Category Archives: Acts of Definance

Trumped!

Posted on by
https://mpinkeyes.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/donald-trump.jpg

Donald Trump, GOP candidate for President

Donald Trump, “The Donald,” declared his candidacy for President of the United States yesterday. To the dismay of many pundits and the GOP establishment. His announcement struck a cord across the county. Trump was blunt, arrogant, condescending, unhesitant in his criticism of Obama and democrats in general. He, in contrast to the GOP establishment whose darling is Jeb Bush, declared he would build a fence across our southern border and send the bill to Mexico.

The public ate it up.

The RNC is appalled. How could this bumpkin, this showman, this reality TV star, dare run against the anointed of the GOP establkishment? Easily. The leaders both parties refuse to understand a simple fact. The establishment of both parties, is equally hated across the country. Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, along with their ‘leadership’ teams are seen as being no different from Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and their ‘leadership’ teams.

Trump, like all the other ‘Pub candidates, appeared on Hannity’s radio show yesterday afternoon. Well, all except for Jeb who wanted his announcement to ‘seep’ twenty-four hours before he would deign appear with Hannity.

Trump was very careful of the timing of his announcement. He ended his speech just before Noon, Eastern time—just in time for the start of the Rush Limbaugh show and guess what? Trump was the leading topic. Free advertisement for Trump!

Trump may be arrogant, a showman, and a buffoon. He is no conservative with his donations to many democrat pols and his support for abortion. Given all that, he’s not stupid. He knows what topics are of interest in the country and he plucks those  interests, those sentiments, those harp strings with expertise.

Do I think Trump can win in the primaries? No.

Do I think he could win the GOP nomination? No.

I do believe, however, and it’s evident if you just watch the news reports, even those from FOX, that he’s sucked the wind from all the other GOP candidates. Trump, like Ross Perot and Ron Paul before him, is a spoiler. He’s not driven by a need to serve. He like Perot and Paul, is driven by a need to feed his ego. The media, and FOX as well, has presented Trump and his ego with an exceptional banquet.

This morning, Erick Erickson, of Red State, made this observation.

“Donald Trump is the disrespectful candidate for people who disrespect the process. He’ll be rude. He’ll be loud. He’ll be confrontational. And he won’t get the nomination. But along the way, he will speak to the fears and hopes of a lot of people who no longer connect with Washington or trust the government to get it right.” — Erick Erickson.

***

Open warfare has erupted between John Boehner and conservatives in the House. Included in Boehner’s ‘enemy list’ now are three Representatives from his own leadership team.

After Democrats helped imperil President Obama’s trade agenda, conservatives are insisting they can help rescue the trade effort—if House Republican leadership will let them.

Conservative lawmakers today railed against House Speaker John Boehner and his leadership team for working closely with Democrats on a failed strategy to usher Trade Promotion Authority through Congress.

“What’s most interesting to me is this is the second or third time they’ve [House leadership] negotiated with Democrats and the Democrats go back on their word and they still don’t come to the conservatives to talk,” said Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, speaking at a monthly House conservative lunch before reporters on Capitol Hill.

“Either they [House leadership] are not listening or they are completely unaware about what’s happening in their surroundings and they are only talking to special interest groups that go to fundraisers with them,” Labrador continued. — The Daily Signal

The rebellion is growing. Boehner had three members of his ‘leadership’ team removed from their positions after they voted, against Boehner instructions, “No,” on TPP this week. Representatives Cynthia Lummis (WY), Steve Pearce (NM) and Trent Franks (AZ) joined other conservatives to defeat Obama’s Transpacific Partnership (TPP) bill.

34 Republicans voted against the rule setting up floor debate for the trade package known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership last week and now three will have to pay a price.

Reps. Cynthia Lummis (WY), Steve Pearce (NM) and Trent Franks (AZ) were booted from their party leadership positions for breaking with the Grand Ole’ Party and voting against a part of the package the that gives the President the ability to negotiate trade deals known as fast track according to the National Journal. It was left to Rep. Steve Scalise (LA), House Majority Whip, to make the demotions.

