Category Archives: Republican Party

Ohio considers approving “constitutional carry”

 

Ohio is set to become the 17th state to approve “constitutional carry,” a law that would allow all law-abiding Ohioans to carry a concealed weapon without obtaining a permit — a measure that Republican Gov. Mike DeWine supports. If approved, Ohio would become the 17th state to approve connotational carry.

On Tuesday, Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin signed into law Senate Bill 150, making Kentucky the 16th state to allow “constitutional carry.” The Kentacky law states that “Persons age twenty-one (21) or older, and otherwise able to lawfully possess a firearm, may carry concealed firearms or other concealed deadly weapons without a license in the same locations as persons with valid licenses issued under KRS 237.110.”

Ohio House Bill 174 was introduced Wednesday by GOP Reps. Ron Hood of Ashville and Tom Brinkman of Cincinnati. The measure immediately attracted 27 co-sponsors from among the 61 majority House Republicans. Hood and Brinkman have introduced the same legislation for years without winning passage. Prospects for approval now, however, prospects for passage seem favorable. Almost half of Ohio House Republicans are pushing for passage of this bill.

Chris Dorr, director of Ohio Gun Owners, posted a YouTube video featuring comments from Hood and Brinkman after the bill was filed in the clerk’s office.

“Gun owners are law-abiding citizens who follow the rules, and we need to let them be able to protect themselves. That’s what this is all about,” Brinkman said, noting that sixteen states now permit the carrying of weapons without permits.

The proposed Ohio bill would permit anyone age 21 or over, who is not disqualified by federal law due to a felony conviction or other offense from obtaining a weapon, to carry a hidden gun — without obtaining a concealed-carry permit. The bill also would repeal a current requirement that concealed-carry owners notify police officers they are carrying a gun when stopped. It also would authorize the expungement of the misdemeanor offense of anyone previously convicted of failing to inform an officer that he or she had a gun.

Currently, Ohioans can only carry a concealed weapon after obtaining a $67 permit from a county sheriff upon passing a criminal background check and completing eight hours of training by a certified instructor, including two hours of range time and live-fire training.

DeWine press secretary Dan Tierney said of the bill: “Gov. DeWine supports protecting Ohioans’ Second Amendment rights. We are reviewing the recently introduced proposal and look forward to following its movement through the legislative process.”

The legislation would not be restricted to handguns — it also would allow Ohioans to conceal and carry long guns, such as rifles and shotguns. Ohioans already are allowed to openly carry firearms without a permit.

Democrats, predictably, are taking a stand against the measure. Rep. David Leland, D-Columbus, lamented what he portrayed as the Republicans’ obsession with guns when issues such as health care and education demand legislative attention.

“It’s going the exact opposite direction of what most people want,” he said of the bill. “If more guns make more people safer, we would be the safest country in the world. Yet, our gun violence exceeds most every other country on this planet.

Dorr, in an email to supports, countered Leland, saying, “We already know there will be efforts by anti-gun Democrats and Rino-Republicans to block, stop and KILL Constitutional Carry. And as we saw last General Assembly, there’s always a lily-white coward willing to cut a deal and water down these pro-gun bills.”

The Republican state representatives co-sponsoring the constitutional carry bill are Niraj Antani of Miamisburg; Brian Baldridge of Winchester; John Becker of Union Township in Clermont County; Louis Blessing III of Cincinnati; Speaker Pro Tem Jim Butler of Oakwood; Sara Carruthers of Hamilton; Jon Cross of Kenton; Bill Dean of Xenia; Kris Jordan of Delaware; Candice Keller of Middletown; Kyle Koehler of Springfield, and George Lang of West Chester.

Also, Scott Lipps of Franklin; Susan Manchester of Waynesfield; Don Manning of New Middletown; Riordan McClain of Upper Sandusky; Derek Merrin of Monclova Township in Lucas County; Jena Powell of Arcanum; Craig Riedel of Defiance; Mark Romanchuk of Ontario near Mansfield; Tim Schaffer of Lancaster; former Speaker Ryan Smith of Bidwell; Todd Smith of Farmersville; Nino Vitale of Urbana; Scott Wiggam of Wooster; Shane Wilkin of Hillsboro; and Paul Zeltwanger of Mason.

