Category: random

Ten states have sued the federal government over rules requiring public schools to allow transgender students to use restrooms conforming to their gender identity, joining a dozen other states in the latest fight over LGBTQ rights. This is such a stupid move as the states already have supremacy over the federal government and  do not have to ‘ask permission’ to ignore this ruling.

All this does is feed into the federal elitist’s belief that they have supremacy over all the 50 states, which is contradictory to the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

My first thought: “Are you shitting me?!”

Dallas Police sent in a robot with an explosive attached to it to put an end to a stand-off between officers and a cop-killing sniper. The suspect remained holed up inside a parking garage for several hours before police “blast[ed] him out.”

“We saw no other option but to use our bomb robot and place a device on its extension for it to detonate where the suspect was,” Mayor Mike Rawlings said, “Other options would have exposed our officers in grave danger.”

This establishes a very dangerous precedent and it’s a guarantee that it’ll be modeled by other law enforcement agencies; including those within our federal government. We have slipped further into the dystopian future that science fiction authors once used to write about.

I mean what’s next? Armed drones patrolling our streets from above?

The Hawthorne, California police weren’t happy that a man driving through a ‘sobriety checkpoint,’ on Sunday had rolled his window only three-quarters of the way down as he handed them his driver’s license. Nope, they wanted to show him who is in charge and demanded he roll it all the way down.

When the driver refused a California Highway Patrol officer called over a Hawthorne Police Lieutenant, who then accused the driver of not complying with “the rules of the checkpoint.” After ‘failing to comply’ for nearly 45 minutes, law enforcement officers ordered a tow truck driver to the car while the occupants remained inside.

Eventually, the driver, who showed no signs of impairment, ended his protest under arrest. The U.S. supreme Court ruled in 1990 that DUI checkpoints do not violate the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which reads:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

King George III would be so proud…

One day after Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson claimed he had no knowledge of his agency’s scrubbing of intelligence deemed offensive to Muslims, House Republican leaders introduced a bill that would force the DHS to recognize the source of terrorist activity, name the threat directly and take action against it. House Speaker Paul Ryan said the bill would be on the House floor next week.

The new bill was introduced by House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy and includes language from a bill from House Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCaul that would require DHS to create an assistant secretary position to fight radical Islamic terrorism in the U.S. It also includes a proposal from Congressman Ted Poe that would revoke U.S. passports from members or supporters of a designated foreign terrorist organization.

In a compromise with Democrats who are pushing for tougher gun measures, the bill also includes language from Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn that would allow the attorney general to delay the transfer of guns to people who are suspected terrorists. If it passes, this means the federal government would have three days to ‘make the case’ that a gun purchase should be delayed ‘without due-process.’

While he was writing about a tax dispute between the Pennsylvania General Assembly and the Penn family, Benjamin Franklin’s 1755 quote, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety,” fits the coming situation to a tee.

Richard Henry Lee, a delegate from Virginia proposed a three-step process of declaring independence and creating a confederation of States on June 7, 1776. By July 2, the Lee Resolution was brought to the Continental Congress, which established:

1. Resolved, That these united Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.
2. That it is expedient forthwith to take the most effectual measures for forming foreign Alliances.
3. That a plan of confederation be prepared and transmitted to the respective Colonies for their consideration and approbation.

It was debated, voted on, and ratified into law.

Our States’ independence from Great Britain was not an act by a bunch of White, elite, rich men. It was a legally binding congressional act:

“We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare…”

The following day, John Adams wrote his wife Abigail:

“The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.”

The Declaration of Independence was published and publicly read on July 4, 1776, proclaiming what had taken place only two days before. It is because the date ‘July 4’ was on the handwritten document that we came to associate the date with our State’s independence.

It wasn’t until 1870 that Congress first declared July 4 to be a national holiday as part of a bill to officially recognize several holidays, including Christmas. Further legislation about national holidays, including July 4, was passed in 1939 and 1941.