…

…the move appears to come at the direction of House Speaker John Boehner who reportedly told rebellious GOP House members that he was fed up with their “nonsense,” a remark that evidently “sparked applause” in the room full of Republican lawmakers.

Speaking with reporters on Tuesday, Boehner made clear that he was disappointed by Republican members who did not vote with the party on the controversial trade legislation authority, “you know, we’re a team. And we’ve worked hard to get the majority; we’ve worked hard to stay in the majority,” said Boehner. He continued, “and I expect our team to act like a team, and frankly, I made it pretty clear I wasn’t very happy.” — Salon.

All treaties must be presented to Congress for approval. Congress has a responsibility to provide the President with ‘advice and consent.’ In the case of TPP, Congress provided a lot of advice, mostly negative, and no consent.

Like Obama in the Senate, Boehner has been ‘trumped’ by members of his own party.

Facebook

Spite

Posted on by

I was busy yesterday, running around Missouri delivering flyers for next month’s gun rally (see yesterday’s post.) My travels gave me ample opportunity to listen to the radio, mostly Rush and Hannity, but a few others, too.

The topic yesterday was Netanyahu’s big win in the Israeli elections—and Obama’s reaction. You see, Obama sent teams to Israel, teams paid for by US tax dollars, to defeat Netanyahu. They failed.

Obama Frowning AP Photo_0This, of course, enraged Obama. Obama, has congratulated numerous election winners around the world. Many, most maybe, were dictators or our avowed enemies. Obama did not congratulate Bibi Netanyahu. Instead, he is pursuing a path to harm Israel.

From Tel Aviv to Turtle Bay

The White House hoped a new Israeli prime minister would resume peace talks with the Palestinians. With Netanyahu holding on, the administration is weighing a turn to the U.N. to help force a deal.

By John Hudson, Colum Lynch, March 18, 201

After years of blocking U.N. efforts to pressure Israelis and Palestinians into accepting a lasting two-state solution, the United States is edging closer toward supporting a U.N. Security Council resolution that would call for the resumption of political talks to conclude a final peace settlement, according to Western diplomats.

The move follows Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decisive re-election Tuesday after the incumbent publicly abandoned his commitment to negotiate a Palestinian state — the basis of more than 20 years of U.S. diplomatic efforts — and promised to continue the construction of settlements on occupied territory. The development also reflects deepening pessimism over the prospect of U.S.-brokered negotiations delivering peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

Shortly before this week’s election, the United States informed its diplomatic partners that it would hold off any moves in the U.N. Security Council designed to put Israel on the spot at the United Nations in the event that Netanyahu’s challenger, Isaac Herzog, won the election. But U.S. officials signaled a willingness to consider a U.N. resolution in the event that Netanyahu was re-elected and formed a coalition government opposed to peace talks. The United States has not yet circulated a draft, but diplomats say Washington has set some red lines and is unwilling to agree to set a fixed deadline for political talks to conclude.

“The more the new government veers to the right the more likely you will see something in New York,” said a Western diplomat.

Nothing is so spiteful as a narcissist scorned. Obama is showing his true nature. I can understand why Obama hates Netanyahu. Bibi is everything Obama is not. When Netanyahu last spoke before Congress, he received a warmer welcome than Obama did at his State of the Union speech.

 

Facebook

Friday Follies for January 23, 2015

Posted on by

Under the tag line of, “You’ve got to be kidding me!” comes this tidbit from Politico. Given their continuing failures in reporting news, CNN is in discussion with changing Anderson Cooper’s 360 program to a game show. We all know that CNN has not been a news channel since the first Gulf War when their lead anchor, Bernard Shaw, had hysterics in Bagdad at the start of the Gulf War I air war. I suppose it’s only reasonable that CNN comes out of the closet and admits it hasn’t been a news channel and moves on.

