Hey, Maybe The Supreme Court Might Decide On ‘Assault Weapons’ After All

Yes, I know that there’s no such thing as assault weapons, but let’s just entertain this awful piece of liberal jargon for the sake of argument. Over at Hot Air, Jazz Shaw noted that it might be time for the high court to definitively rule on whether it was a constitutional right for Americans to own AR-15 rifles.

Second Amendment enthusiasts were again hit with disappointment last December when the Court decided to take a pass on whether to hear oral arguments on an assault weapons ban implemented in the Chicago-area city of Highland Park. Now, on the east coast, deep-blue Maryland’s 2013 assault weapons ban is back in the legal crosshairs, with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that a stricter legal standard should have been applied to ascertain its constitutionality. It’s a tremendous decision, though the current ban remains in effect while the legal camps begin arming themselves for the fight ahead.

For starters, as we rehash the legal fight over Maryland’s ban, we’ll have to take another look at the caveats placed by the Supreme Court during the landmark DC v. Heller case, which guaranteed an individual right to own firearms in the defense of one’s life or property that are not associated with a well-regulated militia. This was applied to federal enclaves; it was expanded to the states in the McDonald v. Chicago decision.

Yet, the Court noted that this right was not unlimited, and that certain limitations on weapons considered “dangerous and unusual” could pass constitutional muster. Grenade launchers, rocket-propelled grenades, and atomic weapons fit this category, not AR-15 semiautomatic rifles. Yet, as Dahlia Lithwick wrote in Slate, it’s dubious whether the Supremes will get involved in Kolbe v. Hogan. It’s certainly a possibility, and it offers another legal avenue for Second Amendment supporters to make their case for a broader ruling over the entire country concerning the legality of assault weapons bans. On a side note, Ms. Lithwick, like most left-of-center publications, need to brush up on their firearms nomenclature (of which I sometimes screw up) right:

Turning to Heller’s caveat that “dangerous and unusual” weapons might not be protected under the Second Amendment, the majority notes that the district court erroneously believed that semi-automatic rifles are too dangerous “based on evidence that they unleash greater destructive force than other firearms and appear to be disproportionately connected to mass shootings.” The 4th Circuit then argued that since handguns kill far more people than semi-automatic weapons, and that since Heller made handgun ownership constitutional, the less overall deadly semi-automatic assault weapons must not be dangerous and unusual either.

Writing alone in dissent Judge Robert B. King is unequivocal: “Let’s be real: The assault weapons banned by Maryland’s FSA are exceptionally lethal weapons of war. In fact, the most popular of the prohibited semiautomatic rifles, the AR-15, functions almost identically to the military’s fully automatic M16.” He also notes that the Supreme Court specifically called out M16 rifles in Heller when defining “dangerous and unusual.”

Judge King concluded his opinion on a regretful note of warning: “To put it mildly, it troubles me that, by imprudently and unnecessarily breaking from our sister courts of appeals and ordering strict scrutiny here, we are impeding Maryland���s and others’ reasonable efforts to prevent the next Newtown—or Virginia Tech, or Binghamton, or Fort Hood, or Tucson, or Aurora, or Oak Creek, or San Bernardino.”

[…]

As Linda Greenhouse mused when the court declined to take the Illinois case back in December, the fact that the court couldn’t muster four votes to review the Highland Park assault ban implies “that one or more of the justices who signed on to Justice Scalia’s strained reading of history seven years ago in District of Columbia v. Heller are reacting to the country’s bullet-ridden landscape by showing symptoms of buyer’s remorse.”

Greenhouse also argued that the split between Thomas and Scalia—who desperately wanted to hear the case—and the silent conservatives who had also voted to strike down the handgun ban in Heller, reflected “the chasm on the conservative flank between, on the one hand, two justices who embrace all-out judicial activism and, on the other, those who are willing to wait and see.”

We will all have to wait and see what happens next in the Kolbe appeal, and whether it becomes the vehicle for the high court to bless the constitutional principle that the only thing better than a nation teeming with assault weapons is the logic that holds that lethal assault weapons are so common and so very useful that they must also be safe and ordinary.

First, there are no weapons that are “less deadly semiautomatic” weapons, unless you’re referring to bolt-action rifles, commonly associated with hunting, or muzzle-loaders, of which no one has really used en masse since the 18th and 19th centuries.

Second, a handgun is a semiautomatic weapon. An AR-15 rifle is also a semiautomatic weapon; both use the same operating system, which is why this argument is so silly. Moreover, an M16 rifle, the ones used by our military, fires multiple rounds per trigger pull, hence the automatic function. That makes it a wholly different weapons system from the AR-15, not identical. And, yes, automatic firearms for civilians are legal if you are willing to undergo the long process by the ATF, wherein you pay a tax and have your weapons catalogued in a database. The background check can take up to a year or more.

Given that the both handguns and the civilian AR-15 rifle have the same operating system, will liberals honestly make the "it looks scary" argument? That would be hilarious. Additionally, as Jazz noted, there is no public safety issue here. Rifles and shotguns are rarely used in criminal acts, and gun homicides have been almost cut in half since the early 1990s. The gun homicide rate has dropped by 3.9 percent from last year, according to the FBI.

Yet, in the case that this comes before the Court, Lithwick aptly noted that if our side couldn’t muster four votes for the Highland Park case–it shows that we might have trouble regarding keeping the pro-Second Amendment wing of the Court in line.

