MUST SEE=> Polish MP Slaps Down Liberal Reporter “Our Country Is Safe Because We Accept ZERO Illegals
Foreign nationals who fervently adhere to sharia law have a First Amendment right to trespass on our soil, but county governments have no right to offer a prayer to the God of the Bible, the same one referenced in the Declaration of Independence. That is the rule we get from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals when we juxtapose the court’s ruling in the Trump immigration moratorium case with a recent case regarding prayer at county commissioner meetings in Rowan County, North Carolina.
Poor North Carolina just can’t get a break. It appears that the state’s original concerns about joining the federal union in 1788 have been proven correct. Over the past year, the Fourth Circuit has nullified the state’s voter integrity laws; federal, state, and even county-level political maps; and gender sanity laws. Now the court has banished God from county government prayers.
On July 14, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Rowan County, North Carolina, commissioners can’t begin their session with a public prayer delivered by an elected official. And the vote wasn’t even close. This once conservative panel voted 10-5 to banish God from the public square. The opinion was written by Judge Harvie Wilkinson, a Reagan appointee, demonstrating the imbalance in the judiciary once again — that even the most radical opinions are often penned by GOP appointees.
This case also demonstrates that the judiciary will always be a dead end and a one-way-street for conservatives. While conservative lower court judges always feel bound to “precedent,” liberal lower court judges have no problem violating precedent and established practice. Anyone who watches C-SPAN will see that the Senate begins its session every day with a prayer in the deep voice of Pastor Barry Black. Yet the Fourth Circuit somehow believes that a local government, which has even more leeway in matters of religion than the federal government does, can’t even cite the God referenced in our founding document. Our founding has been deemed unconstitutional.
Just three years ago, an opinion authored by Justice Kennedy (of all people!) clearly stated that sectarian prayers at local government gatherings are permissible so long as nobody is coerced to participate. In Town of Greece v. Galloway, Kennedy wrote for the majority that as long as the prayer “comports with our tradition and does not coerce participation by nonadherents,” there is no room for judicial intervention. “To hold that invocations must be non-sectarian would force the legislatures sponsoring prayers and the courts deciding these cases to act as supervisors and censors of religious speech,” Kennedy wrote in the 2014 case.
So how could lower court judges violate sacred precedent? In classic Fourth Circuit fashion, Judge Wilkinson agreed with the ACLU that this prayer is tantamount to coercion because it makes non-religious attendees feel like “outsiders” and “the overall atmosphere was coercive, requiring them to participate so they ‘would not stand out.’” Remember, this same judge signed on to an opinion earlier this year suggesting that almost all Muslim Americans (and non-citizen residents) have standing to bring suit against Trump’s immigration moratorium because the policy cultivates an anti-Islam bias in this country and makes them feel “anxious,” “stigmatized,” “stereotyped,” and “like an outsider.”
Our history, traditions, and founding are unconstitutional
On September 25, 1789, the very same day the House of Representatives voted on the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights — to “make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” — it passed a resolution requesting President Washington to declare a “day of public humiliation and prayer.” This day of prayer and thanksgiving to God, in the words of the great Roger Sherman, was to replicate “the solemn thanksgivings and rejoicings which took place in the time of Solomon, after the building of the Temple,” a “precedent in holy writ” he thought “worthy of Christian imitation on the present occasion.”
President Washington issued the proclamation on October 3 to be observed on November 26 that same year. What was the nature of this public day of prayer? To beseech God “to pardon our national and other transgressions” and “to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue.”
As Scalia noted in a speech shortly before he passed away, modern justices place their interpretation of abstract principles over “the lived experiences and customs” of the American people. Referring to long-standing American traditions, Scalia admonished his fellow jurists to approach those issues with the mindset that a jurist “does not judge them; he is judged by them.”
States have been crushed … except for the ability nullify federal laws
Amazingly, at the same time the courts crush states and denude them of their most basic powers and traditions, held since their acceptance into the federal union, the unelected judges are allowing states nullify federal law. Judge Watson allowed Hawaii to demand that the federal government admit any cousin or distant relative of even non-citizen residents in the state or anyone who claims ties to a state university, despite the president’s statutory authority to bar their entry. Judges are allowing states to keep sanctuary cities and even blocking federal officials from enforcing immigration law. These are powers manifestly held by the federal government. And even John Roberts agreed with these wacky judges in an order last week. Yet when it comes to election law, the right to invoke God, define marriage, or regulate abortion, well, suddenly the states don’t exist.