CNN developing political game show

By DYLAN BYERS, 1/21/15 2:42 PM EST

CNN is producing a new political game show hosted by Anderson Cooper, TVNewser reports.

The show, which is set to air on Presidents’ Day, will be a quiz-style program focused on presidential politics. If the show is a success, CNN is likely to produce future episodes.

We’ve reached out to CNN for more details and will update here if and when we hear back.

CNN, like MSNBC, has drifted so far from reality that nothing they do now surprises me.

***

The Jubilee has come! Eric Holder actually changes DoJ policy in favor of the states. The FedGov will no longer usurp state and local asset forfeiture cases. In many of those cases, the state and local law was more restrictive than federal law. The DoJ would takeover cases then give local PDs a cut-of-the-action. Theft by government order. I’ve never liked asset forfeiture until the accused has actually been convicted and sentenced. Even then the laws are too broad; seizing accounts and assets unrelated to the actual crime(s).

Holder Has Made It Harder for Federal Government to Legally Seize Your Property

Jason Snead / / Andrew Kloster / /

In a stunning announcement last week, Attorney General Eric Holder announced the Department of Justice would immediately stop “adopting” state civil asset forfeiture cases. Attorney General Eric Holder’s announcement came exactly one week after leaders on Capitol Hill called on him to halt the controversial program as a step toward broader reform of the nation’s civil forfeiture system.

Before today’s announcement, federal agencies could take over, or “adopt,” forfeiture cases from local or state law enforcement agencies. In other words, state or local law enforcement personnel would seize property and then turn it over to the federal government to process.

Pursuant to agreements with the federal government, once the property was successfully forfeited in federal court, the originating state or local agency got a portion of the proceeds, potentially as high as 80 percent. That money had to be used for law enforcement operations, placing it beyond the control of local governments and state legislators.

The program became the subject of controversy for effectively allowing local agencies to circumvent restrictive state laws in favor of the potentially more lucrative federal route, raising serious federalism and good government concerns. Even where states had strong procedural safeguards for property owners or limitations on the use of forfeiture funds, law enforcement could partner with the federal government and use federal rules to seize property and make use of the profits.

Sens. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Reps. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisc., and John Conyers, D-Mich., wrote that “these seizures might circumvent state forfeiture law restrictions, create improper incentives on the part of state and local law enforcement, and unnecessarily burden our federal authorities.”

Apparently responding to these concerns, the attorney general’s new policy bars federal authorities from adopting local or state seizures of “vehicles, valuables, cash and other monetary instruments.” The AG was able to make this change unilaterally because the statutes underlying federal civil forfeiture made the equitable sharing payments optional. The Department of Justice has the authority to craft, and to change, the rules of the program. The Treasury Department, which operates its own forfeiture fund, announced its forfeiture operations will conform to the same guidelines as those laid out by Holder.

The article continues with an explanation of exceptions under Holder’s new directive. All-in-all, it’s a step in the right direction.

***

Ya just gotta love Dave Clark. Who’s he? He’s the black, conservative, Milwaukee County Sheriff who won his last election despite the efforts of liberals who hate black conservatives. He does not hesitate to make his opinions known. This time the subject was Al Sharpton.

David Clarke, Wisconsin sheriff: ‘Al Sharpton ought to go back into the gutter he came from’

By Cheryl K. Chumley – The Washington Times – Thursday, January 22, 2015
http://media.washtimes.com/media/image/2014/12/10/david-clarke_s878x473.jpg?de75613b37228017a9f5cb3e6ff07328005a3223

Milwaukee’s tough-talking black sheriff, David Clarke, argued this week that white Americans have “made great strides” in healing race relations, and that sooner or later they’re going to grow tired of having their noses “rubbed in the past sins of slavery.”

Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke didn’t pull any punches in his assessment of the Rev. Al Sharpton — who vowed to keep fighting for justice for slain Ferguson teen Michael Brown, despite the feds’ decision to drop a civil rights investigation — and characterized him on national television as less than intelligent and unworthy of respect.

