What’s the world come to when accusing millions of law-abiding members of a gun rights organization and a Republican senator of mass murder isn’t enough qualification for college acceptance? Is a threat to boycott companies that do business on or near those campuses the next step? Whatever it is, CNN will be there for him every step of the way, because JOURNALISM!
Hillary Clinton’s back to doing what she does best, and that’s saying whatever any given audience wants in return for cash — just a little less cash than she’s used to:
Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton is back in New Jersey Thursday for a rare public appearance since she lost in her bid for the White House against President Donald Trump.
Clinton is expected to talk politics, American democracy and her role in shaping women’s political history.
Rutgers will pay Clinton $25,000 from an endowment but use no money from tuition or state aid, according to the university.
A Clinton spokesperson told NBC the former secretary of state plans to donate the honorarium for the speech to charity.
For some reason I’m guessing the charity she donated the money to is the Clinton Foundation.
Compared to Hillary’s speaking fees of past years, she’s taking a real hit these days:
After embarrassing herself and creating yet another obstacle for Congressional Democrats to overcome later this year during a disastrous trip to India earlier this month, Hillary Clinton is taking a massive 90% cut to her typical speaking fee for an engagement at one of New Jersey’s most prestigious universities.
That’s to be expected when the people paying your speaking fees know there’s no more political influence to be purchased and are now just paying to hear tales of how in the world Hillary lost to Donald Trump.
Actual blog post from a Madison, Wisconsin Democrat who’s on the city council in regards to debate over having armed security at a local bank that’s been robbed before. I’ve taken the liberty of highlighting the areas you’ll want to make especially sure to not be drinking anything as you read them:
Chase Bank has kindly and diplomatically reached out to meet with me tomorrow evening about security measures at the Milwaukee Street branch. One main topic of our discussion will be the continued plans for an armed guard at the branch. This armed guard would be an off-duty Madison Police Department officer, for which Chase would cover the expense. I want to be sure that I have as much input from all of you as I can so I can best advocate for the neighborhood’s interests and viewpoints.
One thing that current events have forced us to consider is how guns impact safety in all aspects of our lives. As we navigate how we respond to gun violence, there are a lot of pros and cons to having more armed guards to defend us, whether in our schools, or our neighborhood bank branches. This email would get impossibly long if I listed every single pro and con, but I’ll try to get the main points out. I hope that we can unpack the bigger points of the discussion and that you can mull through everything and let me know where you come down on this.
A good number of our neighbors have reached out since the attempted robbery of about a month ago and shared that they feel greater sense of security knowing that there is a good guy/gal with a gun in a place where they bank. I take that seriously. Certainly feeling safe going about our neighborhood should be a basic expectation. If having an armed guard at Chase helps our neighbors feel safer, I definitely hear that. I understand the opinion of many that an armed guard is a deterrent to attempted robberies, and that a guard would almost never to need to actually fire their weapon.
I do wonder if an armed guard at this location truly makes us safer. I don’t want to talk anyone out of their gut feeling on this because you know best what safety means for you. I am concerned that if there is one armed guard at the branch, that instead of one person trying to rob the bank without an actual weapon, as we saw frequently before now, that we might see a group of assailants, armed with powerful guns, attempt a robbery. We do an okay job setting up our officers with weapons, but we don’t need to get into an arms race with would-be robbers. That would be terribly unsafe for everyone in the vicinity, not least our officers.
By the same token, I continue to be concerned with the possibility of gunfire in a residential area, regardless of who is firing the shots. There is a daycare just across the street, next to a senior care facility. Houses abut the bank property on the other 3 sides; some of our neighbors’ living rooms are a couple of hundred feet from the bank lobby. MPD officers are highly trained on when to take a shot and would of course consider their surroundings as factors before firing their weapon. But there is no such thing as a perfect shot, and a bullet from a good guy’s gun travels the same way as a bullet from a bad guy’s gun. You know me, I’m not scared of much, but I would fear everyday that an attempted robbery and a stray bullet from either an assailant or even an officer would lead to tragedy in our district. While an armed guard, a highly trained MPD officer, would increase security in many ways, of course we must admit that more weapons equals more risk.
