Attorney's General thwart law to continue in Star Chamber: Oregon is ignominiously among the miscreants
Leaked ‘Secrecy Pact’ document shows #ExxonKnew Attorneys General colluded to obstruct FOIA requests
They colluded to keep us from knowing what they were doing, so they could act to restrict our rights. This is the real meaning of Star Chamber, a secret legal administrative cabal which slowly eliminates Human Rights.
Hillary's First Priority If She Wins? To Shut Up Her Critics
Yes, Hillary is a fascist. She detests the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, and, well, the entirety of the Bill of Rights.
More below the fold.
US Senator: Get rid of due process — it’s “killing us” - Hot Air
Everything. This cannot be done without constitutional amendment.
Concealed carry is not for the faint of heart, but then thwarting evil is ever a dangerous business . . .
‘He thought he could help’: Concealed carry gun-wielder intervenes in domestic dispute and is shot dead
. . . for oft evil will shall evil mar.
T.J. Antes a "concealed carry permit holder was trying to intervene in a domestic dispute . . .
Instead, he was killed."
There are lessons to learn here. Mr. Antes did some things right, and made a fatal mistake as well. Overall, Mr. Antes acted in the way we should expect a Marine to act, as a counterpoint to evil, in an attempt to stop a violent man from further violence.
The fatal error is not a dint on what Mr. Antes did but should be evaluated to keep others from making the same mistake. The general rule is once the person acting violent breaks off the encounter, the concealed carry holder should as well. This is not hard and fast, but once the chance of violence has declined, placing oneself in harms way becomes increasingly difficult to justify. This outcome shows us why.
Temper fi, and condolences to his family. I am sure he will be greatly missed. I appreciate his attempt to maintain order in a world seeking to spin ever into chaos. His actions where the actions of a man attempting to do good, and thwart evil, but as evil will, it ultimately destroyed itself by killing Mr. Antes. A long prison sentence for Bradden is the only likely outcome from this encounter.
Once part of the story needs to be corrected because it is simply factually wrong.
The "journalist" writes, "As the number of states allowing people to carry guns has increased, reports of injuries and deaths have also risen." This is an absolutely false statement.
Some background history, the general move from "may issue" to "shall issue" concealed handgun licensing for most states occurred from the mid 1980s through about 2005 when the emphasis shifted from a move to "shall issue" to "Constitutional carry", essentially the right to carry without the need for a permit.
FBI statistics show that in 1960 the rate of violent crime in the US was 160.9 per 100,000 population. The violent crime rate rose unrelentingly thereafter. And by the mid 1980s the states were taking action to allow their citizens to protect themselves by adopting "shall issue" concealed carry laws.
by 1986 the violent crime rate was 620.1 per 100,000 population. As the states increasingly adopted concealed carry laws the violent crime rate slowed, plateaued and then reversed. The rate was 758.1 in 1991, and then dropped to 506.5 in 2000, and further dropped to 469.0 in 2005. During the slow early adoption of "shall issue" concealed carry laws by states the violent crime rates continued to rise somewhat, but as more states adopted these laws, the crime rate plateaued, and finally dropped. The violent crime rate today after myriad states have adopted "Constitutional carry" is even lower at 375.7 per 100,000 population.
There is no evidence to support the fact that reports of injuries and deaths has also risen. The evidence does support a serious decline in violent crime, however. The same evidence holds for murder in the US and nearly every other serious or violent crime.
The "journalist" points the readers to a few anecdotal stories as apparent proof.
In a different vein, it is interesting that the new face of the American $20 bill will be a black, republican, gun toting, chick who fought the Democrat party for the liberty of an entire peoples, and, with a bit of help, won! You go girl! I would do anything to get rid of the racist, Democrat bigot front man on the bill today. Thanks Obama! Perhaps for the first time I actually mean it.
Federal Park Ranger Mocks Founders, Constitution ... While Leading Tour of Independence Hall!
. . . although it is becoming more and more difficult to understand this due to their willingness to shout their ignorance from the rooftops.
"A federal employee of the National Park Service who offers guided tours of Independence Hall in Philadelphia -- the birthplace of the Constitution -- stunned a group of tourists this week by telling them the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence were the product of "class elites who were just out to protect their privileged status."