One could not possibly conjure up a more perverse worldview than the one espoused today by the courts.
Liberal lower court judges always find ways to move precedent even further to the left, yet conservative judges always abide by precedent, even when the higher court violated the Constitution. This is exhibit number 1,324,987 why the judiciary is irremediably broken and why it needs wholesale reform.
Last time Republicans controlled all of government, when the courts began their war on God, even the Bush-era Republicans pretended to care about the judicial crisis. Yet now that the courts are more radical than anyone even feared back then, we hear nothing but crickets from the “conservative” Congress.
Following the 2002 decision from the Ninth Circuit to remove “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance, the House of Representatives passed the Pledge Protection Act on two separate occasions. This bill exercised the Art. III Sec. II plenary power of Congress to regulate the jurisdiction of the federal courts and prohibited all federal courts from adjudicating any case over the constitutionality of the Pledge. The bill passed the House with bipartisan support in 2004 (247-173) and in 2006 (260-167). Although the bills never went anywhere in the liberal Senate, at least there was core bipartisan outrage over the social transformation and judicial tyranny. They passed similar bills stripping the courts of jurisdiction over marriage and abortion.
In the same week in September 1789, when Congress called for a day of public prayer, it also passed the Judiciary Act of 1789, which created the entire structure and jurisdiction of the federal judiciary. No less a figure than John Marshall himself said (Durousseau v. United States, 1810) that implicit in this bill was the exercising of Article III, Section 2, which grants the judiciary only the jurisdiction provided to it by Congress and that this bill placed a “negative on the exercise of such appellate power as is not comprehended within it [the bill].”
Look how far we have fallen. Now we can’t even get the most conservative members to address marriage, God, abortion, or judicial reform in a meaningful way. The courts are redefining human sexuality and our national borders, yet Congress won’t lift a finger to even conduct a hearing on judicial reform.
In response to the concern that the courts would usurp power, James Madison wrote to Spencer Roane in 1821, “It is not probable that the Supreme Court would long be indulged in a career of usurpation … Nor do I think that Congress, even seconded by the Judicial Power, can, without some change in the character of the nation, succeed in durable violations of the rights & authorities of the States.”
The operative phrase is “change in the character of the nation.” We have a nation that no longer knows its own heritage, laws, history, and traditions. This is how the judiciary can completely rewrite our legacy without anyone blinking an eye.
This, at its core, is what CR Editor-in-Chief Mark Levin is seeking to restore with his new book, Rediscovering Americanism. A nation that doesn’t even understand the values of the Declaration of Independence is bound to repudiate its most sacred tenets. There is a lot of political “fighting” unfolding in our era, but even most of those who purport to fight for “our side” don’t even know what they are fighting for. Rediscovering Americanism is probably the most effective and concise tutorial in natural rights and natural law that can be understood even by the diminished intellect of the governing class. Until they pick up a copy of the book and understand our heritage, the source of our inalienable rights will continue to be extirpated from our body politic by an unelected lawyerly elite.
“The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government.” —Thomas Jefferson
Abortion and racism are both symptoms of a fundamental human error. The error is thinking that when someone stands in the way of our wants, we can justify getting that person out of our lives. Abortion and racism stem from the same poisonous root, selfishness. —Alveda King
President elect Trump stated, “Justice Scalia was a remarkable person and a brilliant Supreme Court Justice. His career was defined by his reverence for the Constitution and his legacy of protecting Americans’ most cherished freedoms. He was a Justice who did not believe in legislating from the bench, and he is a person whom I held in the highest regard and will always greatly respect his intelligence and conviction to uphold the Constitution of our country. My list of potential Supreme Court justices is representative of the kind of constitutional principles I value and, as President, I plan to use this list as a guide to nominate our next United States Supreme Court Justices.”
At the third debate Trump described the 21 candidates he had identified on two separate lists as “pro-life. “They will have a conservative bent. They will be protecting the Second Amendment. They are great scholars in all cases, and they’re people of tremendous respect. They will interpret the Constitution the way the Founders wanted it interpreted, and I believe that’s very important.”
Okay, President Trump, let’s take a closer look at your choices, or should we say, The Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation’s choices…[Link]
From the moment Justice Antonin Scalia died unexpectedly in February, Heritage Foundation has been at the forefront of the debate over the Supreme Court vacancy. That now includes influencing the list of potential replacements being considered by Donald Trump, the Republican Party’s presidential nominee. It is why all these nominees must be completely vetted, because very few of them are pro-sanctity of life.