While many of us abhor these bans, it’s very easy to see a judge make the argument for them, stating that because handguns and shotguns are still readily available for civilian use in areas with such assault weapons bans–the law might be fine given the principles of federalism. Yes, residents of Highland Park might not be able to own AR-15s, but if they can still own handguns and shotguns for personal protection, the former of which is more widely used by civilians (and more practical regarding carrying), why should we interfere with a state or local ordinance? Moreover, is the Second Amendment is truly being infringed if handguns and shotguns can still be owned in areas where these so-called assault weapons are banned? All 50 states, including Washington D.C. have carry rights*, albeit more restrictive in some areas than others, so is there really a legal question that nine lifetime appointed legal minds need to make a judgement on right now? It's perfectly legal for a handful of deep-blue states to be stupid and ban these weapon. They already have.

Of course, I’m against this argument. Law-abiding Americans should have the right to own any firearm they choose, and carry those firearms in all 50 states. I want national reciprocity, but our successes in the courts have provided a sort-of double-edged sword. A federal judge in Cook County struck down Chicago’s ordinance banning gun sales within the city limits due to infringements on Second Amendment rights, Heller, McDonald, and the Ninth Circuit ruled that current gun owners and permit holders being subjected to California’s 10-day waiting period was a violation of their right to bear arms; there is a consensus. There is little question regarding what the Second Amendment means in our court system (though that doesn’t mean we should let our guard down), so it’s quite possible that nothing may come of the Kolbe case as there is nothing to be settled. There is an opening for oral arguments; we just might be surprised. But given how SCOTUS reacted initially to Highland Park and the few petitions concerning concealed carry–we shouldn’t hold be shocked if nothing changes. If they do decide to take up Kolbe in the future, it’s tremendous news; if not, well, its just business as usual regarding gun rights on the Court. 

Yes, this is sort of a wet blanket post, but let's not try to get overly excited. The door can once again be shut in our faces.

*Oh, and that’s another Second Amendment battle the Supremes have refused to hear–which is whether “justifiable need” clauses in may issue carry states are unconstitutional.

Alabama Congressman Proposes Drug Tests for Food Stamp Recipients

Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL) made a proposal Thursday that will surely ruffle the feathers of those on welfare in this country.  The proposed plan would require food stamp recipients to be subject to drug testing.

"This is a compassionate way to try and help these people who have issues, instead of turning the head,"  Rep. Aderholt said.  

The food stamps program, officially known as SNAP or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, provides funding assistance for low-income families which totals to nearly 46 million or 1 in 9 Americans.  The average monthly SNAP payment in the U.S. is $125.35 per participant.  SNAP costs the U.S. government about $74 billion last year, double what it did in the first year of President Obama's administration.

Tom Vilsack, head of the USDA, questioned Rep. Aderholt's plan.  "What other programs that we (USDA) supports or provide assistance to are we going to require drug testing?" Vilsack said. "It's a situation of equity. We're not sure what problem we're trying to solve here."

Double Shooting At High School in Arizona, Say Police

Update: A tragic update to this story, via CNN:

Two 15-year-old female students were killed in Friday morning's shooting at Independence High School in Glendale, Arizona, said Glendale police Officer Tracey Breeden.

Original Post

Police in Glendale, Arizona are investigating reports about a double shooting at Independence High School Friday morning where two teens have reportedly been shot.



Glendale Police have indicated the situation is under control.

The campus is currently on lockdown.

More details to come.

Obama Talks Income Inequality At $33k-per-Ticket Fundraiser

Last night, President Obama held a fundraiser in the San Francisco Bay area, where he told presumably wealthy donors to be concerned about inequality and the wave of populism that’s sweeping the nation. Oh, and did I forget to mention that one ticket to this event cost $33,400 (via the Hill):

Obama has previously expressed surprise by the enthusiasm generated by Trump and Sanders. But he urged donors attending the $33,400-per-ticket fundraiser to understand that populist candidates in both parties are tapping into something real.

“Despite all the progress we've made ... what is true is that people are anxious,” the president said. “People are deeply concerned about inequality in the sense that the system is rigged against ordinary folks."

"And they're not wrong.”

Obama’s audience was full of members of the “1 percent,” the type of people Sanders, a democratic socialist, has railed against.

The fundraiser was held at the home of Steve Westly — a former California gubernatorial candidate, major Democratic donor and former eBay executive — in Atherton, Ca., annually listed as one of the wealthiest towns in America.

Yet, it’s the Republicans who are the party of the rich. I’m pretty sure both parties share that title.

Moderators Have Still Not Asked Democrats One Question About Abortion

Sen. Marco Rubio’s best moment at the Feb. 6 Republican presidential debate in New Hampshire didn’t come in the form of an answer, but a question:

"Why doesn’t the media ask Hillary Clinton why she believes that all abortions should be legal, even on the due date of that unborn child," he said.

With that important inquiry, the Florida senator proved he is doing the work the media isn’t. He exposed an obvious bias: The debate moderators so far have asked the GOP candidates about their anti-abortion views, particularly in regards to defunding Planned Parenthood, yet have not posed one question about the issue to their Democratic counterparts.

Of course, the Democrats argue there’s nothing to see here.

On CBS’ “Face the Nation,” Clinton responded to Rubio by calling his comment “pathetic” and proceeded to give a non-answer about her record of advocating for “safe and legal” abortion.

