Saturday, September 5, 2015

So, What About the Clerk Who Won’t Issue Concealed-Carry Permits?

Throughout the online battles over Kim Davis, the counterfactual I’m most presented with is along the lines of the following: “You wouldn’t support or respect a clerk who refuses to issue concealed-carry permits, so why do you support Davis?” I have two thoughts in response. 

First, I do — in fact — respect genuine conscientious objections, even when I disagree. While I obviously wouldn’t agree on substance with the clerk’s stance on handguns and the Second Amendment, my response would depend to a great degree on the real-world effect of the clerk’s actions. If the situation is truly analogous to the Davis case, then I’d simply drive 20 extra minutes to get my carry permit then work to defeat the dissenting clerk in the next election. I may also try to impeach them (depending on the political environment). If I had no way to obtain a handgun without the clerk’s assistance, then the situation is dramatically different — necessitating immediate legal action with escalating penalties for noncompliance. Critically, however, jail is the last resort, not the first resort, for conscientious objection, and courts have broad powers to craft equitable remedies that vindicate constitutional rights without resort to imprisonment. In Kentucky, Judge Bunning’s focus was on punishing Davis, not granting marriage licenses.  


Second, while I generally respect conscientious objection, I reject the notions that all objections are equivalently meritorious. Indeed, American law has long distinguished among various types of conscientious objections, protecting some more than others. A state official who objects to protecting enumerated constitutional liberties is hardly in the same position as a person objecting to facilitating a “right” five justices created out of whole cloth (historically speaking) five minutes ago. If one can’t see the difference in those propositions, then we should just give up on public discourse entirely because reason and logic no longer matter. So, no, supporting Davis does not mean that I “have to” support any other clerk or government official who’s defying a court order. Give me their reasons, and I’ll give you my opinion.



at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Ben Carson leads in Gallup’s favorability poll

Donald Trump’s net favorable rating among Republicans increased significantly over the past two weeks, putting him among the top six Republicans overall on this measure.Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) 100%‘s image also improved, while Carly Fiorina’s and Ben Carson’s images remain significantly better than they were before the Aug. 6 debate. John Kasich, Jeb Bush and Scott Walker are among those whose images worsened.

 gallup favorability
What is more interesting is what happens when Gallup cross references favorability with name recognition
gallup cross reference
The implication here is that Bush has crested, though one really wonders who doesn’t know Bush is running for president, with high name recognition and a very low favorability rating. Much the same can be said of Perry, Paul and Christie. The potential breakout candidates would seem to be Fiorina, Walker and Jindal who have good favorability numbers and would benefit from increased exposure.
One doesn’t know what to make of Ben Carson’s campaign. He is an immensely personable candidate who, in my opinion, seems both authoritative and insubstantial. We’ll have to wait until the next fundraising support to see if he has either capitalized on his popularity and poll numbers or gotten his campaign organization under control.
at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Climate Propaganda Paves Way for “Pig Power”

insert pictureHaving been bamboozled into passing a mere bill to thwart the Iran deal, rather than treating the agreement as a treaty, the Republican-controlled Congress is on the verge of being taken to the cleaners again. This time, President Obama is maneuvering to authorize U.S. participation in a United Nations climate change treaty through an executive agreement. The treaty is expected to come out of the December meeting in Paris of parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Rather than submit the agreement to the Senate as an Article II Treaty, it is anticipated that the Obama administration will simply accept the treaty on the basis of what it claims to be “existing” presidential authority.

The agreement could establish or propose legally binding limits on carbon emissions, crippling what’s left of our industrial economy, along with new legally binding financial commitments that could run into the trillions of dollars to be “redistributed” from the U.S. and other “rich” nations. Obama has told the U.N. that the United States will meet a pledge of 26 to 28 percent emissions reduction by 2025.

Eleven top Senate Republicans, led by Senator James Inhofe (OK), had asked for “robust and transparent communication between the Executive and Legislative branches, particularly with respect to the Senate and its Constitutional advise and consent responsibilities.” But such requests are typically treated with disdain by the administration, which is determined to get its way no matter what Congress believes.

In order to provide a basis of some kind for Obama to take this questionable approach, our media trumpeted the “news” that July 2015 was supposedly the warmest month on record for the earth dating back to January 1880—with humans the culprits, of course. The source of this sensational claim was the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).


at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

DOD Sec. Says Gitmo Terrorists Need Indefinite Lockup as Obama Tries Closing Prison

While President Obama works to deliver on his longtime promise to close the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba his Defense Secretary offers a jolt of reality; around half of the detainees—the world’s most dangerous terrorists—need to be locked up “indefinitely.”

