Democrats Want To Take Our Guns..And They Said It Out Loud

H/T Rob Morse@Slow Facts.

This is one of the best reasons I can think of to vote in this midterm election and vote Republican.

I said this once before but it is worth repeating, “I saw a movie once of a time when only the police and military was armed it was called Schindlers List.”

It has been rumored for years that Democrat/Progressive/Socialists want to take our guns. Times change, and campaign donors change too. Socialist candidates today tell their big donors that they want gun confiscation. These rights-restricting politicians also hope the rest of us won’t hear about their campaign promises until after the election. This time we have them telling the truth on video, and in black and white.

91 percent of Democrat Congressmen supported a bill to outlaw most contemporary firearms.

The exceptions in the bill are for the guns owned by police. In short, almost all the Democrat Congressmen want guns for the state, but not for the citizens..and they said it for all to see. There was no Republican support to this bill, so why did the democrats forward it when they knew it wouldn’t pass?

Several billionaire socialist campaign donors want gun confiscation. These donors wanted to see model legislation proposed before they would dump another tens of millions of dollars into the campaign. These rich donors needed a commitment that the Democrats were more serious about passing gun-control than the Republicans had been about supporting the right to bear arms. It was “show me” time.

Democrat minority leader Nancy Pelosi said gun-control would be a priority if the Democrats take control of the House. That was a start, but it wasn’t enough for the rich donors. The Democrats minority in congress filed  gun control bill, HR 5087 in February, and 176 democrat congressmen signed up as co sponsors. HR 5087 defined most contemporary firearms as assault weapons and banned them. This includes all ARs, AKs, and their variants. The bill also included many semi-automatic handguns.

There, they said it outloud again. ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all it.’

Democrats usually want to keep their gun-confiscation proposals out of the public spotlight. We have a name for it when you tell say one thing to one group of voters and then contradict yourself with another group. It is called lying, and we’ve seen a bunch of it. In particular, we’ve seen it from Democrats McCaskill, Sinema, Gillum, Spanberger, Heitkamp, and Beto O’Rourke. If your Democrat congressman says his is pro-gun, then he is lying too. I’m sorry you were lied to. I know it hurts because I’ve felt it before.

The question isn’t if Democrat politicians are lying to their moderate voters. The question is if the voters are paying attention. We’ll find out on November 6th.

How do you defeat billionaires trying to buy elections?
You beat Bloomberg, Soros and Steyer by voting.
It’s that easy.

Democrats Ponder the Unthinkable: What If They Lose?

H/T The Daily Beast.

I remember the polls saying at 6 pm election night that Hilliary had a 95% chance of winning.

My hope is the DemocRat loss goes all the way to crushing.

Polls suggest the Democrats shouldn’t lose in the House, but after 2016 everyone is paranoid.

Nearly two years of organizing, marching, candidate recruitment and unprecedented fundraising has led the Democratic party to a critical moment. On Tuesday, it can either reassert itself politically or fall short, prompting an utter and complete psychological meltdown.

Most in the party believe that the path they will go down will be the former; that they will gain a majority in the House of Representatives for the first time since former President Barack Obama’s first term. But paranoia is part of the Democratic DNA, especially after the shock of the 2016 election. And in the final stretch of the midterm campaign, a scenario in which the party is unable to flip the requisite 23 House seats looms in the dark recesses of the mind.

“It will be paralyzing for a while, it will,” said Neera Tanden, president and CEO of the Center for American Progress. “Candidly, I think there will be a fair amount of soul searching and people will feel back on their heels… We will have to rebuild. But the resistance is built on opposition to [Donald] Trump’s extremism. And the more extreme he is, the more we will have.”

Or, as veteran Democratic strategist Paul Begala put it: “After all this work, all these volunteers, it would be absolutely shattering.”