If you think this is just a conservative, pro-life point of view, you’re mistaken. Even pro-abortion activists want to hear the candidates’ perspective on what they term “reproductive freedom.” 

"Tell the moderators to ask a question about abortion access and reproductive freedom at the Democratic debate," the group urged supporters ahead of the Milwaukee event.

It’s not like the moderators didn’t have the opportunity. Clinton was happy to brag about her support of both Planned Parenthood and NARAL at Thursday’s CNN/PBS debate, yet neither Gwen Ifill nor Judy Woodruff followed up on her comments.

Here’s what I would ask if I were sitting in the moderator chair: So, even after that undercover video investigation exposed Planned Parenthood negotiating the sale of fetal body parts, do you still feel comfortable with their endorsement?

Pro-life advocates on Twitter had some other suggestions:

Ted Cruz Releases "Damn It Feels Good to Be a Clinton" Ad

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) released a hilarious new ad lampooning the printer destruction scene from the movie Office Space. In the ad, "Hillary Clinton" destroys a computer to the tune of a Clinton-ized version of the Geto Boys song "Still."

Clever, funny, and topical. A refreshing change for a political ad, and this one might be my favorite so far this election cycle.

Unfortunately, the Geto Boys aren't too thrilled:

Facebook Refuses to Remove Nude Picture of Donald Trump

One can only wonder why someone spent untold hours of their life photoshopping a nude image of Donald Trump. The picture is making the rounds on Facebook.

Facebook's own policy regarding nudity states, "We remove photographs of people displaying genitals..."

Yet in an interesting twist, Facebook has altered their enforcement of this policy to allow an unflattering and altered image of Donald Trump in the nude to circulate on their site. The users who flag the image as nudity are receiving this message back from Facebook's team:

Once again I'm forced into the position of defending Donald Trump.

#ThanksFacebook

I wonder what would happen if there was a similar image of Hillary Clinton floating around Facebook?

Trump: 'I'm Capable of Changing To Anything I Want to Change To'


Fox News anchor Bret Baier tweeted this quote from Donald Trump's recent interview with Greta Van Susteren, prodding me to snark that it'll be fascinating to watch Trump's cult of personality cheer on his inevitable mass amnesty proposal:


In fairness, if you watch the clip, it's seems like he's mostly referring to his conduct on the campaign trail.  His "rapid change" comment comes in the context of being challenged on whether dropping F-bombs and amplifying an audience member's mockery of Ted Cruz as a "pussy" is presidential behavior.  Don't worry about that, Trump says. I'll clean up my act "as I get closer and closer to the goal:"


Lest he disappoint any of his fans who openly delight in his crass outbursts, calls for roughing up protesters, and overall boorishness, Trump tosses out some chum decrying "political correctness" midway through his answer. But he's also sworn up and down that at a later stage of this process, he'll transform himself into "the most politically correct person you've ever seen."  Two problems here: (1) Video tape is a thing that exists.  All of Trump's antics -- from the silly to the serious -- can be instantly called to mind in a general election through ads and online content, even if the billionaire drastically changes his tone.  Even if Trump disciplines himself to play an angelic choir boy for weeks on end, the public record still exists.  Democrats are giddily compiling a lowlight reel, itching to deploy it in the fall in order to underscore the point that Trump is unfit to be president.  Many Americans, especially in key voting blocs, are already heavily predisposed to agree with that proposition.

(2) Trump's self-assessment that he's "capable of changing to anything I want to change to" also applies to his political "principles."  This is a man who's reportedly switched party affiliations five times since the late 1980's.  Who's donated to Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.  Who was pro-choice, was anti-gun, and was (is?) pro-Socialized healthcare.  Who identified as a Democrat in the mid-2000's.  Who praised Barack Obama and supported his "stimulus" boondoggle.  And who criticized Mitt Romney for being too harsh on the issue of immigration in 2012, right around the time that he became a DREAM Act supporter.  Now he's ostensibly all about big walls and mass deportations.  This bogus transformation is painfully obvious. As I've written before, Trump will be "a conservative" for precisely as long as he perceives that label to be beneficial to Trump, after which he'll morph into The Donald 6.0, or whatever self-serving upgrade we're up to.  Even on the central issues that have vaulted him to the top of the GOP polls, he's quite "capable of changing to anything" he wants to change to.  He says so himself.  His hardcore sycophants will blindly and brutishly go along with literally anything he does -- including murder, he's joked, mocking his own people.  But how might the many pro-Trump voters who are more reluctantly in his corner because "at least he'll do X" react if X suddenly changes to Y, at the drop of a hat?  Or is thoughtlessly discarded altogether?  That's how he operates.

In fact, in order to disqualify principled policy critiques from Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and others, Trump is expanding his diagnoses of what ails the GOP to include conservatives.  Everyone's part of the problem, you see. Except for him.  He's here to fix everything.  So strong, so fast, so amazing -- believe him!  That phrase, "believe me!" is a Trump staple.  But why should anyone believe a political chameleon who brags about how effortlessly he shifts and flips?  Most political flip-flops are executed for a specific purpose, and the flip-flopper asks the audience to believe that he now earnestly and fervently holds his new position.  In Trump's case, he's reversed himself on a wide array of issues, and is effectively promising that he'll pull off additional reversals if and when the time comes.  After all, he's a dealmaker, first and foremost.  I'll leave you with two ads the Cruz campaign is running against Trump in South Carolina.  The first is a non-traditional spot needling Trump's many betrayals of conservative ideals and marriages of political convenience.  The second is a hard-hitting broadside against Trump's history of eminent domain abuse, smartly seeking to puncture the celebrity billionaire's populist cred.  Message: Donald Trump has always been out for himself and will do anything, and collude with anyone, to serve his own myopic goals -- including collaborating with government cronies to try to bully a widow out of her home so he could build a parking lot for limousines at his casino (which struggled mightily with debt and eventually shut down):