“The grand jury in Ferguson, Missouri, got it right,” Sheriff Clarke said, during an appearance on “Fox & Friends.” “Officer [Darren] Wilson has been exonerated. The thing I want to know is how does he get his reputation back?”

Sheriff Clarke then directed anger at Mr. Sharpton, who spoke sharply in the wake of Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision not to prosecute Mr. Wilson, a former police officer, on civil rights charges.

Sic’em Dave!

***

Former Speaker of the House, Tom Delay.

Tom Delay may be out of Congress, but the libs failed to defeat him. The Texas Supreme Court ended the Travis County (Austin, TX) democrat prosecutor’s vendetta against Delay. He’s back now with a review of Obama’s SOTU speech earlier this week.

In Obama’s speech, a conservative call to arms

By Tom DeLay – – Thursday, January 22, 2015

I found President Obama’s State of the Union address this week infuriating — and exhilarating.

It was infuriating for all the usual reasons. For all the talk that this time things would be different, in the first State of the Union speech since the American people repudiated his entire agenda we got the same old Mr. Obama, arrogant, disdainful, defiant of the new Republican majorities and of the voters who sent them to Washington. Had there been a referee on the premises, he would have thrown a flag for taunting.

It was perhaps the most in-your-face speech of this kind that I have ever heard, and I felt for the Republican lawmakers who had to sit through it, knowing that the television cameras were ready to pick up any scowl, eye roll or failure to join a “spontaneous” standing ovation. (It must have been especially tough for House Speaker John Boehner, who had to preserve his dignity and remain polite while Joe Biden was bouncing up and down like a manic jack-in-the box behind the president.)

The president either doesn’t know or doesn’t care that his party badly lost the elections. He’s not listening to the American people, as was evident in the very first minutes of his speech when he laid out the same old tired agenda that dragged down the Democrats in the first place. When President Clinton got a similar repudiation in the 1990s, at least he had the smarts to cooperate — sometimes kicking and screaming — with our new Republican majorities to get items like welfare reform passed. Things worked out so well that now Mr. Clinton brags about the things we forced him to accept.

That’s clearly not Mr. Obama’s way. What we got instead was one of the most misguided, frankly unconstitutional speeches ever given by an American president. The president called for universal child care, gender pay equity, guaranteed paid sick leave for workers, a higher minimum wage, free community college and new rules to make labor unions stronger — not one of which is the responsibility of the federal government under the Constitution. Then he laid out all the things he’s ready to veto if he doesn’t get his way — not exactly the bipartisan outreach that his advisers said was coming.

Even more infuriating — if possible — was Mr. Obama’s boasting about how far we have allegedly come under his watch. He bragged of bringing down the federal deficit in recent years when it was his uncontrolled — and unconstitutional — spending and taxing that ran up the deficit and debt in the first place. The official unemployment rate is down, but only because 90 million Americans have grown so discouraged that they’ve dropped out of the labor market altogether.

The president says he wants to turn his attention to stagnant wages and income inequality, apparently oblivious to the fact that wages aren’t going up precisely because there is a vast army of nonworkers out there saturating the job market. And income inequality will never be “fixed” by taxing the job producers more and giving the money to people who aren’t working. That approach has failed everywhere it has been tried.

The president’s victory lap was even more incredible when you consider the full plate of crises beyond our borders, from Russia and Iran to Yemen, Nigeria and Syria — the easily foreseen consequences of an administration that brags of “leading from behind.” The president claims the “shadow of crisis” has passed, but that’s not true to anyone who has been paying attention.

So why the exhilaration, you ask?

The more I listened to the speech, the more I was convinced that the president is handing the Republicans an incredible opportunity. He’s not backing down from his disastrous progressive agenda, and that means conservatives cannot afford to back down from theirs.

New Sen. Joni Ernst struck a nice, hopeful tone in her official rebuttal speech, but building the Keystone pipeline and getting more help to vets is not a full agenda. The joint House-Senate Republican retreat last week was another missed opportunity to pre-empt the president’s liberal agenda, to put a true constitutional conservative program on the table and force this president to react.