Trump’s Supreme Court Choices
Here is the full list of the 21 judges Trump would consider appointing for the Supreme Court. He has stated that they are all conservatives, but they are not all pro-life!
Asked what he would do to protect the “sanctity of human life,” Trump said it starts with the Supreme Court.
“I will protect it, and the biggest way to protect it is through the Supreme Court and putting people in the court,” he said. Then vet them President Trump!
Trump went on to say that he favored overturning Roe v. Wade and that, “I will appoint Supreme Court judges who will be pro-life.”
Which Nominees are Pro-Life?
Thanks to Schlafly and several Eagle Forum members who have researched President Trump’s list of potential Supreme Court justices, they’ve concluded the following:
• 12 of 21 are not serious contenders due to age, controversy, or political motivation for including them.
• 3 of 21 are not really pro-life, as research proves based on their writings and statements.
• 3 of 21 are probably not pro-life, as they have been unusually silent on the issue.
• 1 of 21 is possibly pro-life, and could be good on the issue.
• 2 of 21 are certainly pro-life and will remain pro-life despite pressure by the pro-abort media.
Schlafly states, “Our challenge is to have one of the two ‘certainly pro-life’ candidates selected as the nominee. Trump wants to pick a pro-lifer, but obstacles include the media, Senators, Capitol Hill staff, and possibly bad luck.”
Nominees Who are Not Pro-Life
What Schlafly and others state is very true. Cabinet members leave after merely a few years, but Supreme Court nominees typically hold power for 30+ years. Trump’s upcoming nomination to fill the vacancy of pro-life Justice, Scalia, is as important as the election itself. We cannot afford another David Souter mistake!
Six of the 21 candidates on Trump’s list are being pushed by the media because they are most likely NOT PRO-LIFE. Here’s the list of the six candidates that we need to speak out against and veto:
Diane Sykes – She ruled against a pro-life Indiana law, and required taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood; as a state court judge Sykes sentenced two veteran abortion protesters to 60 days in jail.
Steven Colloton – Colloton wrote or joined multiple pro-abortion opinions: one to eviscerate a pro-life South Dakota law, and another to side with a fellow pro-abort judge against a pro-life Nebraska law.
Joan L. Larsen – Larsen is a feminist law professor who declared recently that there is sexism in law, and she has repeatedly mentioned Roe v. Wade without criticizing it. Larson clerked for Justice Scalia, but many of his clerks were not pro-life. She has no federal judgeship experience and is similar to David Souter in her weakness in writing ability, which makes her susceptible to influence by the liberal media.
The following three would probably NOT be pro-life on the Supreme Court
Raymond Kethledge – He joined a decision that favorably cited a precedent that censored a pro-life advertisement.
Allison Eid – She has been unusually silent on abortion. She tersely dissented from a denial of certiorari before the Colorado Supreme Court in a challenge to an injunction against abortion protesters, initially on only the limited grounds of the length of the injunction, and then later, only on the free speech grounds.
Neil Gorsuch – Unusual and persistent silence on abortion throughout law school and as a judge, yet repeatedly cited the Blackmun decision that gave abortionists legal standing to challenge pro-life laws.
Pledge for a Pro-Life Nominee
In a letter to President Trump, entitled, “Coalition Letter on the Pledge for a Pro-Life Nomination for Justice Scalia’s Seat on the U.S. Supreme Court,” signed by pro-life conservative groups and organizations, true pro-life justices are put forward for consideration as nominees.
As the letter states in part,
As you stated during the campaign and in your 60 Minutes interview after your election, you are pro-life and you pledged to nominate justices to the Supreme Court who are pro-life. In addition, Phyllis Schlafly and other conservatives endorsed you in reliance on your public pledge to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia with someone as close to his views as possible.
Justice Scalia never ducked the abortion issue, and always sided with the pro-life position. His replacement should be nothing less.
You indicated that you will make your nomination from a list of 21 candidates that was provided to you by others. Unfortunately, the list omits any women who have a pro-life record, and includes a total of only four women out of 21. This was probably an oversight, because many well-qualified women with pro-life records are available for nomination, and they should be considered for this important position. For example, Judge Jennifer Elrod of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has credentials equal to or better than those on the list, and she would be an outstanding nominee for Justice Scalia’s seat.
