No, Abortion Isn’t a Constitutional Right

H/T Town Hall.

I have read the Constitution and carry a copy to let libs read it and nowhere in the Constitution is an abortion mentioned.

In the past several weeks, a bevy of states have passed extensive new restrictions on abortion. Alabama has effectively banned abortion from point of conception. Georgia has banned abortion from the time a heartbeat is detected, as have Ohio, Kentucky and Mississippi. Missouri has banned abortion after eight weeks. Other states are on the move as well.

This has prompted paroxysms of rage from the media and the political left — the same folks who celebrated when New York passed a law effectively allowing abortion up until point of birth and who defended Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam’s perverse statements about late-term abortion. According to these thinkers, conservatives have encroached on a supposed “right to abortion” inherent in the Constitution.

This, of course, is a lie. There is no “right to abortion” in the Constitution. The founders would have been appalled by such a statement. The Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade (1973) is a legal monstrosity by every available metric: As legal scholar John Hart Ely wrote, Roe “is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.” The court’s rationale is specious; the court relied on the ridiculous precedent in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) that a broad “right to privacy” can be crafted from “penumbras, formed by emanations.” Then the court extended that right to privacy to include the killing of a third party, an unborn human life — and overrode state definitions of human life in the process.

How? The court relied on the self-contradictory notion of “substantive due process” — the belief that a law can be ruled unconstitutional under the Fifth and 14th amendments so long as the court doesn’t like the substance of the law. That’s asinine, obviously. The due process provision of both amendments was designed to ensure that state and federal government could not remove life, liberty or property without a sufficient legal process,  not to broadly allow courts to strike down state definitions of conduct that justify removal of life, liberty and property. As Justice Clarence Thomas has written, “The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause is not a ‘secret repository of substantive guarantees against “unfairness.”‘”

Nonetheless, the notion that such a right to abortion is enshrined in America’s moral fabric has taken hold among the intelligentsia. Thus, we now experience the odd spectacle of those on the political left declaring that the Constitution enshrines a right to abortion — yet does not include a right to bear arms, a right to freedom of political speech, a right to retain property free of government seizure or a right to practice religion.

For much of the left, then, the term “constitutional right” has simply come to mean “thing I want.” And that is incredibly dangerous, given that the power of the judiciary springs not from legislative capacity but from supposed interpretive power. Judges are not supposed to read things into the Constitution but to properly read the Constitution itself. The use of the judiciary as a club has led to a feeling of radical frustration among Americans; it has radically exacerbated our culture gap.

The legislative moves in Alabama and other states will open a much-needed debate about the role of the states, the role of legislatures and the role of government. All of that is good for the country. Those who insist, however, that the Supreme Court act as a mechanism for their political priorities are of far more danger to the country than that debate.

Advertisements

REPORT: Donald Trump Jr. May Run For Mayor Of New York City

H/T The Daily Wire.

I think Donald Trump Jr could win and become the mayor of New York City.

The last Republican mayor of New York City was RINO Micheal Bloomberg.

The New York Post’s gossip column, Page Six, reports Tuesday that President Donald Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., may be considering a bid to replace Bill de Blasio as New York City mayor.

In a short “whispers” item, the Post suggests that Trump Jr. is putting feelers out to gauge whether it’s worth it to make a bid for NYC’s top office.

“Political families beget dynasties. Take Gov. Mario Cuomo’s kid, Gov. Andrew. Add a pile of Roosevelts, wall-to-wall Kennedys, more Bushes than they have in Cypress. Clintons might gear Chelsea for office. We had multiple Daleys in Chicago, assorted Tafts from Ohio, Jerry Brown and daddy Pat both grabbed California governorships. Plus leave us not overlook those Rockefellers,” the Post says. “Comes now Donald Trump’s son. Drums are beating that Donald Jr. would like to run for mayor. Of where? Where else?”

“Kiddies, mother is saying friends are saying he is saying he’d like to run for mayor of New York City,” the paper declares.

He’d only be fulfilling his father’s lifelong dream of getting his name on the mailbox at Gracie Mansion, but the time may have passed for a Trump to helm New York City’s city government. The Trump name is now synonymous with the Republican Party, and NYC isn’t likely to elect a Republican, no matter which name the “R” on the ballot comes after.

But Donald Trump Jr. would have to win the race to be mayor of New York City to cause problems for Bill de Blasio who is, inexplicably, out on the trail campaigning for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, despite his lack of popularity in his own city.