But Mr. Obama’s speech made it crystal clear that Republicans have no alternative to confrontation, a clash that should last through the 2016 election. Facing a delusional and defiant president, this is no time for conservatives to play small-ball. We need a bold agenda that presents an alternative to the left. We need real, pro-growth tax reform. We need to repeal Obamacare — now. We need to slash spending. We need to defund the president’s illegal executive actions, starting with his amnesty for illegal immigrants. We have to show we respect life and traditional values.

There can be no debate about it any more. Barack Obama has made it unmistakably clear he wants a fight.

We should give him one.

Well said, Tom. Well said.

Facebook

The day of the Tyrants…

Posted on by

…will soon begin to end…or at least, hit a speed bump. The level of tyranny changes on a daily basis. One of the most egregious acts by a tyrant, an act clearly unconstitutional, has been reversed. Houston Mayor Annise Parker has told her enablers to withdraw the subpoenas to seize the sermons of five Houston pastors. Her reason for the subpoena? It violated her new anti-gay/anti-free speech edict.

She received immediate push-back. The Texas Attorney General wrote her a letter informing her that she was violating the 1st Amendment. The Houston-Five, as they are now known, refused to comply with the Mayor’s order. Christians and conservative began to send Bibles to the mayor. Finally, when she realized she had really stepped into a pile of hot, steaming dung, she reversed her order.

Houston mayor drops bid to subpoena pastors’ sermons

By , FoxNews.com

Subpoenas issued to five Houston pastors demanding all sermons and correspondence dealing with homosexuality, gender identity and the city’s Equal Rights ordinance have been withdrawn, the city’s first openly lesbian mayor announced at a Wednesday press conference.

“After much contemplation and discussion, I am directing the city legal department to withdraw the subpoenas issued to the five Houston pastors who delivered the petitions, the anti-HERO petitions, to the city of Houston and who indicated that they were responsible for the overall petition effort,” said Mayor Annise Parker in remarks covered by television station KPRC.

My column on the issue sparked a bit of national outrage – well – a lot of national outrage. To be honest it was a full-scale hullabaloo. City Hall was deluged with telephone calls, letters, emails – along with hundreds of Bibles and sermons. More than 50,000 supporters signed a petition.

Nevertheless, the mayor still seems hell-bent on defending the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance – a piece of legislation that will in part give grown men who identify as women the right to use the restrooms of their choice.

“It is extremely important to me to protect our Equal Rights Ordinance from repeal, and it is extremely important to me to make sure that every Houstonian knows that their lives are valid and protected and acknowledged,” Parker said. “We are going to continue to vigorously defend our ordinance against repeal efforts.”

Tyranny retreats in the face of opposition. As she was quoted above, Houston’s tyrant has no intention of backing down. This setback is just a small pause in the progress of her tyrannical agenda.

We, here near Kansas City, have another example of tyranny. Over the summer, Kansas City Mayor Sly James rammed through the city council an ordinance banning the open carry of firearms. In itself, such an act has been done in cities across America. What was most tyrannical in this case was the motivation behind the ordinance—suppression of free speech.

He said aggressive open carrying of weapons can be intimidating for customers and bad for business. — Kansas City Star.

Mayor James’ logic for the ordinance was that he didn’t want to see people legally carrying firearms openly in Kansas City. He could not provide any evidence that carrying weapons increased lawlessness but he could create a law to make open carry illegal. The Missouri Legislature passed a law this year that made James’ ordinance invalid—but only for those licensed carry a weapon concealed.

Mayor James knew his ordinance would soon be invalid but he pushed it through anyway. His purpose was not public saftety. He knew he had no evidence that his law would improve that. No, the ordinance was enacted solely to curb acts of free speech from the Open Carry advocates.