Few midterm elections have taken on as much significance as the current one. That is, in part, because much of what happens on Tuesday will determine whether there will be a federal check on President Trump’s political powers. But the elections will also have an outsized impact on the composition and direction of the Democratic Party as well, from the policies it pursues, to the candidates it runs, to the approach it takes in the next presidential contest.

“The lesson learned here is to not make assumptions about who desires and deserves to have a seat at the table of democracy. And that we’re going to have to dig a lot deeper and to make this relationship about something more than the transaction and exchange of a vote.”
— Ayanna Pressley, Democratic House candidate in Massachusetts’ 7th District

Party officials say that, should they win on Tuesday, they will pursue an agenda meant to reflect the desires of their constituents while still recognizing the reality of a Republican occupying the White House (and likely running the Senate). In conversations, aides listed anti-corruptionlegislation, infrastructure repairs, bills to lower the costs of prescription drugs and expanding health care access as top priorities. The party would also have subpoena power, which would allow it to investigate the President’s finances, the federal response to Hurricane Maria and various ethical entanglements of administration officials.

“One of the issues that resonates everywhere that I think Democrats will take a very quick action on is around democracy reform,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), who serves as vice chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told The Daily Beast in an interview. “Really overall, I think we’re going to see a lot of accountability measures, looking at what has happened, looking at what the Trump administration has done, looking at the emoluments clause, looking at personal gain. There will be I think a lot of hearings around exactly what’s happening and trying to get control of the government again so it works for the people again.”

But officials fear there are dangers in going after the president too hard; the primary being the risk of turning him into a victim in the minds of the public. The key, several Democrats said, would be to choose ripe topics to investigate without looking overzealous. That would mean restarting the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation into Russia’s 2016 meddling but waiting for Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s findings before making any political determination on the matter.

“If we win it will be because people are tired of the negativity so I don’t think spending all our time going after Trump is where we should be,” said Howard Dean, the former DNC chair. “Should we do investigations? Of course. He is a corrupt despot. But the focus should be on what we should do for the country.”

One factor that will heavily impact the direction the party goes is the composition of its members. And a Democratic House majority would likely feature a historic share of women and women of color, whose candidacies, strong biographies and unapologetic progressivism will inform the type of members they would be.

“I just don’t see it happening. If it did, in the unlikely event that it did, it would probably count as one of the biggest moral blows to Democrats in recent memory. Second maybe only to our presidential loss in 2016.”
— Former U.S. Rep. Steve Israel, who chaired the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee until 2014

“The candidates are different this year, than I’ve ever seen,” said Rashida Tlaib, the Democratic House candidate in Michigan’s 13th Congressional District, who is poised to be the first Muslim woman in Congress (along with Ilhan Omar in Minnesota). “ And they’re diverse and they’re real and they’re not what I would call name-recognition or dynasty type candidates. We all have names that nobody has ever heard of.”

For several of the candidates, the difficult votes may start early. A slew of Democrats running for the House have said that they would not support House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) as speaker. But if the party were to regain the majority, they may be forced to break that pledge. Top aides say that’s a cross-that-bridge-when-we-get-there problem; though the expectation is that Pelosi will give members enough assurances to get the needed votes.

But once Democrats get past that hurdle, they will confront others. There will be pressure on members to rein in the Trump administration alongside the usual congressional demands to bring back victories for one’s district. Many of the expected incoming class will also have run on promises to reform the institutions of the Democratic Party itself.

“The lesson learned here is to not make assumptions about who desires and deserves to have a seat at the table of democracy. And that we’re going to have to dig a lot deeper and to make this relationship about something more than the transaction and exchange of a vote,” Ayanna Pressley, Democratic House candidate in Massachusetts’ 7th District told The Daily Beast. “I think our campaign was about more than just resisting. It was about how to resist and how to progress.”

But to get to a place where you can both resist and make progress, you have to win first. And though Democrats are well positioned to take over the House, the possibility of them falling short is not nonexistent. Because of the gerrymandering of congressional districts and the distributions of the voting population, Democrats could win a healthy majority of the total votes cast for House members and remain in the minority.