There’s really only one way to respond to all that:
I’ll bet she doesn’t have that same opinion about armed security at Madison, Wisconsin city council meetings.
A Pennsylvania branch of Planned Parenthood says a tweet declaring the need for a Disney princess who’s had an abortion was not appropriate and the organization has taken it down.
An executive for Planned Parenthood Keystone says the group believes pop culture plays a “critical role” in educating the public and sparking “meaningful conversations about sexual and reproductive health issues and policies, including abortion.”
Melissa Reed, President and CEO of Planned Parenthood Keystone, says the seriousness of the point they were trying to make was not appropriate for the subject matter.
The original tweet was a cry for help from some Disney-watching progressive glue-sniffer at a PP affiliate:
There are a couple ways to handle animal rights protesters at your restaurant/store: A) Try to appease, negotiate and pledge to do things differently in the future to placate them, or B) What this guy did:
A Toronto chef, apparently exasperated at an animal rights protest outside his restaurant, carried what appeared to be venison to the front windows facing the sidewalk. He took a knife and began separating the meat from the bone as the protesters watched.
As he did, one of the protesters videoed the scene and gave frantic commentary: “To taunt the activists,” said the man behind the camera in a video posted online and picked up by BlogTO, “he has brought the leg of a recently murdered deer to this dining area.”
Michael Hunter, the chef and owner of Antler Kitchen and Bar, didn’t look at the protesters, didn’t say anything. Some police officers on hand for the protest entered the restaurant to speak with him – though Toronto police deny they asked him to stop what he was doing. “It’s his restaurant he can do what he wants, really,” Sgt. Philip Townley said.
Hunter finished cutting, put the meat in a pan and headed back to the kitchen. In half an hour or so, he returned with an impressively seared steak — perhaps of the same venison he had butchered — on a white plate, unaccompanied. It was the middle of Friday night dinner service, just after 8 p.m., and here was the chef, at the front of the restaurant, sitting alone and eating.
“It shocked me,” said protest organizer Marni Ugar. “It made me feel really sad.
When vegan protesters watch meat being cut they sound like they’re describing the Hindenberg disaster:
Also, this concern from the guy who worked for the king of gerrymandering is comical.
The “Resistance” triggering over this one is going to be epic:
In a controversial move, the Commerce Department announced Monday that the question of citizenship will again be included in the 2020 Census.
The move comes at the request of the Justice Department, first made in the early days of the administration, saying it was needed to better enforce the Voting Rights Act.
President Donald Trump’s re-election campaign endorsed the idea in an email to supporters last week.
“The President wants the 2020 United States Census to ask people whether or not they are citizens. In another era, this would be COMMON SENSE… but 19 attorneys general said they will fight the President if he dares to ask people if they are citizens. The President wants to know if you’re on his side,” the email said.
Remember in 2008 when then-candidate Obama said he was just days away from being able to “fundamentally transform the United States of America” while people like Eric Holder applauded wildly? He’s no longer a “transformation” fan:
Constitution does not require citizenship question. This is purely political. Trump Administration is trying to rig the 2020 Census (to protect gerrymandering) by intimidating people. Don’t be fooled-some states will unfairly lose funds and representation. We will sue. https://t.co/2R3mZ0FQSp
Even with his legal background apparently Stevens never studies the Law of Unintended Consequences.
Supreme Court justices take an oath to “faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon” them “under the Constitution and laws of the United States,” but that doesn’t mean they can’t call for others to try and chop out the parts they don’t like:
John Paul Stevens: Repealing the Second Amendment would move Saturday’s marchers closer to their objective than any other possible reform https://t.co/6USnyIMMDq
You know how the Left addresses concern from the pro-2nd Amendment crowd by saying “nobody wants to take your guns away!” Well, maybe that’s not entirely true — and this guy’s not even a flaming lefty:
“That support is a clear sign to lawmakers to enact legislation prohibiting civilian ownership of semiautomatic weapons, increasing the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21 years old, and establishing more comprehensive background checks on all purchasers of firearms,” Stevens wrote in the New York Times.