Attempts to nominate a “stealth” candidate lacking in a record on abortion was the failed approach of the past, and would be inconsistent with the transparency of your incoming Administration. Despite that, at least a half-dozen of the candidates on the list lack a pro-life record. We urge you not to consider these candidates lacking a pro-life record for the position of Justice Scalia’s seat on the Supreme Court. Several of these judges on the list have even written or spoken in ways that are at odds with the pro-life position.
In addition to Judge Elrod as recommended above, her elder colleague Judge Edith Jones would also be a stellar choice. She is likewise a female jurist who has qualifications superior to most on the current list, and yet was inexplicably omitted.
There are several outstanding candidates who have pro-life records that would fulfill your pledge. For example, Justice Charles Canady of the Florida Supreme Court, who is on your current list, would be a fabulous nominee. Judges Elrod and Jones, and Justice Canady, are all experienced judges who have been transparent about their views and have an unblemished record on the bench. Any of these would be a tremendous addition to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Senate Confirmations of Trump Choices
Not all senate republicans are staunchly pro-life, yet they have vowed to confirm the president’s nominee.
“We’re going to confirm the president’s nominee one way or the other. And there’s an easy way and there’s a hard way,” said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (right). (| Getty.)
If Republicans change the Supreme Court confirmation threshold to a simple majority, Trump could conceivably install even more conservative justices to the Supreme Court with relative ease. Three current justices are in their late 70s or early 80s. [Link]
This is why it is mandatory that President Trump keeps his promise to choose true pro-life Justices!
President-elect Trump is going to announce his top choices very soon. Please repost this article and email it to your lists.
If you know any pro-life, pro-family leaders who are willing to sign this coalition letter to the Trump campaign regarding Supreme Court Justice nominees, immediately contact Andy Schlafly or Priscilla Gray.
“The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation, to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy. An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy.” —Benjamin Franklin on Electoral College
President Trump, I was disheartened to hear you say that we should do away with the electoral college when you wouldn’t have won the election, despite millions of illegal’s voting for Hillary, had we not been given the college by our founders. What those wonderful and brilliant statesmen gave us is crucial to preserve freedom and preventing a tyrant from getting elected. These are some of the important reasons the founders gave us the electoral college! Please refresh yourself on this important part of our Constitution which has kept us from mob rule since 1787.
Although the preamble to the Constitution begins with “We the people,” the word “democracy” (mob rule) is not mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights. Even the Pledge of Allegiance is “to the Republic for which it stands.” We are supposed to be a nation of laws, “rule of law” rather than “mob rule.” Read on…
Creation of the Electoral College
The Electoral College was created for two reasons.
The first purpose was to create a buffer between population centers and the rest of the country.
The second, as part of the structure of the government that gave smaller less populated states a voice in the selection of President.
Without the electoral college giving a voice to the smaller states, the large populated areas (as those on both coasts) would always elect the president. Today, those areas are heavily populated with welfare recipients, sanctuary cities, and we cannot discount illegal alien voters, who vote largely democratic for the free stuff they receive from the federal government. The electoral college is a buffer that allows all states to have a voice.
America is a Constitutional Republic Based on Laws
One of the inherent weaknesses in a government based ONLY on the will of the people is the potential for mob rule. This was often the downfall of direct democracies, where all the people decided on public matters directly rather than through representatives. We were created as a representative Republic, NOT A DEMOCRACY! In designing the electoral college, the founders sought to insulate the selection of president from the convulsions of the multitudes. The college was essentially an extra layer of security helping to guarantee that the president would be a truly capable individual.
Upon exiting the Constitutional Convention Benjamin Franklin was approached by a group of citizens asking what sort of government the delegates had created. His answer was: “A republic, if you can keep it.”
In creating the basic architecture of the American government, the Founders struggled to satisfy each state’s demand for greater representation while attempting to balance popular sovereignty against the risk posed to the minority from majoritarian rule from larger population states.
Our Constitution clarifies the Electoral College in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2, and in part states:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
The product of the Founders’ compromise has been well balanced and enduring, and we would be wise to leave it intact, despite what Soros and the Democrats would like to do to it.
The First Reason for the College
The first reason that the founders created the Electoral College may be difficult to understand today. The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power. Alexander Hamilton wrote about it in the Federalist papers. I know they were right!