Before the 19th century, there were no state laws regulating the carrying of firearms or other weapons by law-abiding residents. Then, states began to restrict the carrying of firearms and require a permit for those who wanted to exercise their right under the Second Amendment to “keep and bear arms,” ignoring the fact that that right “shall not be infringed.” By the 20th century, the only state that did not pass laws infringing the right to keep and bear arms was Vermont.

The constitutional-carry movement began to gain ground in 2003, when Governor Frank Murkowski of Alaska signed House Bill 102 into law. That law marked the first time a state rescinded its laws requiring a permit to carry a concealed weapon. No other state followed suit until 2010, when Arizona passed Senate Bill 1108.

The trend began to catch on, slowly at first, then picking up the pace more recently, with Wyoming (2011), Kansas (2015), Maine (2015), Mississippi (2016), Idaho (2016), Missouri (2016), West Virginia (2016), New Hampshire (2017), North Dakota (2017), Arkansas (2018), Oklahoma (2019), South Dakota (2019), and now Kentucky passing constitutional carry in one form or another.

Many of those states have kept concealed-carry permits on the menu to allow residents who wish to do so to take advantage of reciprocal agreements with other states, allowing them to carry concealed weapons when they travel to those states.

The path to constitutional carry has not been an easy journey in every case. For instance, in Mississippi, the implementation was incremental. The initial law passed in 2013 allowed for “a loaded or unloaded pistol or revolver carried in a purse, handbag, satchel, other similar bag or briefcase or fully enclosed case.” That was expanded in 2016 to include holsters (whether worn on the belt or shoulder) and sheathes.

The passage of constitutional carry in Arkansas could best be described as evolutionary. In August 2013, Arkansas enacted Act 746, making two important changes to the existing law, which previously prohibited “carrying a weapon … with a purpose to employ the handgun, knife, or club as a weapon against a person” and allowed an exception if the person carrying the weapon was “on a journey.”

Those changes were (1) the term “journey” — which had had previously not been defined — was at long last defined as “travel beyond the county in which a person lives” and (2) the addition of the phrase “attempt to unlawfully” to the existing statute, making it read that the law prohibited “carrying a weapon … with a purpose to attempt to unlawfully employ the handgun, knife, or club as a weapon against a person.”

That seemed to make the law say that unless a person was carrying the weapon for the purpose of carrying out a crime, it was lawful to carry a concealed weapon without a permit. But, as the well-known saying goes, the law is an ass. In July of 2013, Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel issued an opinion stating that Act 746 did not authorize open carry. To add to the confusion, current Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge disagreed. Rutledge issued a statement in August 2015 saying that it would be within the law to open carry a weapon under Act 746 as long as there is no intent to unlawfully use the weapon.

The issue was finally settled in an Arkansas Court of Appeals ruling in August 2018, when the court declared that carrying a concealed weapon is not — in and of itself — a crime. That court decision ended the debate, allowing Act 746 to mean that Arkansas allows for constitutional carry.

In 2013, Utah’s legislature passed constitutional carry, only to have it vetoed by Republican Governor Gary Herbert. Though the law had passed with a two-thirds majority in both houses, Herbert’s veto was not overturned, and residents of Utah are not afforded the “privilege” to exercise their right under the Second Amendment to “keep and bear arms” in a concealed manner without first asking the state’s permission.

One element that seems important in the growing trend toward constitutional carry is the landmark 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller Supreme Court case. Though the Heller ruling did leave open the idea that some controls over the right to keep and bear arms could be enacted by state and local governments, the court’s interpretation of the protections guaranteed by the Second Amendment were further explained in light of Heller in the 2010 Supreme Court decision in McDonald v. Chicago. The court ruled that the Second Amendment is “fully incorporated” and the “right to keep and bear arms” is not “watered down,” but “fully applicable.” The court went on to rule that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments from passing laws that restrict the “individual” and “fundamental” right to “keep and bear arms” in “self defense.”

As the trend hopefully continues to grow and more and more states remove the shackles that have bound the hands of the law-abiding, America may see a return to the time before the passage of restrictive anti-gun laws of the 19th and 20th centuries. Perhaps, in our lifetimes, we will see the right to keep and bear arms no longer infringed.

~ Grif

 

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Lock him up: Ex-DC demorat staffer admits to doxing republicans, threatening witness

The “democratic political professional student” worked for U.S. Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH) and previously worked for Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA). He also previously worked or was an intern with the office of Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA).

As reported by NY Post: A former Democratic congressional staffer pleaded guilty Friday to federal charges after he posted leaked personal information about Republican senators on Wikipedia, then threatened a witness who caught him.