“I can’t even contemplate it, it would be so indescribable,” said former Rep. Steve Israel, who chaired the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee until 2014, told The Daily Beast in an interview. “I just don’t see it happening. If it did, in the unlikely event that it did, it would probably count as one of the biggest moral blows to Democrats in recent memory. Second maybe only to our presidential loss in 2016.”

Israel said that, at this point in the cycle, he couldn’t imagine such a “catastrophe befalling House Democrats.” And for good reason. The party has a consistent lead in the congressional generic ballot. There has also been a massive surge in early voting, that seems to reflect an energy from the party’s base that officials say they have not witnessed before. And apart from the individual races in congressional districts around the country, Democrats also feel confident about their gubernatorial candidates in the Southeast and Midwest, which they believe could provide strong residual effects for down-ballot candidates particularly if they’re successful in energizing new and infrequent voters.

“There’s nothing planned,” Washington’s Democratic Governor Jay Inslee, who also chairs the Democratic Governors Association, told The Daily Beast. “There’s only efforts to go 100 percent and hope that we do as well as we can. No one is banking on anything. I haven’t talked to a single Democrat who says ‘I think I’ll stay home because it’s in the bag.’ We’re not faced with that problem.”

Constitutional Scholar/Attorney/Host Mark Levin: There is NO Birthright Citizenship

H/T The Lid.

The Great One Mark Levin explains the 14th Amendment in terms even the most brain-damaged liberal could understand.

Mark Levin is more than a talk radio star, he is a successful attorney who was the chief of staff to President Reagan Attorney General Edwin Meese and a Constitutional scholar who has written six books (by my count) on Constitutional issues. Levin explains that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution does not grant birthright citizenship on anyone born inside our borders. He argues that says there is no such constitutional rule.

Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution which lays out the powers of Congress says.

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States (…)To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States…”

– story continues below

Levin addressed the issue on his October 30 broadcast where he lit into Ryan for his absurd characterization of the law.

“There’s been no law passed that conveys birthright citizenship onto illegal aliens. There’s been no Supreme Court decision that definitively confers birthright citizenship onto illegal alien children,” Levin began. “Nobody’s a hundred percent certain how this came to be. But everybody seems to be a hundred percent certain that the president can’t fix it. … Well, does the Constitution confer birthright citizenship on the children of illegal aliens? Of course, it doesn’t!”

If I may add to Levin, IMHO if the framers gave the responsibility to Congress (both houses) they wanted naturalization rules to be the result of a discussion between the States (before the 17th Amendment required a direct election of senators), they were beholden to the state governments who put them in office,  and the American people (the House with short terms and direct votes were the part of government most responsive to the will of the people). NOWHERE does the constitution says that the executive or the courts have that power. Well unless it’s in the free healthcare/redistribution of income section which I can’t find in my copy of the Constitution.

Levin also explained how those who crafted the original amendment felt about what they were doing with the 14th Amendment:

“‘This will not of course include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens … but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship.’ … Is it not plain English? Is he not as clear as can be that it does not include aliens, it does not include foreigners. … The republican basis for citizenship is consent! Consent of the country! You can’t self-immigrate. You can’t claim jurisdiction because you happen to walk into the United States.”

“What is the bottom line here? Let’s number this: They wanted to make certain that former slaves would be treated as citizens of the United States, because certain states were still resistant. … They exempted Indians, because Indians still, certainly back then, were often considered citizens of particular tribes. But these actually were very forward-looking individuals. They specifically excluded aliens and foreigners.”

Three years ago, “the Great One” spoke about the same issue with Sean Hannity on FNC. Levin told Hannity that the 14th Amendment does not give citizenship to children of illegal immigrants who are born in the US.

The radio talker said that those claiming that the Constitution allows birthright citizenship are dead wrong. Levin said that Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution grants absolute power to Congress to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.