Hamilton defends the process for selecting the president. He argues that the system of an electoral college ensures that “the sense of the people” will play a key role in selecting the president, while, at the same time, affording “as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder.” It was believed that electing the president directly, without the intermediate step of the electors, might lead to instability. Hamilton argues that electors will be protected from bias since they do not hold any other political office and are separated from electors from other states.Hamilton believed that this system would best ensure that the president was a man of great virtue and ability, which has not always been the case, but has undoubtedly kept us somewhat protected.
They believed that with the Electoral College no one would be able to manipulate the citizenry. It would act as check on an electorate that might be duped. Hamilton and the other founders did not trust the population to make the right choice. (We have seen this many times in the past, which proved our founders right, and they didn’t have radio or television influence in the late 1700s.)
The founders also believed that the Electoral College had the advantage of being a group that met only once and thus could not be manipulated over time by foreign governments or others. Brilliant men of letters, oh how I wish they were here today!
The Second Reason for the College
The electoral college is also part of compromises made at the 1787 Convention to satisfy the small states. The United States Constitution was made by and for the states, and the founders wanted each state to have a voice in elections.
Under the system of the Electoral College each state had the same number of electoral votes as they have senators and representatives in Congress, thus no state could have less than three.
Again, the Electoral College system was drafted by the states to empower the states, so as to preserve regional identity and protect small states from the domination of the larger ones.
The Daily Caller states it even better than I ever could:
The Founders understood that democracy was important, but they knew that if it wasn’t tempered by a republican system, majority rule could lead to tyranny. Thomas Jefferson wisely admonished future generations of voters that, “Measures are too often decided, not according to the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an overbearing majority.”
Although the Framers guaranteed a “Republican form of government” to the states (Article 4, Section 4), the rights of states are under attack. Their jurisdiction in issues ranging from the death penalty to healthcare standards to the regulation of firearms have become subject to federal mandates. Presidents swear an oath to “preserve and protect the Constitution,” and that must include a firewall to shield our republic from the deception of “democratic” national elections.
The founders of America’s Republic, the authors of our Constitution, were men not only of letters, but of bravery and fortitude who gave us a document like no other document ever given to any nation. We need the electoral college, the inclusion of same in our Constitution was a brilliant addition. God certainly must have given those men a vision of our future for this measure to have been added to protect us.
These men were undoubtedly led by God to preserve the freedoms and liberties they fought to attain. May the Good Lord above help us to do the same, and may our new president take time to study the American Constitution he will soon take an oath to preserve, protect, and defend.
“We’re trying to get as many liberals on the voter register as possible,” adds Dice, noting that it is “kind of discriminatory” to bar 15 to 20 million illegals from voting.
“Yeah, I agree, I definitely agree,” answers the woman.
“The fact that the election has a lot to do with them, they should definitely have a say,” remarks Dice before the woman agrees again.
Another woman then agrees to sign the petition to give illegals the vote, “only if they don’t vote for Trump, can I guarantee that?”
“Well, none of them are, if we can get the Mexicans to be able to vote in this election we can definitely stop Donald Trump,” Dice tells her.
“Cool,” she responds, before high-fiving him.
Only one man at the end of the clip knew that Dice was performing a prank.
Non-citizen voting is a federal felony.
However, in many states, no proof of citizenship is required when voters register, including in Virginia, where over 1,000 illegal aliens have been free to vote.
SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:
Follow on Twitter:
“As governor of Massachusetts, William Weld supported various gun control schemes, including a ban on semi-automatic firearms,” the NRA confirmed. “Unfortunately, and despite being the Libertarian candidate for vice president, Weld continues his anti-gun ways.”
Weld recently confirmed his anti-gun stance – and his ignorance on guns in general.
“The five-shot rifle, that’s a standard military rifle; the problem is if you attach a clip to it so it can fire more shells and if you remove the pin so that it becomes an automatic weapon,” Weld said during a Revolt.tv interview in August. “And those are independent criminal offenses.”
“That’s when they become essentially a weapon of mass destruction.”
He also attacked AR-15 owners, the NRA revealed.
“Weld went on to suggest to the interviewer that both handguns and AR-15s are a ‘problem,’ stating, ‘The problem with handguns is probably even worse than the problem of the AR-15,’” the NRA added. “This latest episode reveals that when pressed on firearms issues, despite any assurances he has given to voters, Weld’s political instincts are to abandon gun owners and embrace gun control.”
Weld’s partner on the LP ticket, Gary Johnson, also holds numerous anti-libertarian views, including support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
“I’m a real skeptic when it comes to these trade agreements, that in fact they can be laden with crony capitalism, but based on people that have been advising me that I hold in very high esteem, I’m being told that the TPP would in fact advance free trade and so I would support that document,” Johnson said.