Jackson Cosko, 27, of the District of Columbia, pleaded guilty to five offenses related to his “doxing” the senators — uploading their personal information online — including computer fraud, making public restricted personal information, witness tampering and obstruction of justice.

Prosecutors said he went after the lawmakers after one senator fired him and he got upset with the others while watching testimony on sexual assault allegations during Supreme Court justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings.

His targets included GOP Senate Judiciary Committee members Lindsey Graham, Mike Lee and Orrin Hatch, as well as Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul.

He faces nearly five years in prison when he is sentenced June 13.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Whoopi Goldberg defends Creepy Joe Biden (of course); doesn’t want him to change his ways

From Yahoo (via HuffPo): Whoopi Goldberg defended former Vice President Joe Biden following an allegation that he inappropriately touched and kissed a former Nevada assemblywoman, saying she doesn’t want the likely 2020 Democratic presidential candidate to change his behavior.

Goldberg, a co-host on ‘The View,’ was irked when colleague Sunny Hostin predicted during Monday’s program that Biden would curb his tactile tendencies with women after Lucy Flores said she felt uncomfortable when Biden placed his hands on her shoulders, smelled her hair and kissing the back of her head at a 2014 campaign event. Flores was the Democratic nominee for lieutenant governor in Nevada and Biden was appearing on her behalf.

“I don’t know that we will see any more smelling of hair and kisses on the forehead,” Hostin said of the controversy, eliciting a strong rebuke from Goldberg.

“That pisses me off,” she said. “I don’t want Joe to stop doing that.”

Meghan McCain, another “View” co-host and daughter of the late Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), agreed, suggesting Biden’s behavior was simply part of his brand.

“There’s a certain type of retail politician that loves people,” she said. “I would put Bill Clinton in that category, I would put my father in that category, I would certainly put Joe Biden in that category. When he came on this show, he was the only politician other than my father to go into the crowd and shake everyone’s hand.”

Bill Clinton…a “hands on kind of guy”

Goldberg also noted that Biden is known to be “a hands-on kind of guy,” which is evident from photos of his interpersonal interactions spanning years, some of which show him touching shoulders and at least one in which he is pictured holding a reporter’s waist.

“In the old days, we would call Joe ― some folks of a certain age would say he’s a little overly familiar,” Goldberg said.

Goldberg said that she took Flores’ account seriously. But she also argued that Flores, who lost the lieutenant governor’s race, should have directly told Biden to stop.

“My point is, I want women to get to the place where they can say, ‘Hey, you just made me uncomfortable.’ This idea that you have to tippy-toe away from this or you have to carry [it] ― you do not have to carry it. If someone makes you uncomfortable, tell them.

On Sunday, moments before Flores appeared on CNN to discuss the allegation that she first detailed in a New York magazine article published Friday, Biden released a statement saying he would “listen respectfully” to women alleging he had displayed inappropriate affection toward them but that it had never been his intention to do so.

He also said that “not once ― never ― did I believe I acted inappropriately.

During her CNN interview, Flores suggested that Biden’s comments indicate he lacks awareness of how women ought to be treated. She also said that her experience wasn’t the first time he crossed boundaries.

Biden’s defense of himself was bolstered on Sunday by Stephanie Carter, whose husband served as defense secretary during President Barack Obama’s second term in office. Biden, as vice president, attended the swearing-in ceremony for Ash Carter, and a widely circulated photo showed him resting his hands on her shoulders from behind and whispering into her ear.

Questions were raised at the time about Biden’s action. But in an essay in Medium, Stephanie Carter disputed that Biden had acted inappropriately. “The Joe Biden in my picture is a close friend helping someone get through a big day, for which I will always be grateful,” she wrote.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Missouri bill will ban all federal gun-control laws

I thank God that our Founding Fathers, whose greatest fear was a tyrannical government, had the wisdom and foresight to institute curbs on government power in the form of numerous checks and balances.

One of those checks is the creation of a federal republic, in which the constituent geographic states have their separate powers — a founding principle that is enshrined in the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which spells out the powers of the constituent (geographical) states and of the people.

Unlike centralized polities like the UK and China wherein the central or national government holds all power, and whatever powers regional/local governments have are delegated to them, in a federation the powers of regional/local governments are not derived from the central government and, therefore, cannot be taken away by the central government. In the U.S. federal republic, as stipulated in the U.S. Constitution, it is the American people who grant separate powers to the federal government in Washington, D.C., and to the 50 state governments.