So what are the commander-in-chief’s plans for the radical Islamic jihadists currently incarcerated in the top-security compound at the U.S. Naval base in southeast Cuba? The all-star terrorist roster includes 9/11 masterminds Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi as well as Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the Al-Qaeda terrorist charged with orchestrating the 2000 attack on the Navy destroyer USS Cole. Where will the U.S. government take these terrorists if the president goes through with his plan, which started out as a campaign promise to restore America’s position as a global leader on human rights.

In all the years that Obama has talked of closing the Gitmo prison, he has never touched on what would happen to the terrorists held there. The president has tried emptying out the compound by releasing dozens of prisoners—many of them have rejoined terrorist causes—to foreign countries, but at least half of the remaining 116 are too dangerous to free. 

Obama’s own Defense Secretary, Ashton Carter, confirmed that recently, saying that “some of the people who are there at Guantanamo Bay have to be detained indefinitely, they’ve just got to be locked up.” This evidently applies to many of those who have been released over the years. For instance, an al Qaeda operative (Saudi Ibrahim al-Rubaysh) released from Gitmo appears on the U.S. government’s global terrorist list and Uncle Sam is offering a $5 million reward for information on his whereabouts.

The administration has considered relocating the captives to military facilities in the U.S., including Ft. Leavenworth in Kansas and the Navy Brig in Charleston, South Carolina. This has ignited outrage among officials in both states. Kansas Senator Pat Roberts was quick to say “not on my watch will any terrorists be placed in Kansas.” Roberts also co-authored a mainstream newspaper op-ed with South Carolina Senator Tim Scott vehemently rejecting the idea. “The notion that Kansas, South Carolina or any other state would be an ideal home for terrorist detainees is preposterous,” the piece reads. “Transferring these prisoners to the mainland puts the well-being of states in danger, posing security risks to the public and wasting taxpayer dollars. The detention facilities at Guantanamo are doing a fantastic job of holding these terrorists.”

The governors of both states—Nikki Haley of South Carolina and Sam Brownback of Kansas—have also vowed to take any action in their power to stop the transfers, including suing the federal government. A South Carolina newspaper editorial points out that the state is already taking a hit for the team by serving as the “de facto permanent home” to high-level nuclear waste associated with the nation’s weapons programs. “Fearing South Carolina is again about to become the home that no other state wants to be has leaders rightly standing up against federal plans to transfer terrorist detainees from the U.S. prison facility at Guantanamo Bay near Cuba to military prisons in South Carolina and Kansas,” the editorial states. “This goes beyond the states’ collective call of duty as there is no agreement on a plan for what to do with the detainees in the long term.”

Judicial Watch has covered Guantanamo extensively and has repeatedly traveled there to monitor the U.S. military commission proceedings against the world’s most dangerous terrorists. JW has witnessed a deep commitment to justice by military and civilian lawyers defending the captives and has reported on many of the perks that the incarcerated terrorists receive from American taxpayers. For instance, they get laptops and computer lessons, “Islamically permissible” halal meals and better medical care than U.S. veterans. Last year the Obama administration let Gitmo inmates operate a “Business School Behind Bars” with an accused Al Qaeda financier as the self-appointed “dean of students.” Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was also permitted to dispatch propaganda from his Guantanamo jail cell (undoubtedly aiding and abetting more terrorism) and a fighter in Osama bin Laden’s 55th Arab Brigade was allowed to published a sob letter in an international media outlet describing the “humiliating and brutal treatments” he suffers at the U.S. military prison.


at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

There Have Been More Jihadist Terror Cases in U.S. in 2015 Than in Any Year Since 9/11

There Have Been More Jihadist Terror Cases in U.S. in 2015 Than in Any Year Since 9/11(CNSNews.com) – The “Terror Threat Snapshot” for August 2015, released by the majority staff of the House Homeland Security Committee, states the terror threat level in America is high and “getting steadily worse,” and that there have been “more U.S.-based jihadist terror cases in 2015 than in any full year since 9/11.”
The “Terror Threat Snapshot” also reported that the Islamic State “is fueling the Islamist terror” globally; that Islamist terrorists “are intent on killing law enforcement” officers and U.S. troops, as well as civilians; and that 25,000 fighters from 100 countries have traveled to Syria and Iraq to join the Islamic State.
In addition, more than 250 Americans have traveled, or attempted to travel, to Syria to fight with the Islamists.
“The terror threat level in the U.S. homeland is high, and the situation is getting steadily worse,” said the report. “There have been more U.S.-based jihadist terror cases in 2015 than in any full year since 9/11.”
In 2015 so far, there have been 30 U.S.-based jihadist cases, the committee informed CNSNews.com. In 2001, after the Sept. 11 attacks, there were only two U.S.-based jihadist cases uncovered that year, the committee said.
One of those cases involved Jose Padilla, also known as Abudullah al-Muhajir, a U.S. citizen convicted on multiple counts of criminal conspiracy related to jihadist terrorism; the second case was the Portland Seven, a group of American Muslims who were attempting to join Al Qaeda but were thwarted by the FBI.