As others have said, I suspect this is the way to come after Trump.  Deploy a two-pronged approach aimed at both more doctrinaire conservatives who are flirting with him, and at independents who hear his rhetoric and think he's got their back. He doesn't.  Parting thought: Should pro-immigration reform politicians on both sides of the aisle start talking up how much they look forward to cutting deals with Trump once he's president, citing his past positions as evidence that he'll ultimately side with them once his current pander-fest expires?  It'd be some terrific trolling, at the very least. 

Cruz Introduces Bill To Give ICE Agents More Resources

Last year, Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Sarah Saldaña said that her department did not have adequate resources to deal with the consequences of illegal immigration. Now, senator and presidential candidate Ted Cruz is joining his colleague Sen. Jeff Sessions in introducing a bill to help the agency enforce our laws. Here’s how the ICE Agent Support Act of 2016 would help ensure justice is served, according to a new Cruz press release:

This legislation would provide ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations with dedicated, substantial revenue from statutory fines and penalties for illegal aliens that are not currently being enforced by the Obama administration, but would generate hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue each year. The relevant statutory provisions call for fines and civil penalties for refusing to leave the United States after being ordered or agreeing to do so, using false documents, or engaging in marriage fraud.

These funds, Cruz and Sessions wrote, would be used by ICE to track, identify and detain criminal immigrants, and purchase weapons and vehicles necessary for the agency to do its job.

ICE came under fire last year following the tragic death of Kate Steinle. Steinle was killed by an illegal immigrant in San Francisco over the summer who had no business being in the country. He had been deported five times. Her family sued ICE after her death, along with the city sheriff and the Bureau of Land Management, insisting they should have identified and removed her murderer long before he pulled the trigger. 

Before introducing the ICE Agent Support Act, Cruz promoted Kate’s Law, which inflicts punishment on anyone who reenters the country illegally. The common sense legislation is popular with Americans. Yet, Democratic Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid did everything he could to block it.

Kate’s Law, coupled with the ICE Agent Support Act, are just a couple concrete steps to guarantee that these agents have the resources necessary to protect future Kate Steinles.

Sanders Sounds Off On Hillary: "You Aren't In The White House Yet"

Thursday night’s Democratic debate on CNN, held in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, was full of side eyes and shouts between contenders Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Viewers knew the event was going to be heated after Clinton lost the New Hampshire primary by double digits to the democratic socialist. With a convincing victory under his belt, Sanders had the momentum – and it showed. He was much more aggressive in his criticisms of Clinton’s record.

The first fireworks came during a discussion of health care. PBS moderators Gwen Ifill and Judy Woodruff asked Clinton and Sanders to weigh in on how they would ensure Americans can afford their medical bills. Clinton indicated she would continue on the success of Obamacare, then repeated her attacks on Sanders’ plans. He has advocated for people to pay $500 more in taxes to in return get a reduction of $5,000 on their health plans.

Clinton claimed such an idea is equal to “starting all over” on the work President Obama has done.

Sanders was visibly offended that Clinton told voters he wants to dismantle the Affordable Care Act.

“I have fought my entire life to make sure health care is a right for all people,” he responded. “I don’t know what economists Hillary Clinton is talking to.”

Then came this moment during a discussion on the two candidates’ plans to expand government. Fed up with Clinton’s arrogant air of assumption she will be the nominee, Sanders reminded her of one thing:

I hope you noticed her smirk.

The two candidates continued to spar over other issues over the next hour and a half, including immigration, Social Security, foreign policy and campaign finance. 

With such a strong following in the south, Hillary Clinton is expected to win the South Carolina primary on Feb. 27 and perhaps put New Hampshire behind her. 

Yet, we now know Sanders is capable of pulling off surprises. Whatever happens, his supporters will likely be pleased with his passionate performance in Milwaukee tonight.

Real Housewives Star Endorses Donald Trump

Former Real Housewives of New Jersey star Teresa Giudice has endorsed Donald Trump. Giduice also appeared on season five of Celebrity Apprentice, which was hosted by Trump.

There's one small problem with Giudice's plan to vote for Trump: She can't legally vote in New Jesery. Giudice was convicted in 2014 on fraud charges and spent 11 months in prison before being released just before Christmas in 2015. New Jersey bars felons on probation, in prison, or on parole from voting. Giudice won't be eligible to vote until 2018.

Trump has also been endorsed by an eclectic mix of celebrities.

Retired General: 'Don't Draft Our Daughters'

When asked if women should be required to sign up for the military draft at last weekend’s GOP debate in New Hampshire, several candidates voiced their approval. After all, the military has opened all combat roles to women. 

Following the debate, Sen. Ted Cruz disagreed with his rivals. He called the proposal “nuts.”

Lt. Gen. (US Army-Ret.) William "Jerry" Boykin appears to agrees with the Texas senator. Boykin, the executive vice president of the Family Research Council, sent an urgent email to supporters on Tuesday noting how concerned he was after last weekend’s GOP debate. He said the new proposal to make women sign up for the draft proves that the military is being used as a social experiment.

