The Front Page Cover
~ Featuring ~
A Supreme Second Amendment Disgrace
by Paul Albaugh
.
By Arnold Ahlert: "While engaging in marches, meetings, and frenzied propagandizing, Red Guard units attacked and persecuted local party leaders as well as schoolteachers and school officials, other intellectuals, and persons of traditional views. Several hundred thousand people died in the course of these persecutions. ... These units soon began fighting among themselves, however, as various factions vied for power amidst each one's claims that it was the true representative of Maoist thought." —Encyclopedia Britannica
Democrats Demand Ideological Purity
By Arnold Ahlert: "While engaging in marches, meetings, and frenzied propagandizing, Red Guard units attacked and persecuted local party leaders as well as schoolteachers and school officials, other intellectuals, and persons of traditional views. Several hundred thousand people died in the course of these persecutions. ... These units soon began fighting among themselves, however, as various factions vied for power amidst each one's claims that it was the true representative of Maoist thought." —Encyclopedia Britannica
"I don't think people in the Beltway are realizing just how toxic the Democratic Party brand is in so many parts of the country." —Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH)
Ryan is on to something. But like many of his fellow Democrats, he can't see the proverbial forest for the trees. What ails Democrats is the same thing that ultimately animated the Communist Chinese government to force its most ardent supporters into exile: an increasingly fanatical demand for ideological "purity" that
Ryan is on to something. But like many of his fellow Democrats, he can't see the proverbial forest for the trees. What ails Democrats is the same thing that ultimately animated the Communist Chinese government to force its most ardent supporters into exile: an increasingly fanatical demand for ideological "purity" that
ultimately eats its own.
Last weekend, Chicago held an LGBT parade called the Dyke March, described by organizers as a "more inclusive, more social justice-oriented" march
Last weekend, Chicago held an LGBT parade called the Dyke March, described by organizers as a "more inclusive, more social justice-oriented" march
than the city's main Gay Pride parade.
How inclusive? Organizers banned the Jewish Star of David flag and removed
How inclusive? Organizers banned the Jewish Star of David flag and removed
several people who were carrying it, because the flags "made people feel unsafe," and the march was "anti-Zionist" and "pro-Palestinian" — rejected marcher and Wider Bridge manager Laurel Grauer told the Windy City Times.
Parade organizers insisted Grauer's organization, Wider Bridge, was responsible for "provocative actions at other LGBTQ events [and] for using Israel's supposed 'LGBTQ tolerance' to pinkwash the violent occupation of Palestine."
March participant Ruthie Steiner was perplexed. "With all the people that so hate the LGBTQ community, for it to tear itself apart in self-hatred makes no sense at all," she said.
The LGBT community is hardly an anti-Semitic outlier. "The Black Lives Matter movement blindsided its Jewish supporters with the recent unveiling of its social and political policy agenda, a far-left manifesto that strays well beyond police brutality and accuses Israel of 'genocide' and 'apartheid,'" the Washington Times reported last August.
Perhaps progressive Jewish Americans can take heart in the fact they're not the only group of leftists who lack sufficient purity. "Every Democrat, like every American, should support a woman's right to make her own choices about her body and her health. That is not negotiable and should not change city by city or state by state," declared DNC chief Tom Perez in April. Pro-life Democrat and Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards criticized the assertion, insisting, "It's hard to remain a big-tent party if you have a very small platform."
It's even harder when a party's instincts are inclined toward tyranny. In New York City, the Commission on Human Rights declared the "refusal to use a transgender employee's preferred name, pronoun, or title may constitute unlawful gender-based harassment." Or, as UCLA School of Law professor Eugene Volokh aptly explains, "People can basically force us — on pain of massive legal liability — to say what they want us to say, whether or not we want to endorse the political message associated with that term, and whether or not we think it's a lie."
Thus in the Big Apple, those who fail to employ pronouns such as "ze" or "hir" can be fined as much as $250,000.
Snopes assures us that assertion is an effort by conservative news organizations to "mislead" the public, because only one "who intentionally and repeatedly refuses to use an individual's preferred pronoun would be subject to fines." In other words, as long as one eventually gets one's "mind right," all will be well.
Or will it? On June 15, the Canadian Senate passed Bill C-16 by a vote of 67-11, making the refusal to use transgender pronouns a prosecutable hate crime. No doubt many American leftists who target Christian bakeries refusing to embrace same-sex marriage would like similar legislation passed in America.
Nor are such demands for purity confined to transgenderism. In Britain, Nigel Pelham was sentenced to 20 months in prison, forced to pay a £100 "victim surcharge," and had two hard drives and a computer confiscated for making disparaging comments about Muslims. Sussex Police Hate Crime Sergeant Peter Allan praised the decision, and encouraged his fellow citizens to turn in anyone else using social media "to spread messages of fear and hate." Thus, Britain has criminalized anything government defines as "Islamophobic."