For the August 2015 “Terror Threat Snapshot,” the majority staff of the Homeland Security Committee reported that, “In July alone, a terrorist murdered U.S. service members in Chattanooga, and authorities arrested extremists seeking to live-stream a terrorist attack on a college campus and planning to kill U.S. vacationers on the beaches of Florida.”
“The number of U.S. terrorist cases involving homegrown violent jihadists has gone from 38 in July 2010 to 122 today—a three-fold increase in just five years,” reads the Snapshot. 
For those 122 cases, 80 percent of them “have occurred or been disrupted since 2009,” said the report. “Authorities have arrested or charged at least 48 individuals in the United States this year – 63 since 2014 – in ISIS-related cases. The cases involve individuals: plotting attacks; attempting to travel to join ISIS overseas; sending money, equipment and weapons to terrorists; falsifying statements to federal authorities; and failing to report a felony.”
On July 29, for instance, Arafat Nagi was arrested after he attempted to travel from New York to join the Islamic State.
On July 16, Youssef Abdulazeez attacked two military facilities in Chattanooga, Tenn., and killed four Marines and a Navy sailor.
The Snapshot further reported that since early 2014, “there have been 55 planned or executed ISIS-linked terror plots against Western targets, including 14 inside in the United States.”
In addition, “[t]here have been nearly twice as many ISIS-linked plots against Western targets in the first seven months of this year (35) than in all of 2014,” reported the committee.
The “Terror Threat Snapshot” can be read in its entirety here. 
at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

[VIDEO] Marine Vet Whose Viral Video DESTROYED #BlackLivesMatter Speaks Out...

Remember Michael Whaley? He’s a Marine vet that went on a tirade against #BlackLivesMatter and their violent and hateful rhetoric. His video went viral (and rightly so). It’s an awesome message and one that BLM needs to take to heart.
Whaley was interviewed by Megyn Kelly about his video and he got to expand on his original thoughts -
at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Kids Are Back in School and Let’s Just Say Their Food Has Them “Thanking” Michelle Obama

Thanks-Michelle-Obama-bad-school-lunches-the-lone-hot-dog
Getty - MARK RALSTON/AFP
School is starting up again and kids will be hitting the cafeteria for some less-than-stellar food. A popular meme includes thanking First Lady Michelle Obama on social media for gross or sub-par lunches in an effort to mock her health plan, otherwise known as the “Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act.”

Here are some of the best #ThanksMichelleObama pictures from back to school week.


Kids do say the darndest things.

at No comments:
Labels: , ,

[VIDEO] She Said It: Five Memorable Moments from Clinton’s Latest Interview

1.  Clinton Twice Refused to Apologize for Using Private Email, Secret Server
2.  “I am sorry that this has been confusing to people and has raised a lot of questions.”
After refusing to apologize twice, Clinton’s nonapology apology is to suggest that the situation is too complex for us to understand. The reality is, none of this would be an issue if Clinton had been transparent and up front from the start and had not set up a secret server. She has no one to blame but herself.
3.  “I take classified material very, very seriously. And we followed all the rules on classified material.”
Although it has been confirmed that Hillary Clinton both sent and received classified information on unsecured networks several times a month, Hillary repeated the claim that she did not send classified material on her secret email server.
Even worse, Hillary has continually tried to dismiss her mishandling of classified information as a laughing matter. A recent email released by the State Department also shows Clinton telling a staffer wary of sending classified information over her private network to “just send it.”
4.  “…I was not thinking a lot when I got in”
So Clinton takes classified material very seriously, but didn’t think the security and protocol of her primary means of communication was something she should think about when she became Secretary of State? Clinton cites the “convenience” of using her personal email, but wouldn’t it have been more convenient to comply with the setup and rules that were already clearly setup for the State Department’s government email system?
5.  “There are answers to all of these questions and I will continue to provide those answers.” 

The facts don’t match the talking points. Just this week, the State Department bobbedand weaved through a series of straightforward questions about Hillary’s email practices.