Levin went on to explain that means that only Congress — not a president or the courts — has the power to regulate immigration.

“Of course Trump is right and Cruz is right and Sessions is right. They’re all right,” Levin said of those claiming then that birthright citizenship does not exist.

“If you want a policy of open borders, that anybody born here should become a United States citizen, you amend the Constitution,” Levin said. “We don’t have to amend the Constitution. It says what we say it says. By statute, going forward, prospectively, Congress can in fact say … ‘No, you cannot make children of illegal aliens American citizens automatically.’”

Below is a video of that interview, it’s well worth watching:

Another Lousy Obama Policy Foiled: America Has Becomes World’s Top Oil Producer

H/T The Lid.

Slowly but surely President Trump is erasing all of Obama’s bad policies and Making America Great Again.

President Barack Obama did everything he could to stop it, but now, under Donald Trump, the U.S.A. has become the world’s top oil producer, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.

As soon as Barack Obama took office making it more difficult to exploit our own energy resources, one of his first actions was having the Secretary of the Interior cancel leases to exploit our shale oil reserves in Utah. It seems as if President Obama’s energy policy consists of making America more dependent on foreign oil and raising prices. And every time people would complain about the high gas prices, Obama would say said that domestic oil production is higher than ever and that big oil wasn’t exploring on the land it had. The technical term for that explanation is “Effing Lie.”

But thanks to President Trump, Crude oil production has soared in the U.S., so much so that America has jumped ahead of Russia to become the world’s top producer.

According to the Associated Press:

 story continues below
  •  The Energy Information Administration said Thursday that the U.S. produced more than 11.3 million barrels a day in August, a 4 percent increase over the old record set in July.

Russia’s energy ministry estimates that country pumped 11.2 million barrels a day in August. OPEC reports Saudi Arabia pumped 10.4 million barrels a day.

It’s the first time since 1973 that the U.S. leads the world in oil production.

According to the report, Texas is the oil leader making up about 40 percent of U.S. oil production.

This could not have happened with President Obama in office. In fact, it didn’t. In 2016, as Obama was wrapping up his destructive 8 years in office, Forbes magazine called him “one of the most anti-energy presidents in U.S. history.” In other words, there was something he hated as much as republicans…and of course, Jews.

“As if to put an exclamation point on this perception, last week the Obama Administration intervened to block an easement for the nearly completed $3.8 billion Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL),” Forbes wrote. “This intervention was even though the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had previously approved the easement across the Missouri River, and although multiple pipelines already cross the river.”

And, remember, Obama spent his entire presidency trying to destroy the Keystone XL pipeline.

Even left-wing Politico reported in 2015 that Obama was engaging in a “quiet war on oil.”

“The newest phase of Obama’s environmental agenda has the oil and natural gas industry in its crosshairs with plans to curb greenhouse gas pollution from rigs and refineries, tighten oversight of drilling on public lands and impose a strict ozone limit that industry lobbyists slam as ‘the most expensive regulation ever.’”

It wasn’t very quiet. If Obama fought the Islamist terrorists as much as he fought oil production the war on terror would have been over before his presidency was.

Obama did his level best to destroy America’s energy industry. Well, traditional (meaning usable) energy, anyway. On the other hand, he wasted billions on useless “green energy” companies, most of which went belly up after stuffing our tax dollars into their pockets.

It took Trump to do all this. Once again, Trump is making America great again.

But for those of you who are looking for an excuse to vote GOP on Tuesday, remember that when Pelosi was the Speaker of the House and the Republicans wanted to have a discussion about increasing America’s oil drilling and production she adjourned the House. And when the Republican caucus decided to keep meeting,  Pelosi had the lights and microphones turned off, and kicked out the press.

If the Democrats take Congress, they will be fighting Trump’s oil policies tooth and nail to drive up energy prices.

 

 

 

 

The Voter ‘Swayed’ By Obama To Vote For Gillum Was Gillum’s D@mn Mother!