America? "Now obviously this is a country that is based on free speech, but when it edges towards violence, when we see the potential for someone lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric — or, as we saw after 9/11, violence directed at individuals who may not even be Muslims but perceived to be Muslims, and they will suffer just as much — when we see that we will take action," declared former Attorney General Loretta Lynch —the day after 14 people were slaughtered by Islamists in San Bernardino.
In 1949, a prescient George Orwell foresaw the ethos far too many Democrats currently embrace. "Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing," he wrote.
It's not working on everyone. Millions of decent Americans reject a progressive movement determined to use government, academia, popular culture and the media to "re-shape" their thinking.
That is the essence of toxicity, courtesy of those also determined to make Donald Trump the second coming of Emmanuel Goldstein, with the requisite "Two Minutes Hate" that passes for news at media outlets "setting a new standard for unfavorable press coverage of a president," according to a Harvard study.
As historian Victor Davis Hanson explains, "Bill liar-Clinton's formerly competitive Democratic party aged and then evaporated. It was replaced by a hard-left coastal coalition, a pyramidal party — ethnic-identity groups at the base and wealthy elites on top, all united by a mutual disdain for the half of the population that covers 85 percent of the geography."
That's exactly what unreasonable demands for ideological purity ultimately engender. And how a party of warring tribes united only by contempt for "the other" survives is anyone's guess.
~The Patriot Post
.
Susan Rice Will Testify On UnMasking –
clown-Schumer Can’t Shield Her In The House
by Rick Wells
{rickwells.us} ~ In the wake of the outrage and condemnation following Senator Chuck clown-Schumer’s meddling in the Senate Judiciary Committee’s calendar and blocking the testimony of Susan Rice... another arrangement has been worked out and she will testify before an intelligence committee. This time the questioning about her potential domestic spying on political opponents and the excessive unwarranted unmasking has been set for the House. It will be a private hearing, which removes the excuse of not being able to respond in a non-classified setting. According to CNN, Rice will appear before the August Congressional recess. In April, Bloomberg’s Eli Lake reported that lawyers for the White House had discovered dozens of requests for the names of Trump transition team members and others affiliated with the campaign which had been redacted in raw intelligence reports. That is an exceptionally high number for the names to have appeared randomly and suggests they were being specifically targeted. The concerns, which seem to be well-founded, are that the liar-nObama regime was abusing the power of the office of the President to engage in spying and other political dirty tricks upon their political opponents... http://rickwells.us/susan-rice-testify-unmasking-schumer-cant-shield-house/Sen. Dick Durbin REFUSES to Release His
Emails With Gunman Who Shot Congressman Scalise
by Justin Caruso
{freedomoutpost.com} ~ Democratic Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin’s office will not release reported email correspondence with anti-GOP shooter James Hodgkinson... An Associated Press report says, “Hodgkinson also visited the office of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, whose campaign he had worked on as a volunteer, and was in email contact with the two Democratic senators from his home state.” The “two Democratic senators from his home state” of Illinois would presumably be Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth...http://freedomoutpost.com/sen-dick-durbin-refuses-to-release-his-emails-with-gunman-who-shot-congressman-scalise/.
Greta Van Susteren Is OUT At MSNBC
by Betsy Rothstein
{dailycaller.com} ~ After six short months, Greta Van Susteren is out at MSNBC. The network is replacing her 6 p.m. time slot with attorney Ari Melber... “So sad,” a media insider told The Mirror. “The poor woman is addicted to being on television. Won’t be long before she joins Larry King at RT.” Van Susteren left Fox News abruptly in September after working at the network for 14 years. She defended Roger Ailes against Gretchen Carlson‘s sexual harassment accusations, saying nothing like that had ever happened between her and Ailes, who is now deceased. She has also previously worked for CNN... http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/29/shocker-greta-van-susteren-is-out-at-msnbc/.
GOP Operative Who Claimed Links To
Michael Flynn Sought ‘Stolen’ liar-Clinton Emails
by Chuck Ross
{dailycaller.com} ~ A Republican opposition researcher who claimed to be linked to former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn was in communication with Russian hackers... who he believed had stolen emails from liar-Hillary Clinton’s private email server. And according to The Wall Street Journal, which broke the story, the project could be the same one that U.S. officials have reviewed as part of the investigation into whether Trump campaign officials colluded with the Russian government. U.S. officials told the Journal that intelligence agencies have compiled reports “that describe Russian hackers discussing how to obtain emails from Mrs. liar-Clinton’s server and then transmit them to Mr. Flynn via an intermediary.”... http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/29/report-gop-operative-who-claimed-links-to-michael-flynn-sought-stolen-clinton-emails/.
