held back by the Obama-Biden overregulation of the industry. That’s because President Obama was bought and paid for by environmental activists. Further, the manufacturing industry shrunk because the Obama-Biden administration ignored blue collar workers’ needs. Manufacturing jobs were lost during the Obama-Biden administration. That’s just the cold, hard fact. Then there’s this:


Did VP Biden mean it when he tweeted “As president, Biden will reverse Trump’s tax cuts for the super wealthy. It’s time we reward work, not just wealth.” I ask because that isn’t what VP Biden said last night at a high-bucks fundraiser. Here’s what he said when he thought the microphones weren’t recording him:

Remember, I got in trouble with some of the people on my team, on the Democratic side, because I said, you know, what I’ve found is rich people are just as patriotic as poor people. Not a joke. I mean, we may not want to demonize anybody who’s made money.

Truth of the matter is, you all know, you all know in your gut what has to be done. We can disagree in the margins. But the truth of the matter is, it’s all within our wheelhouse and nobody has to be punished. No one’s standard of living would change. Nothing would fundamentally change.

Which is it, Mr. Biden? Will you “reverse Trump’s tax cuts for the super wealthy”? Or will you “not want to demonize anybody who’s made money”? You can talk out of both sides of your mouth but you can’t have it both ways.

Finally, there’s this tweet:


This coming from the administration that had the chilliest relationship with Israel since 1948. This coming from the administration that removed a statuette of Winston Churchill from the Oval Office. This from an administration that told Russia they wanted greater flexibility after their re-election. This coming from the administration that negotiated, then signed a deal that let the biggest state sponsor of terrorism become a nuclear power.

This shit-for-brains idiot was part of the worst foreign policy/national security administration in our history. It was worse than Jimmy Carter’s administration. For those of us who remember the Iran Hostage Crisis, it’s almost impossible to believe that’s possible.

Finally, let’s tell the truth. The Obama administration surveilled AP reporters, FNC correspondent James Rosen and the Trump campaign. So much for the Obama administration upholding freedom of the press and other civil liberties.

Those are the distasteful truths about the Obama-Biden administration. They won’t admit to it but it’s there for the world to see.

Let’s be clear about something. A number of Democrat committee chairs are constitutional illiterates. Either that or they’re exceptionally corrupt or both. It’s something I’ve spent a big chunk of time thinking about. Here’s what finished things off for me.

When House Oversight and Reform Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings issued subpoenas for President Trump’s private financial records when he was a private citizen, President Trump’s attorneys filed a lawsuit to prevent the production of those records.

The legal complaint from Trump’s legal team reads “Chairman Cummings has ignored the constitutional limits on Congress’ power to investigate. Article I of the Constitution does not contain an ‘Investigations Clause’ or an ‘Oversight Clause.’ It gives Congress the power to enact certain legislation. Accordingly, investigations are legitimate only insofar as they further some legitimate legislative purpose.”

That’s true as far as it goes but I’d add that they didn’t mention a separation of powers conflict, too. Congress isn’t tasked with investigating private citizens before they were part of the government. That’s the jurisdiction of the executive branch. Specifically, the Department of Justice has the statutory authority to investigate private citizens. The investigations of private citizens is the responsibility of the FBI or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The only people vested with the responsibility of convening grand juries are the DOJ attorneys, U.S. attorneys or a special counsel.

This won’t be a terribly difficult case to decide. The legislative branch has the constitutional authority to give advice and consent, pass legislation, provide legislative oversight and to ratify treaties.

House Democrats don’t have the authority to investigate the private activities of private citizens. That’s the job of the executive branch. Period. Mark Levin discussed another possible explanation with former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli on Sunday night’s Life, Liberty & Levin:

I don’t know if that’s what these Democrats are trying to do but I won’t rule it out. It’s pretty frightening when the People’s House is weaponized to torment private citizens. Though that precedent hasn’t been sent, Speaker Pelosi did say that subpoenas might be a way to negotiate with President Trump:

Apparently, Pelosi and other Democrats don’t think playing fair is required. That’s why they need to voted out of office in 2020. The bigger the landslide in the House and Senate, the better. It’s clear that Democrats don’t see limits on their investigative powers:

I suspect that they’ll be stopped cold by the Supreme Court. I can’t wait to hear about that ruling. What’s chilling is hearing E.J. Dionne say that going after a private citizen’s private financial records “is the right thing to do.”