Everyone in the military knows that once in, you don't get to choose where you will end up serving. As the current administration has made abundantly clear, the U.S. military is now operating as a testing ground for social change -- at the expense of military readiness. As combat infantry and Special Forces specialties are opened to women, it only follows that if a draft should occur, conscripted women would inevitably be placed in units where the mission is to find and engage the enemy, including hand-to-hand combat.

For some peace of mind, Boykin urged the current presidential candidates to sign the following pledge.

Petition to U.S. Presidential Candidates

I, the undersigned, urge you to reject mandatory registration for selective military service for women. It is unconscionable that we would even contemplate forcing our daughters to be put in in harm's way against their will. The women in our military have a long history of excellent service as volunteers. Should a draft occur, there is no need to conscript our women into service that would ultimately include infantry and Special Forces. The current national discussion on the issue places a liberal social agenda over and above military readiness and respect for the value of America's young women. Don't draft our daughters. I urge you to reject required selective service registration for all American women.

Boykin is perhaps convinced Cruz will sign it. He endorsed the Texas senator Thursday, according to Cruz's campaign.

“The next President will appoint three Supreme Court Justices,” Lt. Gen. Boykin said. “I want Ted Cruz to do that. He is a man of character, integrity, and courage.”

Other politicians are drawing attention to the issue. Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) is expected to introduce a bill that would block women from registering for the Selective Service. His reason was personal.

“I do not want to see my 15-year-old daughter drafted into the military,” the Utah senator told CNS News.

Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley and Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Robert Neller disagree. Both are fully supportive of women being included in the draft.

“Every American who’s physically qualified should register for the draft,” Neller testified during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.

What do Americans think? 

A Rasmussen Reports poll released Wednesday found that a majority of women—52 percent—oppose being required to register for the draft. Thirty-eight percent support enrollment, while 10 percent are undecided.

Meanwhile, 61 percent of men support the government requiring women to register, the Rasmussen poll found.

Chelsea Clinton: I Left the Church at Age Six Over Abortion

Chelsea Clinton, the daughter of former President Bill Clinton and current Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, said in an interview at a Hillary Clinton fundraiser that she left the Baptist church because she was not happy that she was told about abortion when she was a 6-year-old.

From LifeNews:

“I find it quite insulting sometimes when people say to my mom, my dad or me . . . that they question our faith,’ said Chelsea. “I was raised in a Methodist church and I left the Baptist church before my dad did, because I didn’t know why they were talking to me about abortion when I was 6 in Sunday school — that’s a true story.”

“My mother is very deeply a person of faith,” Chelsea said. “It is deeply authentic and real for my mother, and it guides so much of her moral compass, but also her life’s work.”

“I recognized that there were many expressions of faith that I don’t agree with and feel [are] quite antithetical to how I read the Bible,” Chelsea said. “But I find it really challenging when people who are self-professed liberals kind of look askance at my family’s history.”

On Twitter, many people raised eyebrows at Chelsea's story:

Now, while I'm not a Baptist and I've never been to church in Arkansas, but as someone who helped teach C.C.D. classes to kindergarteners at my parish for two years while I was in high school, I am positive that nothing involving abortion was ever mentioned to my students in my classroom. It's not appropriate to discuss abortion to someone who is that young, and that topic should be saved for someone who is more mature and able to understand what is happening. Further, most 6-year-olds I taught were far more concerned with coloring than social issues.

Congressman Vapes During a Hearing

In what is likely a first, Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA) vaped during a hearing today to showcase exactly how electronic cigarettes (or "e-cigs") work and how they are used. Hunter was protesting a proposed ban on e-cigs in airplanes.

Hunter, who used a vaporizer to help quit smoking, described how e-cigarettes differ from traditional cigarettes, as they only release water vapor and do not contain carcinogens. Because of this, he said, they shouldn't be banned from airplanes. He also elaborated how vaporized medicine is "the future"; and how the amendment would ban these as well.

“There’s no combustion. There’s no carcinogens,” he said. “This has helped thousands of people quit smoking. It’s helped me quit smoking.”

It wasn’t just a matter of nicotine either, Hunter said. He pointed to the possibility of inhalable medications coming down the pipe, which he said would be prohibited by the Norton amendment.

“And in the next decade or so, you’re going to be able to inhale your ibuprofen, you’re going to be able to inhale your Prozac,” Hunter said. “Anything else you need drug-wise, you’re going to be able to inhale it.”

The amendment, which was proposed by D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D), wound up passing by a vote of 33-26.

George W. Bush to Make an Appearance for His Brother Jeb

Jeb Bush is full of excitement with his recent fourth place finish in the New Hampshire primary which apparently has enabled his brother and former President George W. Bush to jump on the campaign trail.  

George will appear with his brother on Monday night at an event in South Charleston, SC at 6 p.m. EST.  This will undoubtedly be the most public role that Pres. Bush has taken with the campaign.   

Last week the Bush campaign released several ads that were centered around the former president.  

"We need a strong leader with experience, ideas and resolve. There’s no doubt in my mind that Jeb Bush will be a great commander-in-chief for our military," the former president says in the ad.

Jeb has a long way to go in South Carolina because of a 20 point deficit he faces to front-runner Donald Trump.