The TPP, however, allows countries that rely on slave labor to continue the practice; in fact, President Obama even removed an anti-slavery provision from the TPP which prevented Malaysia from joining the agreement.
“The provision, which bars countries that engage in slavery from being part of major trade deals with the U.S., was written by Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.),” the Huffington Post reported in 2015. “At the insistence of the White House, Menendez agreed to modify his language to say that as long as a country is taking ‘concrete’ steps toward reducing human trafficking and forced labor, it can be part of a trade deal.”
Malaysia is a major hub for human trafficking in Southeast Asia, with enslaved men, women, and children subjected to forced labor and sex trafficking, according to the State Dept.
Thailand, which the Obama administrated invited to join the TPP, also relies on slave labor to prop up its economy, according to the AP.
“For… 16 hours, No. 31 and his wife stood in the factory that owned them with their aching hands in ice water,” the AP reported. “They ripped the guts, heads, tails and shells off shrimp bound for overseas markets, including grocery stores and all-you-can-eat buffets across the United States.”
“After being sold to the Gig Peeling Factory, they were at the mercy of their Thai bosses, trapped with nearly 100 other Burmese migrants.”
How is slavery – and gun control – remotely libertarian? And, with the Johnson/Weld ticket, how is the Libertarian Party even remotely libertarian?
Trump Haters Outnumbered 100:1 in Liberal Austin.
Miles-Long Traffic to See Trump!
Healey announced that her office was ratcheting up enforcement of the state’s assault weapon ban by targeting guns whose actions are similar to AR-15s and AK-47s but meet current cosmetic requirements such as being sold without features such as a flash suppressor, bayonet lug or telescoping stock. She contends as many as 10,000 such rifles were sold in the Commonwealth in 2015.
“That will end now,” wrote Healy in an announcement phrased as an editorial in the Boston Globe. “On Wednesday, we are sending a directive to all gun manufacturers and dealers that makes clear that the sale of these copycat assault weapons is illegal in Massachusetts. With this directive, we will ensure we get the full protection intended when lawmakers enacted our assault weapons ban, not the watered-down version of those protections offered by gun manufacturers.”
In a four-page guidance, the AG notes that any gun with an action similar to that of the Avtomat Kalashnikov (AK), UZI, Galil, Beretta AR70, AR-15, Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR and FNC; SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9 and M-12; Steyr AUG; TEC-9 or revolving cylinder shotguns, such as the Street Sweeper and Striker 12, can no longer be sold after July 20.
In a rare new interview, Hillary was challenged by Charlie Rose on her image as a Washington insider.
“You come from the establishment, you have a deep political history, you have been part of the establishment since you were the first lady of Arkansas,” pointed out Rose.
After claiming she was an agent of change, Hillary stated, “I know what the rap is, you’ve been around since, you know, the beginning of time.”
She then paused and awkwardly switched to playing the gender card.
“Having a woman nominated for the first time by a major political party….Oh my gosh, that’s revolutionary!,” exclaimed Clinton.
Quite how it’s “revolutionary to have someone who is the consummate establishment insider nominated by a major political party wasn’t explained by Hillary – but she has a vagina, and that’s all that matters.
As we’ve seen over in the UK, the left only gets excited about a woman in power when she’s not a conservative – proving that the gender card is a cynical ploy to win votes and has absolutely no ethical foundation.
The bigoted, misogynistic reaction to Melania Trump’s RNC speech also illustrates how the left’s strident advocacy for women in politics disappears when they’re faced with a woman who contradicts their opinions.
As the video below documents, Hillary has stooped to playing the gender card over and over again.
Friday , June 24, 2016 – 10:00 PM
(c) 2016, The Washington Post.
The economic story of the past quarter-century was the rapid advance of globalization, the unleashing of trade and commerce among countries rich and poor – a McDonald’s in every European capital, “Made in China” labels throughout Toys R Us. The Brexit vote on Thursday ends that story, at least in its current volume. Voters will soon tell us what sort of sequel they’d prefer.
A slowdown in trade growth has already gripped the globe over the past several years, according to data from the World Trade Organization. Prospects now look bleak for completion of major new trade agreements, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership and a new accord between the United States and the European Union, no matter who wins the U.S. presidential election in November.