There is a bill in the Missouri state legislature (General Assembly) which, if passed, will ban all federal gun-control laws by preventing all state agencies and their employees from enforcing any federal law that infringes the Second Amendment in any way, including gun registrations, fees, fines, licenses and bans.

Sponsored by Rep. Jeff Pogue (R), 37, a Christian and a contractor/carpenter by profession, and co-sponsored by 4 other Republican representatives, House Bill 786: Second Amendment Preservation Act was introduced in the Missouri House of Representatives on January 31, 2019.

HB 786’s companion bill in the state Senate is SB 367, which was introduced by Sen. Eric Burlison (R) on February 7, 2019.

HB 786 begins with a powerful ringing reiteration of states’ rights and the limits on the federal government’s power which moved me to tears. The entire bill deserves your reading, and should be recommended to the legislatures of the other 49 states.

HB 786 states:

2. The general assembly finds and declares that:

(1) The general assembly of the state of Missouri is firmly resolved to support and defend the United States Constitution against every aggression, whether foreign or domestic, and is duty bound to oppose every infraction of those principles which constitute the basis of the Union of the States because only a faithful observance of those principles can secure the nation’s existence and the public happiness;

(2) Acting through the United States Constitution, the people of the several states created the federal government to be their agent in the exercise of a few defined powers, while reserving to the state governments the power to legislate on matters which concern the lives, liberties, and properties of citizens in the ordinary course of affairs;

(3) The limitation of the federal government’s power is affirmed under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people of the several states to the federal government, and all power not delegated to the federal government in the United States Constitution is reserved to the states respectively or to the people themselves;

(4) If the federal government assumes powers that the people did not grant it in the United States Constitution, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force;

(5) The several states of the United States of America respect the proper role of the federal government but reject the proposition that such respect requires unlimited submission. If the government, created by a compact among the states, was the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers granted to it by the states through the United States Constitution, the federal government’s discretion, and not the United States Constitution, would necessarily become the measure of those powers. To the contrary, as in all other cases of compacts among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself as to if infractions of the compact have occurred, as well as to determine the mode and measure of redress. Although the several states have granted supremacy to laws and treaties made under the powers granted in the United States Constitution, such supremacy does not extend to various federal statutes, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, regulations, or other actions which restrict or prohibit the manufacture, ownership, and use of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition exclusively within the borders of Missouri; such statutes, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, regulations, and other actions exceed the powers granted to the federal government except to the extent they are necessary and proper for governing and regulating land and naval forces of the United States or for organizing, arming, and disciplining militia forces actively employed in the service of the United States Armed Forces;

(6) The people of the several states have given Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states”, but “regulating commerce” does not include the power to limit citizens’ right to keep and bear arms in defense of their families, neighbors, persons, or property, or to dictate as to what sort of arms and accessories law-abiding Missourians may buy, sell, exchange, or otherwise possess within the borders of this state;

(7) The people of the several states have also granted Congress the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States” and “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the United States Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or office thereof”. These constitutional provisions merely identify the means by which the federal government may execute its limited powers and shall not to be so construed to grant unlimited power because to do so would be to destroy the carefully constructed equilibrium between the federal and state governments. Consequently, the general assembly rejects any claim that the taxing and spending powers of Congress can be used to diminish in any way the right of the people to keep and bear arms;

(8) The people of Missouri have vested the general assembly with the authority to regulate the manufacture, possession, exchange, and use of firearms within the borders of this state, subject only to the limits imposed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and the Missouri Constitution; and

(9) The general assembly of the state of Missouri strongly promotes responsible gun ownership, including parental supervision of minors in the proper use, storage, and ownership of all firearms, the prompt reporting of stolen firearms, and the proper enforcement of all state gun laws. The general assembly of the state of Missouri hereby condemns any unlawful transfer of firearms and the use of any firearm in any criminal or unlawful activity.

1.420. The following federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, and regulations shall be considered infringements on the people’s right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and Article I, Section 23 of the Constitution of Missouri, within the borders of this state including, but not limited to:

(1) Any tax, levy, fee, or stamp imposed on firearms, firearm accessories,or ammunition not common to all other goods and services which might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;

(2) Any registering or tracking of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;

(3) Any registering or tracking of the owners of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;

(4) Any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens; and

(5) Any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories,or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.