NYT Issues Correction- 17 Intel
Agencies Really Just 3 As Russia Hoax Falls Apart
by Rick Wells
{rickwells.us} ~ The statement that seventeen intelligence agencies agreed the Russians interfered on President Trump’s behalf was ludicrous and obviously false at the time it was made, and more so in the days since... After all, what did the coast guard have to do with the DNC computers? How would 17 intelligence agencies make an evaluation on a supposed breach when access to the scene of the crime, the server, was forbidden by the DNC, Democrats, liar-nObama and liar-Clinton? They were so desperate to keep prying eyes out they even refused the FBI access and any possibility of apprehending the “perpetrators.” This entire international hoax was built largely on the determination of CrowdStrike, a third party security outfit. The so-called assessment, the report that all 17 agencies were supposed to have agreed upon, was the creation of John Brennan, James Clapper and James Comey. In defining its scope, on page six, it stated, “This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies. It was this manufactured report to liar-nObama that, in its unclassified form, looked like one of Jihadi Jeh Johnson’s see something say something presentations in coloring book format. It was enough, though. All liar-nObama needed was the ability to make the claim, almost nobody reads those things...http://rickwells.us/nyt-issues-correction-17-intel-agencies-really-just-3-russia-hoax-falls-apart/.
.
A Supreme Second Amendment Disgrace
By Paul Albaugh: The appointment several months ago of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court was a huge victory for conservatives. But after SCOTUS declined to hear an important case from the Ninth Circuit regarding Second Amendment rights, it's clear that it will take several more conservative appointments to the High Court for right decisions to be made that protect individual freedom.
Yesterday, the Court declined to hear the appeal of the case Peruta v. California. The Ninth Circuit last year declared that for a person to lawfully conceal carry a firearm, they must show "good cause" to obtain a permit to do so. (Notably, that was a self-reversal — an en banc court reversed the ruling of a three-judge panel that had decided in favor of the Second Amendment.)
Good cause? How about the natural right to defend oneself and the fact that the Second Amendment to the Constitution clearly states that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Apparently in California, that right doesn't exist, unless of course there is "good cause." But what exactly is defined as a good enough cause to carry?
San Diego County Sheriff William Gore defended California's egregious gun law last year and in an LA Times op-ed defined "good cause" as "a set of circumstances that distinguishes the applicant from other members of the general public and causes him or her to be placed in harm's way." Quite a flawed definition.
Who decides what circumstances distinguish one applicant from another? And what might those circumstances be? Where one lives? What profession an individual has? Would being robbed, raped, assaulted, shot at, or threatened previously be good cause to be able to apply for a conceal carry permit? Why on earth do the Ninth Circuit, Sheriff Gore and others think someone must prove that they have "good cause" to lawfully exercise a right found in the plain language of the United States Constitution?
Hence why we have the Supreme Court to step in when such violations of Liberty arise. Except that the High Court declined to step in and hear the case — which means that, for now, the Ninth Circuit ruling stands, infringing on the constitutional rights of Californians and others.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch were the only two justices who voted to hear the case, and the pair blasted their fellow justices for refusing to do so. In fact, they took the unusual step of writing a dissenting opinion despite no hearing.
Justice Thomas had this to say: "The Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it." Thomas continued, "Even if other Members of the Court do not agree that the Second Amendment likely protects a right to public carry, the time has come for the Court to answer this important question definitively."
Indeed, it has, especially since so many lower federal courts have reached different conclusions on the Second Amendment and where and to whom it applies.
Thomas added to his dissent, "This Court has already suggested that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry firearms in public in some fashion. As we explained in Heller, to 'bear arms' means to 'wear, bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person." He further noted, "I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen."
Worse, Thomas argued, is that the Court has declined numerous Second Amendment cases in recent years. "The Court's decision to deny certiorari in this case reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right," Thomas wrote. "The Court has not heard argument in a Second Amendment case in over seven years — since March 2, 2010, in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742. Since that time, we have heard argument in, for example, roughly 35 cases where the question presented turned on the meaning of the First Amendment and 25 cases that turned on the meaning of the Fourth Amendment."
Gun grabbers of all stripes are ecstatic that SCOTUS did not hear this case. However, yesterday's decision should be a stark reminder that Liberty is still under attack by those who wish to control every aspect of citizens' lives. This battle in California has been lost, at least for now. But there are numerous victories being won for gun rights around the country, and it could be that the Court revisits this case or another like it at some point. Keep your powder dry. ~The Patriot Post
Comments