Mary A. Hogan, a federal employee making in excess of $95,000 per year in salary and benefits, provided a tour Monday afternoon at Independence Hall laced with factual inaccuracies and disparaging comments about the Founders and the Constitution.
Several attendees of her tour group on Monday told PJ Media that Hogan, who goes by the name Missy, had explained to them that "the Founders knew that when they left this room, what they had written wouldn't matter very much." Hogan told the group that the "most important part of the Constitution written at Independence Hall was the ability to change it."
Hogan also inaccurately told the tour group that "King George III paid more attention to Parliament" than the colonists "because they were right there and could remove him from office." Parliament did not possess the power to remove the king from office in the 1770s, and does not possess that power today.
Hogan's LinkedIn page says she is the "chief of operations" at the National Park Service in Philadelphia."
Third graders know more than this naif. Missy is the chief of operations? She should be chief of toilet scrubbing perhaps, but she should not be involved with informing the public what happened in Independence Hall.
Read more below the fold!
. . . opinion article up, you really should go read the whole thing.
"Bernie Sanders caused the Panama Papers." Tragicomically he is correct. How? Like this:
"After World War II, the governments of the West established tax regimes to support the reconstruction of their nations. Six decades later, that tax machinery, which runs the social-welfare states in the countries Bernie Sanders cites in every campaign stop as a model for America, has run totally amok—an unaccountable, devouring monster. Billionaires aren’t the only ones who run from it.
Most governments, including ours, overtax their citizens to feed their own insatiable need for money. Then the legal thieves running the government and their cronies, unwilling to abide the tax levels they created, move their wealth offshore to places like Panama."
Henninger makes a few salient observations about our European friends.
"Other than their national health-care systems, many of which are effectively bankrupt, most Europeans would be hard put to explain what it is their high-tax governments actually do with their money.
Suppressed for generations by high tax rates and regulatory minutiae, most Europeans survive in an economic half-life of gray and black markets, with their assets protected by cash-only transactions, bartering, and endless hours devising off-the-books deals involving family real estate, inflated art prices and anything else they can hide from the taxman. The Beatles actually wrote a song about it in 1966—“Taxman,” a grim ode to all this."
This is an odd, grim, and grubby existence. While this is most common in the south of Europe, it occurs nearly everywhere, and is driven by the shockingly low standard of living, and high tax rates.
"One way or another, most people living in the countries run on the Obama-Sanders-Clinton model eventually go searching for their own private Panama. When private capital is under public assault, it will hide. From the wealthiest to the poorest, it creates a world of chiselers, not productive citizens."
Henninger goes on to note that in the US something has change in our political climate, something important.
"In the now-extinct Democratic Party—the party of Hubert Humphrey, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton—room existed for the private sector to breathe. Not yet unhinged completely from economics, Democrats understood the symbiosis between healthy private production and public revenues. Both Presidents Carter and Clinton deregulated economic life.
No longer. The deconstructed party of Barack Obama, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and forced-recruit Hillary Clinton says: Just keep squeezing them.
This week marked a historic moment in the Democratic drift toward low-growth Euro-socialism. Both California and New York raised the minimum wage to $15. California Gov. Jerry Brown, who in his career has been every Democrat that ever was, summarized the true meaning of the new party. “Economically, minimum wages may not make sense,” he said, but they make sense “morally, socially and politically.'"
I agree, the progressives, especially those on the left, seem to have gone around the bend. It used to be they simply wanted more social benefits, but now, they want that, and they want to kill the free markets, the thing which creates the wealth which allows the social benefits. Isn't there a story about a golden egg laying goose, or something? Johan Norberg recently commented on this very subject. Johan Norberg has some thoughts on Sweden, welfare, and medicine . . .
"Sen. Sanders is getting mocked now by Hillary Clinton and her supporters for a catastrophic interview he gave this week to the New York Daily News, revealing he knows little about his own proposals."
I discussed this earlier as well. Bernie Sanders is an old Marxist carbuncle . . .