Political factions in other European countries are clamoring to follow Britain out the door of the European Union. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is promising to levy the highest set of tariffs in the past century for America against China, Mexico and other key trading partners. His presumptive Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, has vowed to renegotiate existing deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement.
These developments come at the hands of an anxious working class across the West, whose members feel left in the cold by many developments of the rapid integration of foreign products and people into their lives.
It is clear from the results of the British vote, and from Trump’s rise in U.S. politics, that there is a large backlash against the results of globalization so far.
Native-born workers without college degrees are venting their frustrations with immigrants, with factory jobs outsourced abroad and with a growing sense of political helplessness – the idea that their leaders no longer respond to concerns of people like them.
University-educated voters in Britain overwhelmingly sided with the “remain” campaign in Thursday’s vote; those without college degrees powered the victory for “leave.” The top issue among those voting to go was Britain’s right to act independently. The second-highest was immigration.
In the United States, throughout the Republican primaries and into the general-election campaign, white voters without college degrees have formed the core of Trump’s support, and polls show they, too, are frustrated with immigration and economic integration (in the form of free trade).
The forces driving those populist uprisings, both against EU bureaucrats in Brussels and elected officials in Washington, are complex and intertwined. They include long-simmering racial tensions and increased political polarization.
But across the West, the economist Branko Milanovic argues, the rise of populism corresponds to a decline in the income share held by the broad middle classes of those countries.
Milanovic has studied global inequality trends extensively and is the creator of a semi-famous chart showing how the rise of global trade boosted incomes for the poorest and very richest workers in the world – everyone, really, except for the working class in the West.
In a recent blog post, Milanovic writes that in the United States and other rich countries, “populism is rooted in the failure of globalization to deliver palpable benefits to its working class.”
With the Brexit vote, the populist movement can already claim a victory: It has won a clear reversal from the economic-integration trend of the past decades.
Now the question is whether the movement will ultimately push the world into a more Western-worker-friendly form of globalization – or a full-fledged retreat to protectionism.
Either seems possible.
In the protectionist scenario, countries such as France and Spain could follow Britain out of the European Union. Trump could win and impose his 45 percent tariffs on trading partners, and China, Mexico and others could retaliate with WTO complaints and tariffs of their own. Economists worry about those possibilities. Some have warned that they could trigger a global recession. (If Brexit has not begun to, already.)
In the “reformed globalization” scenario, if you will, political leaders could re-engineer the terms of trade to better cushion workers against shocks and better ensure the gains from trade are broadly spread among workers in rich countries, and do not just flow to the rich.
This appears to be Clinton’s stated goal, for example. “I recognize we have to make some changes in trade agreements,” she told The Washington Post in an interview this week, “but I also believe we can’t shut our borders to trade.”
Last month in Washington, the first deputy managing director of the International Monetary Fund, a former Barack Obama economic adviser named David Lipton, gave a speech titled, “Can Globalization Still Deliver?” In it, he called for a “new form of globalization that works for all” – one that clearly shows working-class voters “the opportunities of collaboration and integration.”
“Too many people in the developed world see only a loss of jobs to lower-wage destinations,” Lipton said.
“Too many people fear that immigration is compromising their economic well-being. Too few see clearly the payoffs – poverty reduction, the innovation that comes from shared ideas, higher living standards from greater access to trade and higher returns to the wealthy world from investment partnerships with developing countries.”
But if they want to sell wary workers on the gains from integration – to salvage a new era of globalization, instead of launching a new dawn of economic retrenchment – public officials might need to be more honest with themselves about the trade-offs that come with deepening economic ties.
Harvard University economist Dani Rodrick dubs those trade-offs the “inescapable trilemma of the world economy.” What that means is that we can have any two of these three things, but never all three: democracy, national sovereignty and global economic integration. In other words, you can’t have people voting their own interests, in a country that always places its own interests above the shared interests of the global community, while also stitching everyone’s economies together seamlessly.
“If we want more globalization,” Rodrick wrote in a 2007 blog post that has only grown in relevance over the past eight years, “we must either give up some democracy or some national sovereignty. Pretending that we can have all three simultaneously leaves us in an unstable no-man’s land.”
A land of Big Macs, cheap toys and more and more Brexits.
A vote is scheduled for Monday.
In December, failure to reach a deal doomed anti-Second Amendment legislation in the Senate following the shooting in San Bernardino, California.
Feinstein’s legislation would permit the federal government to deny individuals on a secret terrorist watch list the right to exercise the Second Amendment if authorities decide there is a “reasonable belief that the weapon would be used in connection with terrorism.”