De Blasio’s campaign has been centered on attacking Donald Trump, and according to Politico, while that’s doing little to attract people to his cause, it is stoking the flames of a feud between de Blasio and the White House.

“I’m a New Yorker. I’ve known Trump’s a bully for a long time. This is not news to me or anyone else here,” de Blasio says in his campaign video, released last week. “And I know how to take him on.”

The president took notice, tweeting, “The Dems are getting another beauty to join their group. Bill de Blasio of NYC, considered the worst mayor in the U.S., will supposedly be making an announcement for president today. He is a JOKE, but if you like high taxes & crime, he’s your man. NYC HATES HIM!”

Certainly, the Trumps who live in NYC aren’t fans. Donald, Jr.’s brother, Eric got into a “heated” exchange with de Blasio on Twitter last week over claims that de Blasio’s “Green New Deal” is designed largely to punish successful corporations, fining companies like the Trump Organization millions to pay for a scheme of socialist environmental policies. De Blasio claimed the GND wasn’t personal, but his office tweeted out a list of NYC-based Trump properties and how much each would be charged to finance the mayor’s new plan.

The exchange eventually got so heated the president got involved, retweeting his son’s responses to de Blasio, including a tweet where Eric Trump accused de Blasio of letting New York City “go to sh*t.

Karma seemed to follow the current mayor who was forced to hold a press conference inside the Trump Tower, when his original plan — to hold the conference on the sidewalk and street outside the building, with the Trump Tower name visible in the background — fell through because of weather.

Having to face a Trump at home after having to bow out of the national contest for the Democratic nomination would only be adding insult to injury for the currrent New York City mayor, whether Donald Trump Jr. had a chance to take the mantle or not.

 

Eight Facts That Will Keep Gun Grabbers Up At Night

H/T Bearing Arms.

The gun grabbers will lose much sleep trying to debunk these facts.

Gun rights activists are in the fight of their lives. While there have been some wins in the last year or so, there have been a whole lot of setbacks. Perhaps the worst is that Democrats are once again emboldened to pursue anti-gun legislation, something they’d learned was a losing cause a while back. Now, we’re back at it.

Those who want to restrict gun ownership, however, aren’t getting an easy fight. Nor should they.

You see, there are some facts about violence in the United States–the reason typically cited for why we need gun control–that will keep anti-gunners awake at night.

As emotions morph from grief to anger to resolve, it is vitally important to supply facts so that policymakers and professionals can fashion solutions based on objective data rather than well-intended but misguided emotional fixes.

Are there ways to reduce gun violence and school shootings? Yes, but only after objectively assessing the facts and working collaboratively to fashion commonsense solutions.

Here are eight stubborn facts to keep in mind about gun violence in America:

The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>

  1. Violent crime is down and has been on the decline for decades.
  2. The principal public safety concerns with respect to guns are suicides and illegally owned handguns, not mass shootings.
  3. A small number of factors significantly increase the likelihood that a person will be a victim of a gun-related homicide.
  4. Gun-related murders are carried out by a predictable pool of people.
  5. Higher rates of gun ownership are not associated with higher rates of violent crime.
  6. There is no clear relationship between strict gun control legislation and homicide or violent crime rates.
  7. Legally owned firearms are used for lawful purposes much more often than they are used to commit crimes or suicide.
  8. Concealed carry permit holders are not the problem, but they may be part of the solution.

Each of these facts is firmly based on empirical data. Here’s a deeper look.

It’s also worth noting that the trend for violent crime decreasing tends to correspond to the liberalization of gun laws throughout the nation. While correlation doesn’t equal causation, if the claims of gun control activists had any merit, we’d see the opposite.

We don’t.

The fact of the matter is that violence is a complicated problem. Trying to separate gun violence from other forms of violence is pointless. No one feels better that their loved one was stabbed to death. Focusing on a tool used does nothing to combat the underlying issues, issues we only barely understand.

Every solution proposed by anti-gunners is the simple idea that if we somehow restrict law-abiding citizens from owning guns, we’ll somehow make the problem go away.

That’s not how it works.

If any of these people want to combat violent crime, then they’d at least be willing to talk about other potential solutions. After all, those eight facts show that the problem isn’t guns.

Yet practically none of them do. It’s like they want violence to continue or something.