Because ‘Nationalism’ has long been considered a ‘dirty’ word, we are in very real danger of having our history either totally rewritten or completely denied.

Jus’ in time for your Independence Day weekend, California Governor Jerry Brown scribbled his signature onto six more gun-control measures making them law, while vetoing five others.

One of the new laws includes ammunition purchasers undergo a background check and registered to a statewide database. He also signed into law banning the sale of semiautomatic rifles equipped with ‘bullet buttons’ allowing the ammunition magazines to be easily detached and replaced, a ban on possession of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 bullets and the loaning of guns to non-family members of guns without a background check.

He also vetoed five other measures, including an expansion of the use of restraining orders to take guns from people deemed to be dangerous. He also nixed a bill that clarified that theft of a firearm is grand theft and is punishable as a felony, another that would have required those who make guns at home to register get a state-registered serial number so the weapons could be tracked, the requirement that stolen or lost guns to be reported within five days and one limiting Californians to buying only one rifle or shotgun per month.

And like a good little Progressive, the ‘Moonbeam’ signed the gun bills ahead of a European vacation and will be out of the country through August 1.

One day after striking down a portion of a pro-life law in Texas the supreme Court has made a second anti-life decision. This time the court refused to hear an appeal from the Stormans family in Washington State who are challenging a state law forcing them to sell  abortion-causing drugs that violate their conscience as Christians.

In 2007, abortion activists convinced the Washington Board of Pharmacy to pass regulations that force pharmacists in the state to dispense abortion causing drugs and the state adopted a new law making referrals for reasons of conscience illegal. The bill was signed into law by then-Governor Christine Gregoire.

The family eventually filed a lawsuit against the state for violating their First Amendment rights. After a twelve-day trial, a federal court in February 2012 struck down the law as unconstitutional, finding “abundant evidence” that the law forced religious pharmacists and pharmacy owners to violate their faith.

But last July, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision, upholding the law. That resulted in a legal battle which made its way to the Supreme Court, but the court refused to take the case — making it so the law stands.

Justices Samuel Alito, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas, dissented from the denial, writing:

“[Yet] the Ninth Circuit held that the regulations do not violate the First Amendment, and this Court does not deem the case worthy of our time. If this is a sign of how religious liberty claims will be treated in the years ahead, those who value religious freedom have cause for great concern…”

So say your prayers – if you’re inclined – while there’s still time.

This past Monday, the supreme Court handed down a 6-2 ruling that a person convicted of ‎domestic abuse can lose their ‎Second Amendment right “to keep and bear arms.” The case, Voisine et al v. United States, involves two Maine residents, under state law a decade ago of committing domestic violence and later charged for violating federal law for owning guns.

The only justice who seemed to care about the Second Amendment was Justice Clarence Thomas and seeing that the case had Constitutional ramifications, he asked one of the prosecuting attorneys: “Ms. Eisenstein, just one question: can you give me — this is a misdemeanor violation, it suspends a constitutional right. Can you give me another area where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right?”

The question left Eisenstein stumped.

In the end, Thomas wrote in his dissenting opinion, “We treat no other constitutional right so cavalierly. At oral argument the Government could not identify any other fundamental constitutional right that a person could lose forever by a single conviction for an infraction punishable only by a fine.”

“I have little doubt that the majority would strike down an absolute ban on publishing by a person previously convicted of misdemeanor libel,” he added. “In construing the statute before us expansively so that causing a single minor reckless injury or offensive touching can lead someone to lose his right to bear arms forever, the Court continues to ‘relegat[e] the Second Amendment to a second-class right.’”

The supreme Courts’ decision not only validated the removal of Second Amendment protections, but it has now expanded the reasons for removing them as well.

The U.S. House Select Committee on Benghazi released its final report comprising it’s of investigations and conclusions. It shows former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration was derelict in their duty to protect American diplomats and how the Obama administration contrived to misinform the public about the cause of the attack.

Despite all of this the Progressive media is crowing that the report has found no ‘new evidence’ of wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton. And worse yet, this woman could very well become our next President of the U.S.