Shocker: California's Gun Confiscation Program Is Terribly Flawed

California’s new gun confiscation program is a total disaster. The new law, which went into effect In January, aims to keep firearms out of the hands of potentially dangerous people, like domestic abusers and those afflicted with mental illness. No one wants wife beaters (and the unstable) to own guns, but the way the new law is being implemented sure feeds into the narrative that liberals, especially rabid anti-gunners, want to take away people’s firearms. A local Eyewitness News outfit looked into the matter and found serious problems:

In the quiet Southern California neighborhood of Upland, Lynette Phillips lives a quiet, ordinary life. But in the spring of 2013, it was interrupted by a loud knock on the door. Phillips was greeted by police officers.


[…]

Phillips didn't know yet, but her name was listed in California's Armed and Prohibited Persons Systems. She was now considered someone who wasn't allowed to own, or be around, firearms. So, all of her husband's guns were confiscated, but not before being laid out on the front porch for neighbors to see.

[…]

Rewind to a night three months earlier. Phillips, who tells us she suffers from depression and anxiety, had an adverse reaction while switching anti-depressant medications. So, she checked herself into a local mental health hospital for some quick relief.

Phillips says, "The first thing I said to her is I just want you to know that I am not a threat to myself or to anyone, I just can't stop crying. Then she started asking me some really bizarre questions."

Like what she would do if she got into a car accident, which Phillips later found out the nurse used to deem her suicidal, writing this in her notes, "You stated that if you got into a car accident you wouldn't care and you drive yourself off a cliff."

Phillips says, "That was never said. That was false documentation."

[…]

Eyewitness News took a deeper look into the program, and found several cases where mistakes were made. Michael Merritt of Bakersfield had 18 of his guns seized for a felony charge from the 1970's that no longer exists.

Merritt says, "I almost fainted and passed out when they said they wanted all of my guns."

His guns were later returned.

In November, Clovis business owner Albert Sheakalee had his names and 541 of his seized guns put on a big display by state agents. The licensed gun dealer had previously been put on a mental health hold. The state says Sheakalee had been committed involuntarily, but his attorney argues

Sheakalee sought help on his own for a temporary crisis.

Sheakalee's attorney Mark Coleman says, "He's never bee adjudicated by the court as being dangerous, he's never been adjudicated by a mental health professional as being dangerous."

According to reports and audits dug up by Eyewitness News, problems with the APPS program run deep, especially in regards to mental health tracking.

For starters, Eyewitness News noted that it’s state law for mental health facilities to report involuntarily committed persons to the Department of Justice; 22 facilities were left off the DOJ’s list.

Again, it’s well intentioned, but let’s also not kid ourselves that this isn't exactly what liberals want to do on a mass scale. They’re on the record saying so. This law was meant to somewhat accommodate what’s already federal law, but it’s being used to harass and deny law-abiding Americans of their Second Amendment rights. This is a liberal policy, drafted by liberal lawmakers, from a deep-blue state–the detrimental consequences of which were bound to happen. After all, would you trust a lawmaker crafting gun policy who believes there are "multi-automatic weapons"?  I don't.

Watch: Super Mario Explains Bernie Sanders

Super Mario Explains Bernie Sanders

What does "free" really mean? Enter Super Mario.

Posted by Townhall Video on Thursday, February 11, 2016

ICYMI: The State Department Slapped The Clinton Foundation With A Subpoena Last Fall

We know that the Clinton Foundation has been drawn into the ongoing investigation over the Clinton emails. The State Department issued the family nonprofit a subpoena last fall, asking for all documents relating to the Foundation’s ventures that might have required approval from the government while she was our top diplomat in the Obama administration. Moreover, documents related to Huma Abedin, Clinton’s trusted aide who worked for both her office at State and other areas of the family’s operations, are included in this subpoena (via WaPo):

Investigators with the State Department issued a subpoena to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation last fall seeking documents about the charity’s projects that may have required approval from the federal government during Hillary Clinton’s term as secretary of state, according to people familiar with the subpoena and written correspondence about it.

The subpoena also asked for records related to Huma Abedin, a longtime Clinton aide who for six months in 2012 was employed simultaneously by the State Department, the foundation, Clinton’s personal office, and a private consulting firm with ties to the Clintons.

The full scope and status of the inquiry, conducted by the State Department’s inspector general, were not clear from the material correspondence reviewed by The Washington Post.

[…]

There is no indication that the watchdog is looking at Clinton. But as she runs for president in part by promoting her leadership of the State Department, an inquiry involving a top aide and the relationship between her agency and her family’s charity could further complicate her campaign.

Of course, the Clinton camp and the State Department Inspector General declined to comment on this investigation, but it once again pours salt in the former first lady’s rather wide wound–which is that she’s untrustworthy, unethical, and secretive. The emails have already painted the former Secretary of State as dishonest, which was explicitly detailed during New Hampshire’s primary Tuesday night; virtually no one trusts her.

Moreover, it opens another front, and one that might have even more legs than the email fiasco, which are the questionable dealings surrounding the Clinton Foundation. Guy has been thorough reporting on the many sketchy details, especially the one involving a Russian-led purchase of a mining company that was in America’s national security priority.

In short, millions of dollars flowed into the Clinton Foundation, while Rosatom, a Russia’s energy state corporation, was in the process of buying majority holdings in Canadian-based Uranium One, the company’s chairman used his family foundation to make hefty donations to the Clinton Foundation. In the meantime, since Russia would oversee one-fifth of all uranium production in the U.S., this deal had to go through an approval process via the State Department which was heads by guess who–Hillary Clinton.