1.430. All federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, and regulations, regardless if enacted before or after the Second Amendment Preservation Act, which infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Article I, Section 23 of the Constitution of Missouri shall be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, shall be specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.

1.440. It shall be the duty of the courts and law enforcement agencies of this state to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms within the borders of this state and to protect these rights from the infringements defined under section 1.420.

1.450. No person, including any public officer or employee of this state or any political subdivision of this state, shall have the authority to enforce or attempt to enforce any federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, regulations, statutes, or ordinances infringing on the right to keep and bear arms as defined under section 1.410.

1.460. 1. Any entity or person who knowingly, as defined under section 562.016, violates section 1.450 or otherwise knowingly deprives a citizen of Missouri of the rights or privileges ensured by the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or Article I, Section 23 of the Constitution of Missouri, while acting under the color of any state or federal law, shall be liable to the injured party in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

2. In such actions, the court may award the prevailing party, other than the state of Missouri or any political subdivision of the state, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

3. Sovereign, official, or qualified immunity shall not be an affirmative defense in such actions.

1.470. 1. Any person while acting as an official, agent, employee, or deputy of the government of the United States, or while otherwise acting under the color of federal law while within the borders of this state, who knowingly, as defined under section 562.016:

(1) Enforces or attempts to enforce any of the infringements identified in section 1.410; or

(2) Gives material aid and support to the efforts of others who enforce or attempt to enforce any of the infringements identified in section 1.410 shall be permanently ineligible to serve as a law enforcement officer or to supervise law enforcement officers for the state or any political subdivision of the state.

2. Neither the state nor any political subdivision of the state shall employ as a law enforcement officer or supervisor of law enforcement officers any person who is ineligible to serve in such capacity under this section.

3. Any person residing in or conducting business in a jurisdiction who believes that a law enforcement officer or supervisor of law enforcement officers of such jurisdiction has taken action that would render that person ineligible under this section to serve in such capacity shall have standing to pursue an action for declaratory judgment in the circuit court of the county in which the action allegedly occurred, or in the circuit court of Cole County, with respect to the employment eligibility of the law enforcement officer or the supervisor of law enforcement officers under this section.

4. If a court determines that a law enforcement officer or supervisor of law enforcement officers has taken any action that would render him or her ineligible to serve in that capacity under this section:

(1) The law enforcement officer or supervisor of law enforcement officers shall immediately be terminated from his or her position; and

(2) The jurisdiction that had employed the ineligible law enforcement officer or supervisor of law enforcement officers shall be required to pay the court costs and attorney’s fees associated with the declaratory judgment action that resulted in the finding of ineligibility.

5. Nothing in this section shall preclude a person’s right of appeal or remediation, as provided under chapter 590.

1.480. For the purposes of sections 1.410 to 1.485, the term “law-abiding citizen” shall mean a person who is not otherwise precluded under state law from possessing a firearm and shall not be construed to include anyone who is not legally present in the United States or the state of Missouri.

1.485. If any provision of sections 1.410 to 1.485 or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such determination shall not affect the provisions or applications ofsections1 .410 to 1.485, which may be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and the provisions of sections 1.410 to 1.485 are severable.

Republicans control both the Senate and House of Representatives of the Missouri General Assembly, so HB 786 stands a good chance to pass:

  • 24 Republicans vs. 10 Democrats in the Senate.
  • 116 Republicans vs. 47 Democrats in the House of Representatives.

According to Max Headroom of The Sentinel, a former version of the Second Amendment Preservation Act, SB 613, was passed by the state legislature in 2014, but vetoed by then Missouri Governor Jay Nixon, a Demonrat.

Headroom notes that the current Second Amendment Preservation Act (HB 786, SB 367) faces heavy opposition from two surprising groups:

  1. Missouri’s law enforcement community, “which should be no surprise, as Missouri law enforcement agencies raked in $34,462,153 in forfeitures from 2001 to 2008, according to a report by the Institute of Justice.”
  2. The National Rifles Association (NRA) because anti-gun Sen. Jamilah Nasheed had tried to sneak language into SB 367 that would require gun owners to report a stolen firearm to police no more than 72 hours after the discovery of the theft, or face a $1,000 fine and a misdemeanor charge. However, the stolen firearm reporting clause was removed from the actual text of the bill.