Let’s go through the first 150 pages or so…

During deliberations within the State Department about whether and how to intervene in Libya in March 2011, Jake Sullivan listed the first goal as “avoid(ing) a failed state, particularly one in which al-Qaeda and other extremists might take safe haven.” (pg. 9)

Five of the 10 action items from the 7:30 PM White House meeting referenced the video, but no direct link or solid evidence existed connecting the attacks in Benghazi and the video at the time the meeting took place. The State Department senior officials at the meeting had access to eyewitness accounts to the attack in real-time.

The Diplomatic Security Command Center was in direct contact with the Diplomatic Security Agents on the ground in Benghazi and sent out multiple updates about the situation, including a “Terrorism Event Notification.” The State Department Watch Center had also notified Jake Sullivan and Cheryl Mills that it had set up a direct telephone line to Tripoli.

There was no mention of the video from the agents on the ground. Greg Hicks– one of the last people to talk to Chris Stevens before he died — said there was virtually no discussion about the video in Libya leading up to the attacks. (pg. 28)

The morning after the attacks, the National Security Council’s Deputy Spokesperson sent an email to nearly two dozen people from the White House, Defense Department, State Department, and intelligence community, stating: “Both the President and Secretary Clinton released statements this morning…Please refer to those for any comments for the time being. To ensure we are all in sync on messaging for the rest of the day, Ben Rhodes will host a conference call for USG communicators on this chain at 9:15 ET today.” (pg. 39)

Minutes before the President delivered his speech in the Rose Garden, Jake Sullivan wrote in an email to Ben Rhodes and others: “There was not really much violence in Egypt. And we are not saying that the violence in Libya erupted ‘over inflammatory videos.’” (pg. 44)

The CIA’s September 13, 2012, intelligence assessment was rife with errors. On the first page, there is a single mention of “the early stages of the protest” buried in one of the bullet points.

The article cited to support the mention of a protest in this instance was actually from September 4. In other words, the analysts used an article from a full week before the attacks to support the premise that a protest had occurred before the attack on September 11. (pg. 47)

According to Susan Rice, both Ben Rhodes and David Plouffe prepared her for her appearances on the Sunday morning talk shows following the attacks. Nobody from the FBI, Department of Defense, or CIA participated in her prep call.

While Rhodes testified Plouffe would “normally” appear on the Sunday show prep calls, Rice testified she did not recall Plouffe being on prior calls and did not understand why he was on the call in this instance. (pg.98)

A headline on the following page of the CIA’s September 13 intelligence assessment stated “Extremists Capitalized on Benghazi Protests,” but nothing in the actual text box supports that title. As it turns out, the title of the text box was supposed to be “Extremists Capitalized on Cairo Protests.”

That small but vital difference — from Cairo to Benghazi — had major implications in how people in the administration were able to message the attacks. (pg. 52)

The administration’s policy of no boots on the ground shaped the type of military assistance provided to State Department personnel in Libya. The Executive Secretariats for both the Defense Department and State Department exchanged communications outlining the diplomatic capacity in which the Defense Department SST security team members would serve, which included wearing civilian clothes so as not to offend the Libyans. (pg. 60)

When the State Department’s presence in Benghazi was extended in December 2012, senior officials from the Bureau of Diplomatic Security were excluded from the discussion. (pg. 74)

In February 2012, the lead Diplomatic Security Agent at Embassy Tripoli informed his counterpart in Benghazi that more DS agents would not be provided by decision makers, because “substantive reporting” was not Benghazi’s purpose. (pg. 77)

Emails indicate senior State Department officials, including Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan, and Huma Abedin were preparing for a trip by the Secretary of State to Libya in October 2012. According to testimony, Chris Stevens wanted to have a “deliverable” for the Secretary for her trip to Libya, and that “deliverable” would be making the Mission in Benghazi a permanent Consulate. (pg. 96)