Man Gets 33 Months For Stealing 55 Firearms

H/T Bearing Arms.

The thief only 33 months for stealing 55 handguns is a sweetheart deal.

If there’s one legitimate gun problem in this country, it’s stolen firearms.

Regardless of who they stole them from, gun thieves turn around and sell firearms to some of the worst people imaginable. They don’t care about what comes next, unlike legitimate gun dealers who will refuse a sale to anyone who appears suspicious. They’re arming other criminals, and they know it.

When a thief robs a gun store, he often has access to all the firearms he can carry.

Recently, a man was sentenced for a theft where he took off with 55 firearms.

A man was sentenced to 33 months imprisonment after admitting to stealing 55 handguns from a popular outdoor adventure sporting goods store along the Northern California coast.

According to a plea agreement before a U.S. Senior Court judge, the man admitted he cut the power lines to disable the store alarm in the early morning hours of Aug. 8, 2015.

“He then climbed on the roof and broke through a skylight to gain access to the firearms.  He broke into a cabinet containing firearms and then carried 55 handguns out of the store in a backpack, forcing open a roll up door to exit the store.”

The man stored the guns for an undisclosed amount of time before he began selling the firearms.

The stolen firearms have been recovered in places as far as Oregon and Georgia. At least one was used in a murder.

For all that, he got less than three years in prison.

Folks, this is how criminals get guns. They buy them on the black market. We know this for a fact. They get them from people who either stole them directly or obtained them from thieves for later sale. Stolen guns are the tools generally used for crimes throughout this country.

I’m sorry, but I think 33 months amounts to a slap on the damn wrist. I’m guessing we’re looking at $22,000 worth of merchandise at least, and I’m pretty sure he’d have gotten the same sentence if he stole a couple of laptops.

Of course, laptops aren’t used to rob, murder, or otherwise terrorize the population as a whole. They’re not sold to people who commit acts that are then used to justify disarming the rest of us.

Maybe it’s just me, but I think this scumbag deserves a whole lot more than 33 months.

“Oh, but he cut a deal.”

Yeah, he did. He cut a deal. Unless he gave up some serious heavyweights in the criminal world, I honestly don’t care.

We’re fighting an uphill battle to preserve our Second Amendment rights, desperately trying to block every single anti-gun measure being crammed down someone’s throat, and it’s been justified by the acts of the type of people this jackwagon provides guns to. There are probably people pushing for anti-gun measures right now because of acts carried out with the guns this moron stole.

Yes, I’m taking it as a personal affront. I take every gun theft as a personal affront.

I want the book thrown at these people. They deserve it.

Karl Rove: Trump 2020 Has An Uphill Battle In Rust Belt States

H/T The Daily Wire.

Karl Rove is nuttier than a squirrel turd.

It is way too early in 2020 election cycle to make a call like this.

“Feels very, very cautious about their chances”

GOP strategist Karl Rove predicts that the Trump 2020 campaign will have a difficult time winning Rust Belt states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, reports Fox News.

“We’ve seen some evidence in the public polling, but my sense is that Trump campaign feels very, very cautious about their chances in those three states,” Rove told “America’s Newsroom” hosts on Tuesday.

President Trump won the Rust Belt states by narrow margins mostly because of low voter turnout for Hillary Clinton. Rove said that President Trump would have to compensate for those three states if he were to lose them this time around.

“If he loses these three states, he is no longer president unless he makes it up elsewhere,” Rove said.

Should Biden win the nomination, Rove said that Trump will have his work cut out for him in the Rust Belt states given that Biden was born in Pennsylvania and now has his headquarters there.

“[Biden] has his headquarters in Philadelphia and recognizes how central it can be to the general election,” Rove said. “Biden is missing no tricks. [Pennsylvania] will be a tough state for the president to hold and it’s critical that he hold it.”

Rove said that Trump will most likely refocus his efforts on states like Colorado, New Hampshire, Nevada, and New Mexico if he loses support in the Rust Belt.

Despite Rove’s predictions, Rep. Lou Barletta (R-PA) believes that Trump will not only be victorious in Pennsylvania but victorious by an even wider margin, noting that Joe Biden has no connection to the state whatsoever.

“He left Pennsylvania 67 years ago… Remember, Hillary Clinton came from Scranton too and we all know what happened there,” Barletta told “America’s Newsroom.”