See also “Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that Second Amendment applies to individuals, not militias, and may include military weapons”.

H/t truckjunkie

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Alyssa Milano and 50 Hollyweirdos sign letter threatening to boycott Georgia for prolife ‘heartbeat’ bill

There is a pro-life bill in Georgia’s state legislature, HB 481: Living Infants Fairness and Equality (LIFE) Act, aka fetal heartbeat bill, which recognizes unborn children as “natural persons” and that the “full value of a child begins when a heartbeat exists” — typically at six weeks’ gestation.

The source of the GIF is this YouTube video.

Accordingly, the bill requires physicians performing abortions to determine the existence of a detectable human heartbeat before performing an abortion. “No abortion is authorized or shall be performed if an unborn child has been determined in accordance with Code Section 31-9B-2 to have a detectable human heartbeat”.

The bill defines a detectable human heartbeat as “embryonic or fetal cardiac activity or the steady and repetitive rhythmic contraction of the heart within the gestational sac.” HB 481 furthermore states that “unless otherwise provided by law, any natural person, including an unborn child with a detectable human heartbeat, shall be included in population based determinations.”

The bill allows for some exceptions to the prohibition against aborting an unborn child with a detectable human heartbeat:

  1. “when a physician determines in reasonable medical judgment, that a medical emergency exists”.
  2. when “the probable gestational age of the unborn child is 20 weeks or less and the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest in which an official police report has been filed alleging the offense of rape or incest.”
  3. If the physician determines the “pregnancy is medically futile.”

On March 22, 2019, by a vote of 34-18, the Georgia Senate passed HB 481. The bill now goes to Georgia’s House of Representatives for agreement before making its way to the desk of Governor Brian Kemp, a Republican, who had promised his support on the campaign trail and has reiterated his position since. With his approval, Georgia will join Kentucky and Mississippi in recently approving such legislation. Iowa did so last year. A heartbeat bill in Tennessee has passed the House of Representatives. (Christian Index)

Georgia’s fetal heartbeat bill so incensed blood-thirsty Hollyweirdos that about 50 of them signed a letter threatening to boycott the state if Governor Kemp signs the bill into law.

The letter was written by actress Alyssa Milano, 46, the has-been, rode-hard actress who wore a cleavage-bearing low-cut blouse to SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s Senate hearing last October.

The letter was sent to Governor Kemp and Georgia House Speaker David Ralston (R), yesterday, March 28. The letter says:

As actors, our work often brings us to Georgia…. We’ve been glad to bring millions of dollars in revenue to support Georgia’s schools, parks and communities.

But we cannot in good conscience continue to recommend our industry remain in Georgia if H.B. 481 becomes law.

This dangerous and deeply-flawed bill…would…force many women to undergo unregulated, hidden procedures at great risk to their health.

We can’t imagine being elected officials who had to say to their constituents, “I enacted a law that was so evil, it chased billions of dollars out of our state’s economy.” It’s not the most effective campaign slogan, but rest assured we’ll make it yours should it come to pass….

We want to stay in Georgia…. But we will…do everything in our power to move our industry to a safer state for women if H.B. 481 becomes law.

According to Deadline and Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the actors who signed the letter  include Uzo Aduba (who’s dat?), Christina Applegate, Essence Atkins (who’s dat?), Alec Baldwin, Don Cheadle, David Cross, Mia Farrow, Colin Hanks, Rosie O’Donnell, Patton Oswalt, Sean Penn, Amy Schumer, Sarah Silverman, Ben Stiller, Amber Tamblyn, Gabrielle Union, and Bradley Whitford.

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Barbara Bush blamed Donald Trump for her ‘heart attack’

America’s Ruling Class at the George W. Bush Presidential Library dedication, Dallas, Texas, April 25, 2013.

Add Barbara Bush (BB) to our long, long list of Demonrat crazies.

The New York Post reports, March 27, 2019, that in a book by USA Today’s Washington bureau chief Susan Page, The Matriarch: Barbara Bush and the Making of an American Dynasty, which is based on interviews in the last 6 months of her life, BB blamed Donald Trump for her “heart attack” after he “relentlessly” ridiculed her son Jeb during the 2016 Republican primaries with the nickname “Low Energy Jeb”.

But Page points out: “It wasn’t technically a heart attack, though she called it that. It was a crisis in her long battle with congestive heart failure and chronic pulmonary disease that hit her like a sledgehammer one day in June 2016,” when Trump had secured the GOP nomination.