In August 2012 — roughly a month before the Benghazi attacks — security on the ground worsened significantly. Ambassador Stevens initially planned to travel to Benghazi in early August, but cancelled the trip “primarily for Ramadan/security reasons.” (pg. 99)

The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff typically would have participated in the White House meeting, but did not attend because he went home to host a dinner party for foreign dignitaries. (pg. 107)

With Ambassador Stevens missing, the White House convened a roughly two-hour meeting at 7:30 PM, which resulted in action items focused on a YouTube video, and others containing the phrases “(i)f any deployment is made,” and “Libya must agree to any deployment,” and “(w)ill not deploy until order comes to go to either Tripoli or Benghazi.” (pg. 115)

After Susan Rice’s Sunday show appearances, Jake Sullivan assured the Secretary of the State that Rice “wasn’t asked about whether we had any intel. But she did make clear our view that this started spontaneously and then evolved.” (pg. 128)

Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta bluntly told the committee “an intelligence failure” occurred with respect to Benghazi. Former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell also acknowledged multiple times an intelligence failure did in fact occur before the Benghazi attacks. (pg. 129)

Susan Rice’s comments on the Sunday talk shows were met with shock and disbelief by State Department employees in Washington. The Senior Libya Desk Officer, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, State Department, wrote: “I think Rice was off the reservation on this one.”

The Deputy Director, Office of Press and Public Diplomacy, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, State Department, responded: “Off the reservation on five networks!” The Senior Advisor for Strategic Communications, Bureau of Near East Affairs, State Department, wrote: “WH (White House) very worried about the politics. This was all their doing.” (pg. 132)

On the Sunday shows, Susan Rice stated the FBI had “already begun looking at all sorts of evidence” and “FBI has a lead in this investigation.” But on Monday, the Deputy Director, Office of Maghreb Affairs sent an email stating: “McDonough apparently told the SVTS (Secure Video Teleconference) group today that everyone was required to ‘shut their pieholes’ about the Benghazi attack in light of the FBI investigation, due to start tomorrow.” (pg. 135)

Despite President Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s clear orders to deploy military assets, nothing was sent to Benghazi, and nothing was en route to Libya at the time the last two Americans were killed almost 8 hours after the attacks began. (pg. 141)

The Libyan forces that evacuated Americans from the CIA Annex to the Benghazi airport was not affiliated with any of the militias the CIA or State Department had developed a relationship with during the prior 18 months. Instead, it was comprised of former Qadhafi loyalists who the U.S. had helped remove from power during the Libyan revolution. (pg. 144)

None of the relevant military forces met their required deployment timelines. (pg. 150.) Finally, a Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team (FAST) sat on a plane in Rota, Spain, for three hours, and changed in and out of their uniforms four times. (pg. 154)

As I wrote on September 16, 2012: “A southern Nevada man is one of those killed in Libya during the Benghazi attack on the U.S. Embassy.  Tyrone Woods most recently lived in San Diego before moving to Henderson…” and sadly it seems everyone has forgotten those who died because of this administration’s dereliction of duty and building Hillary’s so-called ‘legacy,’ heading into 2016 presidential election cycle.

The U.S. supreme Court struck down one of the nation’s toughest restrictions on abortion, a Texas law that women’s groups and our Progressive media continue to claim, “would have forced more than three-quarters of the state’s clinics to shut down.” This is only a part of what the legal battle was over though.

There were two provisions of the law at issue and neither were over the direct closure of these so-called ‘health clinics.’ The first said that doctors had to have local admitting privileges at nearby hospitals; the second said clinics had to upgrade their facilities to hospital-like standards.

But Justice Stephen Breyer, who is so deeply ensconced in the fundamental destruction of the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. as a whole, couldn’t see his way clear to see these two provisions as he demonstrates in his majority opinion:

“We conclude that neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes. Each places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access, and each violates the federal Constitution.”

Where in the U.S. Constitution does it state access to abortion is a right? It doesn’t!

We no longer have a supreme Court, instead it’s a bench filled with a rubber-stamping Progressive legislative body.