H/T Clash Daily.

Leave it to Fake News CNN to present a candidate’s mother as a voter swayed by Obama to vote for someone.

That’s some real ‘Crackerjack’ reporting there, CNN, we couldn’t possibly imagine why people call you fake news.

There really is no good way to spin this story for the left.

Obama is holding rallies for the Democrats. If his ‘support’ for the Democrats works out as well for them this time as it did last time, the Liberal meltdown videos this year will make the 2016 clips look tame by comparison.

But the story isn’t the rally (after all, we’ve all heard Obama blow smoke before) it’s something that happened in how CNN COVERED that rally.

Reporting from the Florida rally Obama held for Bernie Sanders’s spirit-son, Andrew Gillum, CNN found an unlikely person to interview… Gillum’s own mother.

How she identifies herself makes the exchange seem weirder still.

Kate Hyde@KateHydeNY

LOL @CNN just interviewed a “random” person at the Gillum rally who said Obama’s presence helped influence her vote and it turned out she was Gillum’s mom. 😑

There aren’t that many explanations for how this exchange happened, and none of them make those involved look honest, professional, or even good.

Here’s what we know.

The CNN voiceover claims they picked her randomly out of the crowd.

The woman was asked whether Obama’s rally would influence her vote. She agreed that it would.

Later in the conversation, she identified herself as Francis Gillum, “and as a matter of fact, my son is running for Governor”.

The most obvious question to ask is how would Obama stumping for her son would make her MORE likely to vote for him than she would have been otherwise.

Was she wavering? Was she leaning toward DeSantis? Did Obama make a convincing closing argument that finally won her over? Or was she simply being dishonest or dopey?

After that, how is it that CNN ‘randomly’ chose the candidate’s own mother? What she a plant who forgot she wasn’t supposed to mention her connections to the candidate, and her admission made them backpedal to make it look accidental?

(It wouldn’t be the first time we’ve seen the Media(D) resort to this kind of cynical hackery.)

Alternatively, supposing she WAS ‘randomly selected’, what was guiding their choices so that in a crowd of reportedly ‘3000’ people that they just ‘happened’ to select the mother of the candidate?

Was the Candidate’s own mother just milling among the masses? Or did she have some special seating? And did CNN “randomly select” someone from the reserved seating because they could be confident they would not get some kind of an embarrassing or fence-sitting response that would undercut the narrative?

Can you think of another explanation we overlooked?

The whole interview smells funkier than gas-station sushi.

Even the most hopelessly landlocked Trump fan can unleash their ‘inner surfer’ with this one!

There is no question, Trump is the ‘Big Kahuna’ of politics.

News network can’t go two stories without bringing his name into the conversation one way or another.

He is, once again defying all political odds, and is whipping up strength down-ticket on the Mid-terms.

He stuck to his guns over Kavanaugh and convinced the Senate to do the same, and the polls are showing it!

Not long ago, the Media(D) were excitedly chattering about a blue wave. Then the gap narrowed.

And now?

The second Pearl Harbor disaster

H/T Beyond The Band Of Brothers.

Sadly this massive loss of American lives as almost been forgotten.

Ships sank without enemy action.

Every American knows about the Day of Infamy: the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Most, however, are not aware of the West Loch disaster, another event during the war that lead to great loss of life not far from the site where the U.S. fleet was hit.