Barletta “begged” Trump to not believe the polls in Pennsylvania, noting that he trailed Hillary Clinton by six points in 2016, according to Fox News. He said this stems from the fact that Democrats and Independents in the state still fear disclosing their full opinions to pollsters.

On Monday night, more than 10,000 people showed up to the Trump rally in Montoursville, Pennsylvania, where the president reminded the crowd that his future opponent, Joe Biden, left Pennsylvania behind long ago

“And don’t forget: Biden deserted you,” Trump said at the rally. “He’s not from Pennsylvania. I guess he was born here, but he left you, folks. He left you for another state. Remember that, please. I meant to say that. This guy talks about, ‘Oh, I know Scranton.’ Well, I know the places better. He left you for another state, and he didn’t take care of you, because he didn’t take care of your jobs. He let other countries come in and rip off America. That doesn’t happen anymore.”

Rep. Barletta said that Trump’s rally was basically a sequel to everything he saw in 2016, with thousands waiting in lines outside.

“This is a replay of what I saw in the last election. … I think he’s gonna win Pennsylvania by more than he won the last time,” said Barletta. “I’m sure the experts will say differently, but let’s watch and see. I don’t know if they’ve learned anything in four years.”

 

 

Justin Amash Doubles Down on Impeachment: Mueller Report Showed ‘Underlying Crime’

H/T Breitbart.

Rep. Justin Amash(RINO-MI)is proving just how delusional he really is.

If Meuller found any underlying crimes committed by President Trump he would have filed charges.

Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), the first congressional Republican to accuse President Donald Trump of engaging in “impeachment” acts, doubled down Monday, claiming those who assert the president did not commit any crimes are relying on “several falsehoods.”

In a series of tweets, Amash claimed special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on now-debunked collusion between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russa did, in fact, reveal the president acted illegally, arguing that “obstruction of justice does not require the prosecution of an underlying crime.”

Justin Amash

@justinamash

People who say there were no underlying crimes and therefore the president could not have intended to illegally obstruct the investigation—and therefore cannot be impeached—are resting their argument on several falsehoods:

31.2K people are talking about this

Justin Amash

@justinamash

People who say there were no underlying crimes and therefore the president could not have intended to illegally obstruct the investigation—and therefore cannot be impeached—are resting their argument on several falsehoods:

Justin Amash

@justinamash

1. They say there were no underlying crimes.

2,500 people are talking about this

Justin Amash

@justinamash

1. They say there were no underlying crimes.

Justin Amash

@justinamash

In fact, there were many crimes revealed by the investigation, some of which were charged, and some of which were not but are nonetheless described in Mueller’s report.

3,972 people are talking about this

Justin Amash

@justinamash

In fact, there were many crimes revealed by the investigation, some of which were charged, and some of which were not but are nonetheless described in Mueller’s report.

Justin Amash

@justinamash

2. They say obstruction of justice requires an underlying crime.

2,190 people are talking about this

Justin Amash

@justinamash

2. They say obstruction of justice requires an underlying crime.

Justin Amash

@justinamash

In fact, obstruction of justice does not require the prosecution of an underlying crime, and there is a logical reason for that. Prosecutors might not charge a crime precisely *because* obstruction of justice denied them timely access to evidence that could lead to a prosecution.

4,918 people are talking about this

Justin Amash

@justinamash

In fact, obstruction of justice does not require the prosecution of an underlying crime, and there is a logical reason for that. Prosecutors might not charge a crime precisely *because* obstruction of justice denied them timely access to evidence that could lead to a prosecution.

Justin Amash

@justinamash

If an underlying crime were required, then prosecutors could charge obstruction of justice only if it were unsuccessful in completely obstructing the investigation. This would make no sense.

3,063 people are talking about this

Justin Amash

@justinamash

If an underlying crime were required, then prosecutors could charge obstruction of justice only if it were unsuccessful in completely obstructing the investigation. This would make no sense.

Justin Amash

@justinamash

3. They imply the president should be permitted to use any means to end what he claims to be a frivolous investigation, no matter how unreasonable his claim.

2,412 people are talking about this

Justin Amash

@justinamash

3. They imply the president should be permitted to use any means to end what he claims to be a frivolous investigation, no matter how unreasonable his claim.

Justin Amash

@justinamash

In fact, the president could not have known whether every single person Mueller investigated did or did not commit any crimes.