There are other issues as well. A watchdog has called the Foundation a slush fund, one of the nonprofits biggest benefactors had done business in Iran, and there’s the little issue of failing to disclose 1,100 foreign donors.

Lastly, it’s been reported that 181 donors actively lobbied Clinton’s State Department, along with Bill accepting millions from some of those entities while the politicking was ongoing. This controversy was rehashed again last December, where the Wall Street Journal reported that the United Arab Emirates had given Bill Clinton $1 million for two speeches that were approved by Clinton State Department around the time the country was asking for a facility to clear passengers prior to traveling into the U.S.

Spoiler Alert: the facility was approved, despite labor unions, U.S.-based airlines, pilots, and flight attendants opposing it, saying it was “a giveaway to the government-owned airline, Etihad Airways.”

The coincidence that good things happen to people, and other moneyed interests, who give to the Clinton Foundation cannot be ignored. With this new layer in the investigation, it’s guaranteed that Clinton will have to field another marathon round of questioning over her foundation’s dealings, and her probable mishandling on classified information with her email scandal. This will carry into the general, with Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT), nipping at her heels over her progressive credentials, ties to Wall Street, and being her party’s establishment candidate for a status quo that the vocal left wing of the Democratic Party does not want. Talk about being besieged on all fronts.

Last Note: Friendly Reminder; there was no inspector general at the State Department when Hillary Clinton was there. 

Bad News: Millennials, America's Largest Generation, Prefer Socialism Over Capitalism

When socialist Bernie Sanders beat Democrat Hillary Clinton in a landslide Tuesday in New Hampshire, he crushed her among young voters by a whopping 83 percent

Tuesday night in New Hampshire, 83% of voters aged 18-29 chose Sanders, according to exit polls. And those voters were a full one-fifth of the electorate.

Sander's message of "income inequality" (Hillary has one too, but her Wall Street ties and personal wealth make it transparent) is popular with young people drowning in student loan debt (thanks to liberals proclaiming college is for everyone and by promoting the purchase of worthless degrees without the prospect of future employment) and those who have sympathy for occupy wall street. The sympathy also comes after 40 years of liberal indoctrination in public education, starting at kindergarten and ending in PhD programs, imposed by Marxists posing as teachers. 

Sanders sat down with Late Show host Stephen Colbert earlier this week, which is widely viewed by young people, to talk about his New Hampshire victory. 

Although Sanders excites young people, the reason they do is sobering. According to analysis in the Washington Post, a majority of millennials now view socialism as preferable to capitalism. Keep in mind the millennial generation is 83 million people strong and the largest generation ever produced. Millennials outnumber Baby Boomers by nearly 10 million.

In a recent YouGov survey, respondents were asked whether they had a “favorable or unfavorable opinion” of socialism and of capitalism. Below are the results of their answers, broken down by various demographic groups.

As you can see, overall, 52 percent expressed a favorable view of capitalism, compared with 29 percent for socialism. Republicans, those in families earning more than $100,000, and people age 65-plus had an especially high regard for capitalism compared with socialism, but respondents in almost every demographic category demonstrated the same preference to some degree.

There were just two exceptions to this pattern: Democrats rated socialism and capitalism equally positively (both at 42 percent favorability). And respondents younger than 30 were the only group that rated socialism more favorably than capitalism (43 percent vs. 32 percent, respectively).

The other problem here is millennials have no idea what socialism actually is or what living under socialism feels like. Over to you, Greg Gutfeld: 

Free-market conservatives have a lot of work to do, not just on the campaign trail, but in the education system to reverse this trend.

The Enemy Within­–and It’s Not Donald Trump

Despite calls from people who claim they will flee the county if Donald Trump is elected president, this new book is sort of a timeout from the partisan noise. As some already know, especially the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party, both sides are up to their necks concerning the expansion of government power. In short, Democrats federal expansion when it comes to social services and the welfare state; Republicans act in a similar manner when it comes to national security policy and the Pentagon. Both areas are fraught with danger concerning trampling American civil liberties and constitutional rights, not to mention setting our wallets aflame in wasted tax dollars or increasing debt. Yet, the most damage isn't necessarily concentrated in the Capitol building, though that's where the life blood comes from, but the various administrative arms that dot Washington.

The gross unchecked power of Washington’s bureaucracy is exactly what John Yoo and Dean Reuter want to illustrate in the book Liberty’s Nemesis.

If there has been a unifying theme of Barack Obama’s presidency, it is the inexorable growth of the administrative state. This expansion has followed a pattern:

  • First, expand federal powers beyond their constitutional limits.
  • Second, delegate those powers to agencies and away from the elected politicians in Congress.
  • Third, insulate civil servants from politics and accountability. Since its introduction in American life by Woodrow Wilson in the 20th Century, the administrative state's has steadily undermined democratic self-government, reduced the sphere of individual liberty, and burdened the free market and economic grown

[…]

Many Americans have rightly shared the Founders’ fear of excessive lawmaking, but Liberty’s Nemesis is the first book to explain why the concentration of power in administrative agencies in particular is the greatest – and most overlooked – threat to our liberties today.