There are more instances of liberal tyranny across the country. In Idaho, a city passed an ordinance requiring churches to perform same-sex marriages regardless of the minister’s religious views. The order was a clear violation of the 1st Amendment but liberals ignore the Constitution when they violate it.

That Idaho city has now backed off from their order—which included jail time and heavy fines for non-compliance. But never doubt, tyranny is only waiting for attention to wander and they will return. That is why we must be always vigilant and ready to respond to every tyrannical act.

Facebook

Liberal Assault on Truth

Posted on by

Liberals, democrats, seem to be inheritantly incapable of being truthful. Whenever they are pressed for truth, they attack the opposition. Case in point. The City of Houston passed an ordinance that restricted the 1st Amendment and free speech. When the residents submitted a petition to abolish the ordinance, the city council claimed the petition was faulty, regardless of the 50,000 signatures. Much more than the number required for action.

In Kansas City, Missouri, the city council, at the instigation of Mayor Sly James, passed an ordinance banning Open Carry of a firearm. Their motivation was not public safety, nor a request from law enforcement. Open Carry had been legal in Kansas City for decades and had never been an issue—until Mayor Sly James made it one.

Mayor James publicly stated that the ordinance, “was intended to send a message,” to Open Carry advocates. That made the issue, not a 2nd Amendment issue, but a 1st Amendment issue, banning the free expression of those Open Carry advocates. A lawyer friend said the ordinance and the public admission of the motivation behind it, was clearly illegal, a constitutional violation. But, he said, it would take a barrel of $100 dollar bills to fight it in court and so far, no one with deep pockets has come forward to finance a lawsuit against the ordinance.

In Houston, because Houston’s churches were in opposition of the ordinance and by extension the Mayor who was a self-avowed homosexual, the Churches have been subpoenaed to submit transcripts of their sermons that opposed the ordinance. The subpoenas are a direct violation of the 1st Amendment. The churches and church leaders are banding together to fight the city of Houston on this issue.

An article appeared in the American Thinker that addresses this lack of truthfulness by liberal and democrats. With the actions of the Houston Mayor and City Council, its timing could not have been more appropriate.

Liberals Wage War on the Truth

By Trevor Thomas, October 15, 2014

When it comes to political “wars,” in spite of the meme perpetrated by most liberals, no one is more hawkish than modern liberals and the political party that they own, the Democrat Party. By and large since the 1960s, their efforts are summed up by one succinct and extremely accurate appellation: a war on the truth.

In the history of our nation, only the pro-slavery Democrats of the 19th century rival the political deception employed by today’s liberals that lead the modern Democrat Party. Support of everything from abortion, to gender perversions, homosexuality, pornography, a redefinition of marriage, wicked climate policies, and an enslaving welfare state have made today’s Democrat Party little more than a modern-day Mephistopheles. Instead of magic to lure their Faustian targets, today’s Democrats employ, among other things, bribery, class warfare, fear, greed, lust, propaganda, scientism, vengeance, and violence.

This is really unsurprising. When your politics regularly conflict with absolute truth, constant deception is required. The evidence is, of course, all around us. This is especially the case given that we are in the midst of another election season. Take note of the political ads run by Democrats. How long before we get to meet the next Julia or Pajama Boy? How many times will we get to hear about, if elected, what Democrats will do in order to give out more goodies from the government? Where will the next fraudulent statistics in the “War on Women” originate?

How much “linguistic limbo” will Democrats perform in order blandly to describe their embracing of the “right” to kill children in the womb? (Or they simply video their abortions and tell us that everything is “super great!”) What deceit will liberals use to explain or embrace the fiscal and medical disaster that is Obamacare? How many times will we get to hear the phrase “marriage equality” (knowing full well that the liberal position on marriage also “discriminates”)?

How far away will Democrats attempt to run from what they really are in order to keep themselves in power? Liberals all over the country are running from Obama and their own party in an attempt to win elections. As most who are following this election season know well, Democrats are going so far as to avoid the label “Democrat” or even admit that they voted for Obama.