An excerpt from Page’s book:

Afterward, Jeb, whose presidential campaign was already history, urged her [BB] to let it go, to focus on herself and have faith in the country.

“Jeb said, ‘Mom, don’t worry about things you can’t do anything about,’” [Barbara] Bush recalled. “He’s right. Just do good, make life better for someone else.”

Page says that BB’s “negative opinion of Trump” actually “dated back decades”:

  • In 1988, Trump volunteered to be George H.W. Bush’s running mate, which, according to BB, George dismissed as “strange and unbelievable.
  • In 1990, BB wrote in her diary that Trump is “the real symbol of greed in the ’80s.”
  • BB told Page she was incredulous that Trump won the presidency: “I woke up and discovered, to my horror, that Trump had won. I don’t understand why people are for him.”
  •  After Trump was elected, a friend gave BB a red, white and blue digital “Trump countdown clock” that displayed how many days, hours, minutes and seconds remained in his term. BB placed it on a table at her bedside, where she could see it every day to the day she died.
  • When asked how she thought things were going during the Trump presidency as his first anniversary in office approached, BB said: “I’m trying not to think about it. We’re a strong country, and I think it will all work out.”

BB’s Trump Derangement Syndrome actually led her to leave the Republican Party. Although in October 2017, BB told Page she considered herself a Republican, four months later (and two months before she died), BB said: “I’d probably say no today.”

Net rumor is that satanist Aleister Crowley was Barbara Bush’s biological father

See also:

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Senate rejects AOC’s Green New Deal in 57-0 vote

Yesterday, March 26, 2019, the so-called Green New Deal, promoted by Demonrats like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY) and 2020 presidential expirant Sen. Kamala “I-slept-my-way-into-politics” Harris (CA), failed to pass a procedural vote in the U.S. Senate.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) put the Deal to a vote to force Demonrats to take a public stand on the measure and so divide the Demon Party’s moderates and progressives. He tweeted:

”I could not be more glad that the American people will have the opportunity to learn precisely where each one of their senators stand on the ‘Green New Deal’: a radical, top-down, socialist makeover of the entire US economy.”

The final vote was 57 against, and 0 for the plan:

  • Two “red state” Democrats voted no: Sens. Joe Manchin (WVa) and Kyrsten Sinema (AZ).
  • 43 Demonrats voted “present”.

Ocasio-Cortez predictably mouthed off, calling the vote a political stunt and a “disgrace”.

Source: New York Post

See also:

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Trump 100% vindicated: AG William Barr’s letter to Congress on Mueller Report

After two years and $25 million of taxpayer dollars, the long-awaited Mueller report was delivered to Attorney General William Barr last Friday, March 22, 2019.

The report finds no Trump/Russia collusion nor that President Trump committed crimes. Of course, that won’t stop the Demon Party from undertaking yet more investigations, which some leading Demonrats are already vowing.

The Mueller Report is not yet made public, but below is AG Barr’s summary letter of the report’s “principal conclusions” to the chairmen (Sen. Lindsey Graham, Rep. Jerrold Nadler) and ranking members (Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Rep. Doug Collins) of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees.

I had a hell of time finding the letter in text format to copy and post here. You can also read the letter in PDF here.

The Attorney General

Washington, DC.
March 24, 2019

Dear Chairman Graham, Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Ranking Member
Collins:

As a supplement to the notification provided on Friday, March 22, 2019, I am writing today to advise you of the principal conclusions reached by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller and to inform you about the status of my initial review of the report he has prepared.

The Special Counsel’s Report

On Friday, the Special Counsel submitted to me a “confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions” he has reached, as required by 28 CPR. This report is entitled “Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election.” Although my review is ongoing, I believe that it is in the public interest to describe the report and to summarize the principal conclusions reached by the Special Counsel and the results of his investigation.

The report explains that the Special Counsel and his staff thoroughly investigated allegations that members of the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump, and others associated with it, conspired with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, or sought to obstruct the related federal investigations. In the report, the Special Counsel noted that, in completing his investigation, he employed 19 lawyers who were assisted by a team of approximately 40 FBI agents, intelligence forensic accountants, and other professional staff. The Special Counsel issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses.