Besides the overreach, and the potential for wasted money, comes the impact on the U.S. economy. One of the best examples of this is the proposed Clean Power Plan (CPP) that’s being pushed by the Obama administration. Overseen by the Environmental Protection Agency, CPP aims to reduce carbon emissions by at least 30 percent by 2030 from 2005 levels. It will grossly impact fixed-income seniors, potentially gut millions of jobs from black and Hispanic communities, and has coal-producing states scratching their heads, as the new regulations would devastate their local economies. It’s part of another area of Washington overreach–Obama’s war on coal–which if successful, would kill over 125,000 jobs, along with a net loss of $650 billion in GDP over the next decade. The EPA’s mission in this regard has been called “constitutionally reckless.” Blueprints from states to accommodate the new regulations are due this September.

Luckily, the Supreme Court issued a stay on a key provision, the carbon regulations on power plants, on Monday. Even with this check on the Obama administration’s overreach on environmental policy–it shouldn’t have reached this point to begin with; and it’s still dubious as to whether the Court will strike this plan down as unconstitutional.

Congressional Black Caucus Endorses Hillary, Not One Vote for Bernie

Despite Bernie Sanders’ lunch with civil rights activist Al Sharpton in Harlem the day after winning New Hampshire (handily), one of the most prominent African-American groups in Congress, the Congressional Black Caucus PAC, has chosen to endorse his opponent, Hillary Clinton. In fact, Sanders didn’t receive a single vote from the group.

Mrs. Clinton has been a “long-term, longtime partner and helped in the election of Democrats across the board,” said Rep. Gregory Meeks, New York Democrat and chairman of the caucus’s political action committee, in announcing the endorsement.

This will be a blow to Sanders, who is seeking to win the important African-American vote in the Democratic primary. The candidates’ jockeying for this demographic is no surprise.

"It will be very difficult, if not impossible, for a Democrat to win the nomination without strong levels of support among African American and Hispanic voters," Robby Mook, Clinton's campaign manager, wrote in a Tuesday memo to reporters.

Clinton has the advantage in the South Carolina primary; Polling shows that she has doubled her lead in the state. Yet, new reports suggest her win is not inevitable. That’s because her problem with millennials defies demographics. Young black voters, it seems, are becoming just as disenchanted with the candidate as young white voters. They are nervous about her inconsistent record and her husband’s policies as president, reports NPR, particularly the 1994 Violent Crime Control Act, which some claim led to an increase in African-American incarcerations. Is there a hole in her southern “firewall” after all?

Sharpton will meet with Clinton next week and before deciding who to endorse.

Rotary Club Awkwardly Kicks Jeb Bush 'Out the Door'

The cloud of awkwardness and clumsy misfortune continues to loom over Jeb Bush's head while on the campaign trail.  At a rotary club rally in New Hampshire on Tuesday, Jeb was interrupted during the middle of his speech and ushered off stage.  

"They're kicking me out the door," Jeb said.  "They're kicking me out the door."

He then proceeded to awkwardly nod his head, walk around in a circle, and then move off stage.  

Wether it be the chest bump in Iowa, giving out turtles to kids in New Hampshire, or the bizarre campaign ad of him struggling with a hoodie in Las Vegas, Jeb simply struggles with relating to the everyday American.  He continues to go out of his way to act like an everyday American; and in doing so, proves that he is not.    

Oregon Occupier: We'll Leave Here 'Dead Or Without Charges'

Update: It looks like the standoff has ended. More information on the final confrontation can be found here

Original Post

On Wednesday night, the FBI raided the now 40-day-old anti-government occupation at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Burns, Oregon. Four men remain at the site and are reportedly engaging in negotiations with authorities.

Yet, one of the occupiers, David Fry, had a message for those authorities:

"You're going to hell. Kill me. Get it over with," he said. "We're innocent people camping at a public facility, and you're going to murder us."

"The only way we're leaving here is dead or without charges," Fry said, who told the FBI to "get the hell out of Oregon."

Last month, the standoff took a violent and deadly turn. Police arrested occupation leader Ammon Bundy, the son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, his brother and three other protesters when they were traveling on U.S. Highway 395. Tragically, the group's spokesman, LaVoy Finicum, was killed in that confrontation.

Fry's charged language suggests it's going to be a drawn out and perhaps bloody ending. Other reports, however, indicate the occupiers will surrender. 

Stay tuned for updates.

Iran Celebrates Capturing Americans With Parade

Iran celebrated its 37th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution with a parade mocking the capture of the 10 U.S. sailors, and by releasing images of one of the detained Americans with a face full of tears during his ordeal.

The reenactment took place on a parade float, using Iranians to act out both captives and armed captors roles.  

This is just another action in a series of events that includes the capture and humiliation of American prisoners, an Iranian drone being flown over a US aircraft carrier, and on Wednesday, video of the U.S. sailors in tears.  

The FBI Still Hasn't Unlocked the San Bernardino Terrorists' Phone

The cell phone used by the San Bernardino terrorists during their December 2 attack was so well encrypted that the FBI has not yet unlocked its contents.

James Comey, who directs the agency, told the Senate Intelligence Committee the problem of communications "going dark" was "overwhelmingly affecting" law enforcement operations.

He said criminals were increasingly using encryption to evade detection in cases of murder, car accidents, drug trafficking and child pornography.

"We still have one of those killer's phones that we have not been able to open," Mr Comey said on Tuesday in reference to the San Bernardino attack.

This is unsettling, for a multitude of reasons. One, I don't like the idea that terrorists are better at encryption than the FBI. Two, it's crucial to know just who exactly the San Bernardino terrorists were speaking to in the days leading up to the attack--they could be planning other attacks and American lives could be at risk.