In Kansas, Greg Orman is a Democrat running as an Independent. He has shamelessly refused to say with which party he would caucus if elected. “Truth makes the Devil blush,” wrote the English historian Thomas Fuller. As liberalism has created a culture that is nearly bereft of shame, today’s Democrats rarely blush, even as they mock their wheelchair-bound opponents. This usually happens only when someone becomes a political liability (as did the Democrat candidate that Orman replaced) and not because some proper moral standard has been violated.

If Orman does win, as the Wall Street Journal notes, he will most certainly owe his election to Washington Democrats. Kentucky Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes squirmed like Jim Carrey in Liar Liar as she attempted to avoid revealing to the Louisville Courier-Journal editorial board whether she voted for Obama in the last presidential election. Mary Landrieu and Michelle Nunn have played similar games as they try to win U.S. Senate seats in conservative states.

Given how far our culture has fallen morally, getting elected in the United States these days is much more challenging when you are accountable to absolute truths. As I noted earlier this year, because their moral bar is so low and easily adjusted to whatever is politically popular, liberals today generally have an easier time “playing politics” than conservatives — especially Christian conservatives.

When asked recently how to break the stalemate in the culture war that divides American conservatives and liberals, Catholic scholar George Weigel replied, “When you have a gnostic philosophy that ignores the very fabric of reality — and it is wed to a coercive state — it’s hard to know where to go.”

Ignoring “the very fabric of reality” is a frequent practice of modern liberals. Liberalism is so far removed from truth and reality that many liberals today can’t even acknowledge explicit evil when confronted with it. Ben Affleck has plenty of company among his fellow leftists when it comes to denying the rotten fruit of Islam. As the recent exchange with fellow liberal Bill Maher illustrated, many American liberals, in the name of the supreme virtue of liberalism – tolerance — will eagerly and angrily deny lesser virtues of their “faith.”

“Tolerance is a virtue of a man without convictions,” wrote G.K. Chesterton. A “man without convictions” who frequently “ignores the very fabric of reality” and who is enthusiastically “wed to a coercive state” is an apt description of modern liberals, but not perfect. In spite of what they themselves might think — lost in their fallacy that is today’s tolerance — liberals are not completely tolerant, and thus not devoid of convictions.

The convictions of modern liberalism are numerous and growing: Abortion, homosexuality, hook-ups, same-sex marriage, gender confusion, man-made global warming, universal healthcare, income redistribution, and whatever is the next perversion or deceit that will strike at the heart of biblical truths.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident” helped launch the American Revolution. If America is to remain, we need a spiritual revolution bringing us back to those truths that were once so “self-evident.”

Liberals and democrats have perverted our Constitution. We must all fight to take it back.

Facebook

Acts of Defiance

Posted on by
de·fi·ance
diˈfīəns/
noun
noun: defiance
1.
open resistance; bold disobedience.
“the demonstration was held in defiance of official warnings”

synonyms:

resistance, opposition, noncompliance, disobedience, insubordination, dissent, recalcitrance, subversion, rebellion

The country has been watching an act of defiance in Nevada for the last week. That confrontation between citizens and members of the federal government has subsided…for now. There was another act of defiance occurring in New York. That one received little attention from the media.

The state of New York requires gun owners to register certain firearms. Compliance to that law, known as the SAFE Act, has been low. Protesters to that law met outside the office of State Senator Mark Grisanti to protest the act.

Shredding SAFE Act Registration Forms In New York

By: Caleb Howe (Diary)  |  April 15th, 2014 at 05:10 PM

On Tuesday in upstate New York, outside the office of State Senator Mark Grisanti, gun owners gathered in protest. Together they shredded their SAFE Act registration cards to signify their non-compliance with the controversial new law. Grisanti is a Republican who helped to pass the SAFE Act, including by offering up changes to the bill to make it bipartisan.