Cornyn said negotiations in the Senate failed because Feinstein “thought due process of law and the Constitution were not necessary.”
Feinstein’s bill would suspend not only the Second Amendment, but also the Fourth and the Sixth.
Cornyn’s version of legislation would keep constitutional protections in place. It would allow the government to put a gun purchase on hold for 72 hours. Prosecutors would then need to convince a judge there was probable cause in order to permanently block a sale.
Democrats argue the 72 hour time period is too short and does not give the Justice Department time to block a sale.
Feinstein’s measure “gives the Justice Department an important additional tool to prevent the sale of guns to suspected terrorists by licensed firearms dealers while ensuring protection of the department’s operational and investigative sensitivities,” said Press Secretary Dana Iverson in a statement.
On Thursday Democrat Senator Joe Manchin went on the Morning Joe show and said “due process is killing us.”
He said “the firewall we have right now is due process. It’s all due process.”
Manchin proposed a five-year waiting period allowing the government to determine “good behavior” by an individual on the secret terrorist watch list before he or she would be allowed to exercise the Second Amendment.
Manchin and Republican Senator Pat Toomey introduced a gun bill following Sandy Hook. It did not gain the votes required for passage.
The legislation Napolitano refers to, a part of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), would see Internet service providers forced to keep quiet over whether they have been asked to provide details of customers’ Internet activity to the authorities.
Any provider that fails to comply with the feds would face criminal felony charges, should the bill be passed.
Napolitano pointed out that this constitutes a violation of both the Fourth and First Amendments.
“The whole purpose of the fourth amendment was to prevent this sort of fishing net operation where they just throw a net out there and see what comes in,” said Napolitano.
“It was to force the government to focus on bad people, on people as to whom there is a suspicion. That is why the fourth amendment requires probable cause.”
When Smith suggested that the bill couldn’t possibly pass because it is blatantly unconstitutional, Napolitano replied “This law will pass because Congress doesn’t give a damn about what is Constitutional.”
“Guess what. The Constitution is intentionally a pain in the neck so that law enforcement will not run roughshod over our civil liberties.” Napolitano also stated, referring to the fact that the FBI director James Comey has consistently complained that investigations are hindered by Constitutional protections.
Amending the existing surveillance laws has become a top priority for the FBI, Comey told a Senate Intelligence Committee in February.
The feds have been attempting to jam amendments covertly into existing legislation which would expand the reach of the FBI’s controversial national security letters.
“The American people should wake up. This is a major step toward a police state.” the judge urged.
“It gets worse — it never gets better, no matter who’s in the White House, no matter which party controls the Congress,” Napolitano commented. “[I]t’s always done in the name of keeping us safe. Who, or what, will keep our liberties safe?”
Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.com, and Prisonplanet.com
During an appearance on Hannity, Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke accused anti-Trump rioters who violently attacked Trump supporters in San Jose last week of utilizing the same tactics that were used to silence and intimidate African-Americans in the south during the Jim Crow era.
Calling the incidents witnessed last week in San Jose “premeditated organized violence,” Sheriff Clarke labeled Mayor Sam Liccardo’s attempt to blame Trump for the unrest “ridiculous”.
Clarke then called for Attorney General Loretta Lynch to dispatch the FBI to “investigate and prosecute and identify people who are using the same type of tactics that were used in the JIm Crow south to frighten and intimidate blacks from participating in the voting process.”
“That’s why this is done – to strike fear and intimidation in the hearts of these people who want to come and hear the candidate of their choice,” added Clarke.
“This is constitutionally protected. This is a Civil Rights violation and they are entitled to that same equal rights protection under the law as anybody else or any of the other protected class. It appears to me that the United States Department of Justice doesn’t care what happening because these people are white and they’re Trump supporters.”
As we reported yesterday, some of the victims of the violence were also Hispanic Trump supporters who were brutally assaulted simply for carrying pro-Trump signs.
Sheriff Joe Arpaio said that the scenes in San Jose last week had left him fearing for Donald Trump’s safety and that he would be “watching his back” when Trump visits Cleveland for the Republican National Convention.
“When you go destroying police cars, they should be in jail, so I don’t know what’s going on at San Jose,” added Arpaio.
After the San Jose police department was accused of standing down and allowing the violence to unfold, it emerged that police chief Eddie Garcia is affiliated with the far left group La Raza, a Mexican race supremacist organization.