He added: “But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.”
Stevens said the landmark 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller decision, which upheld that the Second Amendment protects the individual’s right to bear arms even for those unaffiliated with a militia, has become a “propaganda weapon of immense power” for the NRA.
“Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option,” Stevens said.
With Stevens’ legal background, you’d think he’d be more familiar with the Law of Unintended Consequences. But with one op-ed the 97-year-old former SCOTUS justice probably singlehandedly helped sell a few guns and NRA memberships. Congrats, judge! At this point, Stevens strikes me more as a pissy old man trying to burn it all down on his way out the door than somebody actually trying to help solve a problem.
Even Laurence Tribe thinks Stevens jumped the shark:
I admire Justice Stevens but his supposedly “simple but dramatic” step of repealing the 2d Am is AWFUL advice. The obstacle to strong gun laws is political, not legal. Urging a politically impossible effort just strengthens opponents of achievable reform.https://t.co/7VzMGXCYeV
Good thing he didn’t come up with this a few years ago or taxpayers might have been stuck with a million Solyndras.
In case anybody thought Obama was going to change after leaving the White House, rest assured, he’s still as humble as ever:
Former President Barack Obama talked about his future plans for his post-presidency life at a conference Sunday in Japan, addressing how he might shape “a million” new, young leaders in his mold.
The wide-ranging discussion repeatedly touched on the Obama Foundation’s efforts to engage the digital space to help young people in the U.S. and across the world get connected.
“If I could do that effectively, then — you know — I would create a hundred or a thousand or a million young Barack Obamas or Michelle Obamas,” Obama said. “Or, the next group of people who could take that baton in that relay race that is human progress.”
It’s a good thing that didn’t occur to him a few years ago or taxpayers might have been stuck with a million Solyndras.
Coming from the legendary Divider-in-Chief, this is another doozy:
“One of the things we’re going to be spending time on, through the Foundation, is finding ways in which we can study this phenomenon of social media and the Internet to see are there ways in which we can bring people from different perspectives to start having a more civil debate and listen to each other more carefully,” Obama said.
Step one to bringing people with different perspectives together for more civil debate? Getting in their faces and arguing with them:
Obama wants to have so many different perspectives that he wishes he could clone himself a million times over. You can’t make this stuff up.
Call off the investigation, because libs have found the person responsible for the Parkland shooting. Sure, the NRA’s still getting plenty of blame, but as evidenced by yesterday’s March For Our Lives signs and speeches, the real criminal is Marco Rubio:
You can only imagine the Dem planning session: Sure the shooting was horrible, but why not use the protest as an opportunity to try and demagogue ourselves a Senate seat in the process?
And even though it wasn’t a school day, student/activist David Hogg did some math in order to implicate Rubio in the shooting:
"I’m going to start off by putting this price tag right here as a reminder for you guys to know how much Marco Rubio took for every student's life in Florida," Parkland survivor David Hogg says at #MarchForOurLives. pic.twitter.com/i54QSygI4C
This “movement” has jumped the shark so publicly that they might get sued by the producers of “Happy Days.”
These people aren’t serious about solving any problems with regards to school shootings or any other shootings for that matter. It’s pure politics.
I can’t help but think of the killer Nikolas Cruz, sitting in jail awaiting trial and a subsequent express elevator to hell, hearing about everybody blaming people other than him for the crimes. He deserves so much worse. But instead we get blame-deflecting platitudes like “gun violence” and the celebrities who help push the narrative:
Paul McCartney walked in the New York #MarchforOurLives Saturday, citing the loss of John Lennon over 37 years ago. “One of my best friends was killed in gun violence right around here. So, it's important to me." https://t.co/v9vl0rdHzp
In the instance McCartney’s referring to, “gun violence” has a different name, and it’s “Mark David Chapman.” Depersonalizing murderers in order to implicate the NRA in every killing isn’t helping matters.
Also, how many celebs had armed security with them at the anti-gun rally? I’m just curious.