Human Events wrote last week about a recent SAFE Act protest that had a huge turnout, and involved many of the same people and groups as the rally on Tuesday, where gun owners intend to shred their registration forms as a form of protest. One of the organizers, Rus Thompson of TEA New York, was recently interviewed about this event, and discussed in depth the reasoning behind the shredding.

Gun owners across the state have been speaking out and protesting the SAFE Act from the beginning. As Bearing Arms reported yesterday, as many as one million are refusing to register their weapons.

Non-compliance of the ban is expected to be between 90%-99%, but a provision in the NY SAFE Act prevents registration data from being shared with the public.

Non-compliance in the neighboring state of Connecticut is thought to be in excess of 85%, with an estimated 80,000-100,000 gun owners refusing to register their firearms. Connecticut State Police have made no move to enforce their law four months after their registration deadline, fearing possible armed resistance.

Conservative estimates are that at least 300,000 and as many as one million New Yorkers will likewise practice civil disobedience and refuse to comply with the registration requirement.

The Shredding Registration event has a Facebook page here, and was covered live by a local Buffalo talk radio station here.

The defiance in New York isn’t limited to gun owners. Some officials—county Sheriffs, have declared they won’t enforce the law, either.

Despite deadline, protesters ‘will not comply’ with SAFE Act

Registration deadline for law was Tuesday

By Lou Michel | News Staff Reporter , T.J. Pignataro | News Staff Reporter | @TJPignataro | Google+, on April 15, 2014 – 8:30 PM, updated April 16, 2014 at 2:04 AM

Rus Thompson, a tea party activist, shreds the state assault weapon registration form during a rally Tuesday outside the Mahoney State Building.

Rus Thompson, a tea party activist, shreds the state assault weapon registration form during a rally Tuesday outside the Mahoney State Building. Harry Scull Jr. /Buffalo News

Owners of assault-style weapons were supposed to have registered their guns by Tuesday.

But there is no way of knowing exactly how many of these weapons there are in the state and how many were registered under the NY SAFE Act.

The state refuses to say how many were registered, claiming it is confidential information protected by the law.

Gun-rights advocates estimate compliance will be less than 10 percent.

And in Erie County, the sheriff says he will not force his deputies to enforce registration.

“Theoretically, any law enforcement officer who encounters anyone with this type of gun at a minimum is supposed to record the serial number and the individual’s identity and report it to Albany,” Sheriff Timothy B. Howard said.

But will his deputies do that?

“I don’t know. I am not encouraging them to do it. At the same time, their own consciences should be their guide. I am not forcing my conscience on them. That is a decision they should make,” Howard said.

The sheriff’s opposition sits well with roughly 70 opponents of the law who gathered outside the Walter J. Mahoney State Office Building in downtown Buffalo late Tuesday afternoon to shred State Police registration forms for assault weapons.

It was seen as a form of civil disobedience to a law that opponents say was hastily drafted some 16 months ago in response to the December 2012 massacre in Newtown, Conn., where 20 elementary school children and six adults were slain by a heavily armed gunman.

But rather than make the public safer, opponents contend the law’s main accomplishment has been to create a new classification of criminals – individuals who out of conscience refuse to register their assault weapons because they believe the law overstepped their Second Amendment right to bear arms.

The column continues at the website. The Erie County Sheriff echoes the sentiments of many law enforcement officials across the country. “Will…shall I comply with a law that is clearly unenforceable and does nothing more than make criminals out of formerly law-abiding citizens?”

The New York Sheriffs Organization has examined the SAFE Act and has found a number of flaws and inconsistencies. They noted these flaws on their website and point out that a number of the Act’s provisions are unenforceable and produce undue burden of their offices and other agencies and institutions.

Three acts of defiance with days of one another: the Bundy Ranch vs. the BLM, gun owners of New York vs. the SAFE Act, and the NY Erie County Sheriff versus that same SAFE Act. When you add the defiance of many states against Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion, the refusal of those same states to create state exchanges, a person could reasonably expect more acts of defiance to occur at any time, any where.

 

Facebook