The Special Counsel obtained a number of indictments and convictions of individuals and entities in connection with his investigation, all of which have been publicly disclosed. During the course of his investigation, the Special Counsel also referred several matters to other offices for further action. The report does not recommend any further indictments, nor did the Special Counsel obtain any sealed indictments that have yet to be made public. Below, I summarize the principal conclusions set out in the Special Counsel’s report.

Russian Interference in the 2016 US. Presidential Election. The Special Counsel’s report is divided into two parts. The first describes the results of the Special Counsel’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The report outlines the Russian effort to influence the election and documents crimes committed by persons associated with the Russian government in connection with those efforts. The report further explains that a primary consideration for the Special Counsel’s investigation was whether any Americans including individuals associated with the Trump campaign joined the Russian conspiracies to influence the election, which would be a federal crime. The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”¹

_________________

¹In assessing potential conspiracy charges, the Special Counsel also considered whether members of the Trump campaign “coordinated” with Russian election interference activities. The Special Counsel defined “coordination” as an agreement — tacit or express — between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference.

_________________

The Special Counsel’s investigation determined that there were two main Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. The first involved attempts by a Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency (IRA), to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the United States designed to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election. As noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, although the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these activities.

The second element involved the Russian government’s efforts to conduct computer hacking operations designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election. The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks. Based on these activities, the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for purposes of influencing the election. But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.

Obstruction of Justice. The report’s second part addresses a number of actions by the President most of which have been the subject of public reporting that the Special Counsel investigated as potentially raising obstruction-of-justice concerns. After making a “thorough factual investigation” into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion one way or the other as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as “difficult issues” of law and fact concerning whether the President’s actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

The Special Counsel’s decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime. Over the course of the investigation, the Special Counsel’s office engaged in discussions with certain Department officials regarding many of the legal and factual matters at issue in the Special Counsel’s obstruction investigation. After reviewing the Special Counsel’s final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president.2

_________________

² See A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution, 24 Op. O.L.C. 222 (2000).

_________________

In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,” and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President’s intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President’s actions, many of which took place in public View, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department’s principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense.

Status of the Department’s Review

The relevant regulations contemplate that the Special Counsel’s report will be a “confidential report” to the Attorney General. See Office of Special Counsel, 64 Fed. Reg. 37,038, 37,040-41 (July 9, 1999). As I have previously stated, however, I am mindful of the public interest in this matter. For that reason, my goal and intent is to release as much of the Special Counsel’s report as I can consistent with applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies.

Based on my discussions with the Special Counsel and my initial review, it is apparent that the report contains material that is or could be subject to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure which imposes restrictions on the use and disclosure of information relating to “matter[s] occurring before [a] grand jury.” Fed. R. Crim. P. Rule 6(e) generally limits disclosure of certain grand jury information in a criminal investigation and prosecution. Id. Disclosure of 6(e) material beyond the strict limits set forth in the rule is a crime in certain circumstances. See, e. g. 18 U.S.C. 401(3). This restriction protects the integrity of grand jury proceedings and ensures that the unique and invaluable investigative powers of a grand jury are used strictly for their intended criminal justice function.

Given these restrictions, the schedule for processing the report depends in part on how quickly the Department can identify the 6(e) material that by law cannot be made public. I have requested the assistance of the Special Counsel in identifying all 6(e) information contained in the report as quickly as possible. Separately, I also must identify any information that could impact other ongoing matters, including those that the Special Counsel has referred to other offices. As soon as that process is complete, I will be in a position to move forward expeditiously in determining what can be released in light of applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies.

* * *

As I observed in my initial notification, the Special Counsel regulations provide that “the Attorney General may determine that public release of” notifications to your respective Committees “would be in the public interest.” 28 CPR. I have so determined, and I will disclose this letter to the public after delivering it to you.

Sincerely,

William P. Barr
Attorney General

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Happy Sunday: Mueller report finds no Trump/Russia collusion nor that President Trump committed crimes

Breaking report from Twitchy. There is a tweet in the Twitchy link to the letter that the DoJ sent to the Judiciary Committee.

There was never a doubt in my mind that President Trump colluded or committed a crime. I did doubt whether or not Mueller could complete an unbiased investigation.

And now we know.

Happy Sunday demorats!

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Video that big tech is censoring: Another day in Trump’s America

The man who did this video, Paul Martinez, says that YouTube, Facebook and Twitter are censoring his video. It did take me some time to find it, and others noted this on YouTube as well. Cowards…

DCG

Please follow and like us:
0