Next to repealing Obamacare, immigration has been a hot topic amongst the conservative base. Trump knew it and campaigned heavily on it: The Wall. Forget whether you like the idea (I do) or not, it was a campaign promise. It was for a lot of other Congresscritters as well but even with owning all three … Read more
Take a minute or two to watch this. It’s just this side of brilliant. H/T Rick Olson
In that fateful White House meeting where Trump refused to let the cameras leave, it became clear that the Democrat Leadership won’t give up their Open Border mentality. Trump just made them bear their souls (heh!). (H/T: Powerline)
By Betsy McCaughey
Congressional Dems are butting heads with President Trump over his demand for $5 billion to continue building a wall along the southern border. Likely incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi vows she won’t spend one dollar for a wall and calls the idea “immoral.”
Not building the wall is what’s truly immoral.
The endless 24/7 news feed leading up to November 6, 2018, has only one person less visible than Paul Ryan and that is Democrat Senate leader Chuck Schumer of New York, the guy to whom our NH Senators answer. Maybe it is because his hardest supporters are suddenly rejecting him. In this case enough to … Read more
Chuck Schumer is reported to have asked President Trump to consider Obama’s nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, as a possible replacement for Justice Kennedy.
Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell nailed the response to that report.
Border Security and immigration policy are matters of law. In a land of laws, with the rule of law, the law defines the terms. In America, if you come here without permission, you can get arrested, no matter what your age or who may be with you. This leads to parents getting separated from their children. Something Democrats suddenly care about.
The fix, if you really want one, is legislative. If Congress changes the law and the president signs it those are the new rules, and everyone after that point needs to follow them.
Chuck Schumer has declined an opportunity to fix this.
And acting like a Ruler that issues decrees instead of a Servant-Leader, too:
NEW YORK — Sen. Charles Schumer says retailers that sell assault weapons should stop offering them for purchase while Congress discusses gun regulation legislation.
Schumer on Sunday released a letter he sent to major retailers asking for a voluntary moratorium.
The New York Democrat says consumer demand for guns has gone up in the weeks since the December mass shooting in Newtown, Conn.
Schumer says Congress is debating the issue, and if measures get passed that limit these type of weapons, it won’t help if more of them have recently been sold.
Well, does that mean we, the Citizens, should stop using money, as you chuckheads in DC are “discussing” our $16 Trillion national debt ceiling (100% of our national GDP, btw, but you guys don’t seem to be counting) – which should alert you that we, THE NATION, have no money to spend?
Here’s a couple of observations for ya, Chuckie (giving respect in proportion to that which is due to this idea):
“One cannot legislate the maniacs off the street… these maniacs can only be shut down by an armed citizenry. Indeed bad things can happen in nations where the citizenry is armed, but not as bad as those which seem to be threatening our disarmed citizenry in this country at this time.” —Col. Jeff Cooper, USMC, Firearms Instructor, Writer, Patriot
A Flaming Liberal recently posited this to my friend and colleague Steve Mac Donald:
“So tell me, Steve — do we need “open carry” to defend ourselves? Do we need machine guns to defend ourselves? Do we need clips that allow pumping out 100 bullets in a minute to defend ourselves? Do Legislators need to be armed in the State House? Is there no limit to any of it?”
I always love questions such as this. Picture a croissant-eating vegan
“If I could have banned them all – ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ – I would have!” —California Senator Diane Feinstein, appearing on NBC News’ 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995
When reading the above quote, which time was Senator Feinstein being sincere? When she said this in 1995? Or, when she said recently,
(This legislation) will be carefully focused on the most dangerous guns that have killed so many people over the years while protecting the rights of gun owners…”
“While protecting the rights of gun owners” says Senator Feinstein. Which is it?
Yes! The Anti-gun left in America is speaking out and their talking points go something like this:
…even if it might look that way. However, as the issue of guns go for us, while almost every Grokster shoots (some WAY more than others), we see it as yet another infringement by Statists in determining what is and isn’t good for you as in “Why do you need that” and “I can’t understand why anyone would want that”. And none of these Progressives just don’t seem to understand the philosophy of Freedom. They miss the fundamental pillar of Freedom:
“it doesn’t matter if you don’t understand it – that is for law abiding citizens to decide for themselves”.
Like all Progressives, they never seemed to learn the lesson of “Mind your business” – even if you are a lawmaker. Guns seem to always be of this particular Progressive flaw – they cannot accept the idea that people want to do stuff with guns simply because they want to. Simple as that. In a free society, must there be more? Have we now turned into a Society (at least, that part that is not yet been absorbed by the actions of Government) whereby we MUST explain our selves? And does that mean that we are now automatically guilty (at least in the hot button Progressive issues) instead of innocent first?
Well, according the Chucky Schumer (D-Progressive Socialist of NY) and Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Progressive Socialist of TX):
When there is a law breaker with the gun, in a room full of unarmed people whom he (or she) is intent on or willing to kill… eleven rounds is one too many. Law breakers never carry extra magazines, just like obese people will never think to buy two 15.95 ounce sodas in New York City if that’s what they really want.
But we are talking about liberal-Progressive Democrats. Maybe the thought of actually having to re-load to kill more people will be the ‘conscious decision’ that stops the criminal from engaging in any kind of gun crime in the first place.
“You mean I can only shoot 10 people before I have to re-load? I think I’ll go get a job at the Drive Thru instead.”
Nanny-State central planner genius.
In keeping with the holier than thou New Hampshire Democrat Party “rules” committee’s abhorrence of money from ‘corrupt’ sources, we bring you Chuck Schumer, New York Senator, Chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, and committee member on Banking, Finance, and judiciary. He has also stained Paul Hodes already questionable reputation with dirty money–$10,000.00 dollars worth of it.
Remember all those Wall Street firms Hodes was standing against? You know, the Wall Street vs. Main Street smackdown. The big bank vs. small bank rhetoric. Well Hodes can probably thank them for the $10,000.00 dollars he got from Schumer. Senator Schumer gets ‘fed’ by all of the bailed out boys and girls (and those in between), including an eye-popping career sum from SEC violators Goldman Sachs. Goldman has shoveled almost half a million of its greedy dollars to Schumer– 486,000.00. And Schumer’s total career “take” from the evil anti-main Street banking crowd is a paltry $7,000,000.00 million.
Can you hear the crickets over at the NHDP headquarters. Loud little bastards aren’t they?