On May 21, 1944 West Loch, the body of water located west of the 1941 attack, was teeming with activity. Preparations for Operation Forager, the invasion of the Mariana Islands, was underway and the area was full of long, ungainly LSTs (Landing Ship, Tank) nested and lashed together. Each vessel had a crew of 199 and carried another 200 Marines or soldiers as well as trucks, jeeps and tanks which themselves were loaded up with fuel and ammunition. LSTs could navigate water as shallow as 14 ft, but they also carried smaller landing craft to cover the last stretch of water during a beach assault.

unnamed
The hulk of LST-39 on the day of the disaster

LSTs also had an additional purpose. Any mechanized invasion would need huge amounts of fuel, but proper tankers couldn’t be allowed into combat zones. As a result, LSTs also carried extra fuel reserves to supply the troops during the initial stages of an attack. In this case, each ship carried 80 to 100 drums of high-octane gas (55 gallons per drum), close to 200,000 gallons of diesel oil, 5,000 pounds of flammable lubricating oil and large stores of ammo. Many of the men loading the fleet were new to the job and had no experience or proper training in handling explosives. Some ships had welding operations going on right next to the fuel stores and some crewmen were smoking despite orders.

unnamed (1)
Ground vehicles wait on shore while the landing ships are burning

At 3:08 p.m. a massive explosion shook LST-353. The exact cause was never identified, as all men nearby were killed in the initial blast. It could have been gas fumes reaching a welder or a smoking man but it also might have been caused by a dropped mortar round: earlier during the preparations, the ship participated in an unsuccessful experiment of firing mortars from onboard and the ammo used for the test was being unloaded at the time.

unnamed
Shore view of the disaster, with two ships still burning, photographed the day after

The detonation destroyed 11 wooden buildings on shore and turned vehicles on their sides. Even worse, the heat, pressure and flying splinters created a chain reaction, with two more particularly large explosion occurring at 3:11 p.m. and 3:22 p.m. Some ships were cut loose and moved to a safe distance but others were trapped by their tethers and were consumed by the fire. Foam-carrying boats moved in to fight the flames, while some LSTs lowered their landing craft to aid in the rescue of men who jumped overboard. Those who couldn’t be picked up in time burned to death when leaking fuel spread across the water and caught on fire.

unnamed (1)
Sailors fighting the fire the night after the disaster

Impossible to extinguish, the fire raged for 24 hours. Six LSTs sunk and two were damaged beyond repair. Several smaller landing craft, already lashed to their LSTs, were also lost as well as a number of tracked vehicles. The official death toll was 163, with another 396 injured. A more recent study, however, suggests this number only accounted for sailors and the total death toll, including Marines and soldiers, is close to 400.

Though the disaster was tragic, its immediate aftermath was also a tribute to America’s resiliency and determination during the war. The lost ships were quickly replaced and the fleet sailed only a single day late, making up for lost time on the way to the Marianas.

unnamed
LST-480, with a massive gap near the stern, photographed the day after the

In order to maintain morale and keep sensitive information from getting into the hands of the enemy, a news blackout about the disaster was ordered and survivors were forbidden from writing home about the event. The catastrophe was only declassified in 1960.

unnamed (1)
The rusting remains of LST-480, still there at Point Powder in West Loch, Pearl Harbor

During the salvage operations to clear the loch, the remains of a Japanese midget submarine were discovered by accident. This was probably the long sought-after fifth midget submarine, the last of the five that were involved in the Japanese attack in December 1941.

unnamed
Owen Francis Patrick Hammerberg, the last, heroic victim of the disaster

The West Loch disaster was horrifying as it was but it claimed one more life months after it concluded. On February 17, 1945, two Navy divers were using jet nozzle to tunnel through the mud under one of the sunken LSTs during the salvage operation. The wreckage of the ship caved in above them, entangling their air hoses and lifelines and burying them under 40 ft of water and 20 ft of mud. One of their comrades, Boatswain’s Mate 2nd Class Owen Francis Patrick Hammerberg, went after them paying no heed to the danger. He managed to free both divers in distress but he himself got pinned down by a heavy piece of metal, dying in agony 18 hours after entering the water. He was awarded the Medal of Honor for his ultimate sacrifice, making his the only Medal of Honor during World War II and the last one ever since to be awarded to a serviceman who died outside of combat.

You can learn more about the untold tragedies and little-known acts of heroism during World War II on our tours to Western Europe, the Eastern Front and the Pacific.