2,619 people are talking about this

Justin Amash

@justinamash

In fact, the president could not have known whether every single person Mueller investigated did or did not commit any crimes.

Justin Amash

@justinamash

4. They imply “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” requires charges of a statutory crime or misdemeanor.

2,613 people are talking about this

Justin Amash

@justinamash

4. They imply “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” requires charges of a statutory crime or misdemeanor.

Justin Amash

@justinamash

In fact, “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” is not defined in the Constitution and does not require corresponding statutory charges. The context implies conduct that violates the public trust—and that view is echoed by the Framers of the Constitution and early American scholars.

7,457 people are talking about this

Often a lone GOP voice in Congress, Amash sent a series of tweets Saturday faulting both Trump and Attorney General William Barr over Mueller’s report. Mueller wrapped the investigation and submitted his report to Barr in late March. Barr then released a summary of Mueller’s “principal conclusions” and released a redacted version of the report in April.

Mueller found no criminal conspiracy between Trump’s presidential campaign and Russia. In a summary to Congress, Barr said Team Mueller concluded that the Trump campaign did not collude with Russia. Further, the attorney general stated Mueller did not reach a conclusion on whether President Trump obstructed justice, stating that he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein determined that the president had not done so.

Amash said he reached four conclusions after carefully reading the redacted version of Mueller’s report, including that “President Trump has engaged in impeachable conduct.”

“Contrary to Barr’s portrayal, Mueller’s report reveals that President Trump engaged in specific actions and a pattern of behavior that meet the threshold for impeachment,” the congressman tweeted. He said the report “identifies multiple examples of conduct satisfying all the elements of obstruction of justice, and undoubtedly any person who is not the president of the United States would be indicted based on such evidence.”

President Trump and Republican lawmakers generally view the matter as “case closed,” as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), recently declared on the floor of the Senate.

On the other hand, Democrats who control the House are locked in a bitter standoff with the White House as it ignores lawmakers’ requests for the more complete version of Mueller’s report, the underlying evidence and witness testimony. Some Democrats wants the House to open impeachment hearings, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), has resisted, saying impeachment must be bipartisan.

On Monday, Michigan State Rep. Jim Lower (R) announced he will mount a primary challenge to Amash. He was expected to officially launch his primary challenge around July 4th, but moved up the announcement in the wake of Amash’s impeachment comments.

“Congressman Justin Amash tweets yesterday calling for President Trump’s impeachment show how out of touch he is with the truth and how out of touch he is with people he represents,” said Lower, per the Detriot Free Press. “He must be replaced and I am going to do it.”

Jeff Daniels: If Trump Wins in 2020, It’s ‘the End of Democracy’

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

I heard Jeff Daniels has a new movie in the works called Stupid and Stupider and Jeff plays both parts.

Actor Jeff Daniels said that Donald Trump’s re-election in 2020 would mean the “end of democracy” during an appearance Monday on MSNBC.

Daniels, who is starring on Broadway as Atticus Finch in Aaron Sorkin’s adaptation of To Kill A Mockingbird, stopped by Deadline: White House to share his thoughts on the political climate. Like host Nicolle Wallace and most of the show’s guests, Daniels is vehemently anti-Trump and challenged midwestern voters who chose Trump in 2016 to consider if they were for values like decency and respect.

“The big gamble is to go all the way to November 2020, which I agree, and lose? It’s the end of democracy,” he said.

Wallace, who said Daniels’s show brought her to tears, shared a text message from former FBI Director James Comey talking about his attendance of the play.

“There will be no plays about the virtue of this Republican Party and its passion for truth,” Comey texted Wallace.

Daniels compared Trump supporters ignoring his deficiencies to a “mob” Sorkin writes about his in adaptation, where people take a break from their conscience.

“That’s what I see when I look at Trump’s rallies,” Daniels said. “At the end of the day … it’s race. This is about the Republican Party, or a wing of it, going this is our last chance to save the party, and if we don’t, it’s the end of the Republican Party.”

Daniels slammed Republican Senators who wouldn’t stand up to Trump in his view and called for people to be “heroic, because democracy is at stake.”

“Wow,” Wallace said.

Daniels has a long career in entertainment that includes roles in such films as Dumb and Dumber101 Dalmatians, The Purple Rose of Cairo and The Martian, as well as a starring role in the HBO drama series The Newsroom, which was created by Sorkin.