And then there’s this…

Exhibit A
​


Exhibit B


What’s clear is Hillary Clinton regrets that she got caught and is paying a political price, not the fact her secret email server put our national security at risk. Hillary Clinton’s repeated distortions of her growing email scandal, which now involves an FBI investigation, and her refusal to apologize only reinforce why three-fifths of the country doesn’t trust her.
 

at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Renewed calls for gun control laws spur sales

AP STOLEN GUNS VIOLENCE A FILE USA MO
WASHINGTON — Renewed calls for more restrictive gun laws, following a succession of fatal shootings in the United States, immediately appear to be generating a boost for the gun industry.
Newly released August records show that the FBI posted 1.7 million background checks required of gun purchasers at federally licensed dealers, the highest number recorded in any August since gun checks began in 1998. The numbers follow new monthly highs for June (1.5 million) and July (1.6 million), a period which spans a series of deadly gun attacks — from Charleston to Roanoke — and proposals for additional firearm legislation.
While the FBI does not track actual gun sales, as multiple firearms can be included in a transaction by a single buyer, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System's numbers are an indicator of a market upswing in the face of growing anxiety about access to guns.
"Whenever there is a call for gun control, sales increase,'' said Larry Keane, general counsel for the firearm industry trade association National Shooting Sports Foundation. "Unfortunately, this is a pattern that repeats itself.''
USA TODAY
Gun control measures debated in wake of Roanoke journalist killings
The summer trend is not on par with the panic buying boom that followed the 2012Newtown massacre, which jump-started state and federal campaigns for a host of new firearm measures. During the months that followed the Connecticut attack, which featured new calls for an assault weapons ban and expanded background checks, apprehensive gun buyers emptied the shelves of dealers across the country. Yet, the recent uptick represents a similar buying pattern that dates to the uneasy period before 1994 adoption of the assault weapons ban. (That ban expired in 2004.)
Virginia Del. Patrick Hope, a Democratic member of the state Assembly who proposed an expansion of background checks following last month's shooting deaths of two journalists near Roanoke, said the stockpiling of weapons represented an "over-reaction.''
at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

[VIDEO] Clinton family reportedly personally paid State Dept. staffer to maintain private server

Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton and her family reportedly paid a State Department staffer to maintain the private email server she used during her tenure as secretary of state.
The Washington Post, citing an unnamed campaign official, reports the arrangement helped Clinton maintain her personal control over the server that she used to conduct public and private business. The official also said it also ensured that taxpayers weren’t paying for the upkeep of the server that was shared by Clinton, her husband, the former president, and their daughter as well as former aides, the Post reports.
The State Department staffer in question, Bryan Pagliano, told a congressional committee that he would invoke his Fifth Amendment rights instead of testifying about the private server. A congressional source told Fox News on Friday that investigators on the Benghazi Select Committee hoped to question Pagliano, a former IT specialist, over possible destruction of evidence.
Pagliano served as Clinton’s IT director of her 2008 campaign committee and then on her political action committee, according to The Post. He installed and managed her server and left his IT job at the State Department in February 2013, the same month Clinton stepped down as secretary.
The Post reports the Clintons paid Pagliano $5,000 for “computer services” prior to him joining the State Department, according to a 2009 financial disclosure form he filed. After he arrived on the State Department’s staff in 2009, he continued to be paid by the Clintons to maintain the server, a campaign official and another person familiar with the arrangement told The Post.
When asked about whether the former IT specialist had been paid privately to maintain the server, a State Department official said the agency “found no evidence that he ever informed the department that he had outside income,” The Post reports. This week, a different State Department official, couldn’t clarify to the newspaper Pagliano’s pay situation.
Pagliano reportedly didn’t list any outside income in the required personal financial disclosures he filed each year. The Post reports he remains a State Department contractor doing work on “mobile and remote computing functions,’ according to the State Department.
It’s not known exactly when or who “wiped” Clinton’s personal email server. However, it seems clear the move came after October 2014, when the State Department requested personal emails be returned as part of her business records.
Committee Republicans have long argued they don’t have all the documents that should be available to the investigation, after Clinton, using her personal discretion, purged some 30,000 emails.
Fox News put additional questions to Pagliano’s attorney, Mark J. MacDougall, Friday about whether his client played a direct role or had knowledge of the server scrub, but MacDougall said there was nothing further to add beyond the letter.
An intelligence source who confirmed to Fox that the FBI’s “A-team” was handling the Clinton email case, described the investigation as “moving along well,” adding investigators remain “confident” deleted records can be recovered because whoever did the scrub may “not be a very good IT guy. There are different standards to scrub when you do it for government vs. commercial.”
at No comments:
Labels: , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Popular Posts