The problem is that here at the End of History, we are finding some policies which looked good decades ago don't meet the test. Socialism, progressivism, and their sibling economic models, all look great, on paper, but in the real world are mostly unworkable, but have the salubrious benefit to the politicians of offering large amounts of graft, and corruption. Remember the game is not necessarily to get all the money, just more than the people around you. Having more is winning. Without this graft, and corruption how would the Clintons have amassed over $100 million? It is simply not possible. But with it, favors can be traded, backs scratched, and funds transferred. It is not just the Clintons, nearly every Congressman, and Senator who comes to washington comes with a modest financial portfolio. When they leave, they leave multi millionaires. This is not really possible on the salary they make. Its comes from the associated blue model graft, and corruption which offers this lucre.
The solution to this is pretty simple, enact a retail sales tax on goods and services. Eliminate the income tax, the corporate tax, the gift and estate tax, and the payroll tax. But make sure the sales tax is see in every transaction, and paid above and after the product, and services are totaled. It will need a Constitutional Amendment, so also amend to require the federal government balance its budget each year, allow debt in years where there is Declared War, like they used to do in the olden days. Allow debt accumulation of 10% of GDP per year for either 3 years or up to a total debt increase of 30%. After that require a vote of the people each year, or every two years to reauthorized debt payments, but only if the US remains in an active state of Declared War. Cold Wars don't count, even if declared.
Hillary Clinton: 'The Unborn Person Doesn't Have Constitutional Rights' - Breitbart
We didn't, and without that, the Supreme Court has no power to act on the issue. The Supreme Court is only able to analyze constitutional, legislative, administrative, and common law, it is incapable of creating new law from whole cloth. Roe v. Wade was not constitutional analysis, but constitutional divination. They do not have that power.
As for privacy, it does not exist in the Constitution. The right to privacy has never gone as far as murder, not in this country anyway. The threshold issues are the constitutional/human rights issues, privacy always takes second seat to these. Until these issues are actually addressed by the people, the privacy right may exist but cannot usurp the state legal framework. States have the right, and duty to assume the constitutional/human rights exist and apply until the debate determines otherwise, and the Constitution is amended accordingly.
The question as to when constitutional rights accrue has never been debated by the public, and never enshrined in law, constitutional or otherwise. Until we have that debate Clinton is wrong. The Supreme Court may have spoken, and it may control the outcome of further judicial cases, but it was wrong, and its actions created a monster, which will continue to devour political time and energy until the people address this situation to their satisfaction.
For the most part the modern Supreme Court Justices have been intellectual fools, brilliant, but without sufficient actual life experiences to adjudicate the law. This can only be rectified by broadening the bench with people who have actual life experiences.
Trump’s Presidential Hopes Hinge on Democrats Voting for Him
"During a CNN Town Hall Forum, broadcast live on Tuesday evening, an audience member asked Trump, “What are the top three functions of the United States government?” After asking for the question to be repeated, Trump responded, “Well, the greatest function of all by far is security for our nation,” a sentiment shared by conservatives, Republicans, and no small numbers of independents and Democrats as well.
* * *
However, Trump’s answer did not stop there. “I would also say health care, I would also say education,” he finished, while emphasizing that security came first. Anderson Cooper, moderating the forum, didn’t quite believe he’d heard Trump correctly. “So in terms of the federal government’s role,” Cooper asked, “you're saying security, but you also say health care and education should be provided by the federal government?”
“Well, those are two of the things,” Trump replied. “There are obviously many things, housing, providing great neighborhoods.'"
I just flipped back to my handy Constitution of the United States of America, but I could not find health care, education, housing, or great neighborhoods? I think The Donald should seek a refund on his "education."
The Constitution is a document which memorializes the compact whereby Americans jointly agreed to band together, form a government, and in doing so agreed to give up specified individual rights, in exchange for specified securities. If it is not in the Constitution, it is neither a right given up, nor a security extended. Further, government, with only a few exceptions is the only entity entitled to use force, up to and including death, to enforce this exchange, and the provision of security. Government is always the threat of legal violence, that is its entire purpose.
I can entirely understand the use of this force by the government to execute essential functions, like the defense of America. I cannot understand the use of this force to make "great neighborhoods," educate children, pay for medical bills, or pay for homes.
If we want these things to be part of the federal government purview we need to have the debate, and amend the Constitution.