How long would the jihadis at Charlie Hebdo, Westgate, Mumbai – and many other terror attacks to come – be able to continue killing if they were surrounded by armed citizens? Interpol states that the only way to stop such attacks is to allow citizens to carry arms (the only alternative to an armed citizenry is “extraordinary security” surrounding every area where many people meet – train stations, super markets, schools, etc. – which is of course completely unrealistic). If guns are illegal, only violent criminals, fanatic jihadis and our over-worked, understaffed police will have them.
In case you are unsure whether it is a good idea that citizens legally own firearms: Switzerland has very liberal gun laws and one of the lowest percentages of homicide in the world. Interesting statistics on guns, homicides and firearm related accidents in the US here.<<<Read More>>>
Right after the fake Sony hack blamed on North Korea, then Russia, then someone in the United States and then the kindergarten kid playing with his mother’s I phone (not really), I told my wife this was all an orchestrated false flag to instill greater fears in Americans so that this freak of nature residing in the Whitehouse could have a good excuse to take further control over the Internet.
Getting not much more than a cursory scowl, this morning my wife made a comment about someone hacking into CENTCOM, to which I replied that this, another fake incident, is just another example of what will propel this freedom snatching criminal to begin to demand more control and restrictions over the Internet.
I really don’t know what it’s going to take before people begin to see that this ass clown, and all of them in Congress, think all of us are really stupid. Most are but not all. But I guess that no longer matters.
I hope you all love your slavery as much as I hate it and everybody who lies, cheats and steals to create it.
I’m glad I’m only a visitor on this condemned planet.
“Washington (AFP) – President Barack Obama said Tuesday the cyber attacks against Sony and the Pentagon’s Central Command highlight the need for toughened laws on cybersecurity.”<<<Read More>>>
Hot off the latest vote by anti human groups to ban all things normal, a bill is being proposed in the Maine Legislature that would change the process of how signatures are gathered in order to petition the state to get placement of referendum questions on the ballot. At issue, for some, is the so-called loophole that allows for out-of-state persons to effectively gather signatures, even though Maine law says signature gatherers must be Maine residents.
The Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine is supporting the bill. Executive director David Trahan says, “Just the fact that any group in the world could come in and cut a check and get their issue on the ballot,” Trahan said, “that should send a chill down everyone’s back in the state of Maine.”
According to an article in the Central Maine edition of the Morning Sentinel, the text of the bill, not yet released, would:
…clarify state law to say only Mainers can ask for signatures during citizen initiative and people’s veto drives, processes that allow citizens to make and repeal laws, respectively.
It would also make paid signature-gatherers for initiatives register with the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices. While gathering signatures, they would have to wear a badge that says their name, residence and who’s paying them. They would also have to tell the state what they’re paid and how many signatures they gather. Violating the new provisions would be a misdemeanor crime.
Some opposed to the bill say it isn’t necessary and tramples on the First Amendment.
Secretary of State, Matt Dunlop, says that he, “…don’t think there’s anything wrong with transparency.”
The difficulty, most always, with bill proposals to change and/or increase governmental regulation is all too often people fail to realize that laws created swing in both directions and place the same limits on everyone. While a bill today might seem to solve a problem of today, what happens tomorrow when the tide turns?
As with the proposals that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) should not be allowed to actively support or oppose citizen referendums, calling for transparency should be welcomed but a ban should not. Voters must know a department’s position and why. And yes, that door swings in two directions also.
I understand the call for preventing entities from outside the state from taking over the processes and priorities of the Maine people. An opponent of this bill proposal, a person who worked to collect signatures for the late bear referendum, called the bill, “a cowardly way to attack the initiative process.” He further explained that it was his belief that those who signed the petitions were more important than the process and that added restrictions drives up the cost of placing citizen initiatives on the ballot.
I’m not sure I would go so far as to call the bill proposal cowardly, as there is merit in claiming that the signature is more important than the process, providing that the process is legal and ethical and the gathering of signatures actually is a reflection of the citizenry as a whole.
When professional signature gatherers are paid, sometimes handsomely, to garner signatures, what happens to the process of approaching voters for their interest in the issue, especially if being paid an amount for each signature retrieved? There’s a good chance that the signatures do not represent the citizenry as a whole. Wasn’t the establishment of gathering signatures in the amount of a percentage of the last election intended to be a reflection of issues that would appear important enough to the people of Maine or any other state, to place a ballot initiative?
When signature gathering becomes a matter of enough funding to pay enough people ample money to harvest signatures, isn’t this a bastardization of the Initiative process? Can we then, with a straight face, say that the signature is more important than the process?
We might draw two examples that could provide reasonable substantiation of those wishing to change the process. Twice the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) brought a referendum against bear hunting and trapping to Maine – 2004 and 2014. Twice that referendum was defeated but not until after hours and hours of time and gobs of money were spent by both sides. After ten years of debates about bears and bear management, HSUS, able to buy the necessary number of signatures got their initiative on the ballot. Think of the large expenditures, on both sides and for what purpose? Evidently right now that purpose is a couple of proposals to change the laws in which both sides think it might “better the process”, perhaps better explained as increasing their chances of winning next time.
This has become part of the political process whether we like it or not. As with the bear referendum and the debates we were all subjected to, once again voters are being subjected to the same process, both sides wishing to make tougher laws. And when tougher laws are enacted, the people lose.
The people ALWAYS lose!
Maybe the “rights” Maher enjoys, i.e. his right to “free speech”, making jokes and pissing on people’s feet, hit a bit too close to home with Charlie Hebdo. False anger and bravado doesn’t mean squat when you only have the bravery to defend pet rights while dissing others.
“We have to stop saying ‘We shouldn’t insult a great religion.’ First of all, there are no great religions, they’re all stupid and dangerous. And we should insult them, and we should be able to insult whatever we want. That is what free speech is like.”<<<Read More>>>
“Only weeks after EPA enacted its new stove rules, attorneys general of seven states sued the agency to crack down on wood-burning water heaters as well. The lawsuit was filed by Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont, all predominately Democrat states. Claiming that EPA’s new regulations didn’t go far enough…”<<<Read More>>>
Still whining like spoiled brat children, the Editorial Board of the Portland Press Herald Newspaper continues to moan about how unfair it was that members of the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) and the Maine Warden Service (MWS) participated in the recent anti human, bear referendum as a means of providing facts and data about what bear management was like. They lost and so they want to change the rules. What else is knew. God forbid that we should have informed voters.
Aside from the fact that the written text of the editorial makes little sense, on the one hand complains that it wasn’t right for employees to do this while in the next breath vows that little should be done to stop this unfair, in their eyes, practice. Fake compromise.
Utilizing the old and worn out technique of “comparison” shopping, the paper first attempts to equate the participation of state employees – in uniform…gasp – to pornography. If you call them out on it they will simply say they were making a point that a judge, who has nothing to do with the bear referendum, claimed they would recognize pornography when they saw it. Consider that for a moment. This reveals a poor judge and one that seems to be part of a promotion campaign by the Press Herald as being a good thing that a judge administers justice, via the judicial branch, by his or her perception of what should and shouldn’t be, based on their own moral standards.
Whether it is right or wrong, in your opinion, that the Editorial Board invoked the comparison of pornography, matters very little because the words are written and the damage done. The state of Maine now employees pornographic professionals according to the Portland Press Herald.
Equating the recognition of pornography by a judge in 1964 to actions by members of the MDIFW and MWS to provide facts about bear management, the Board says that they see no difference in that any judge should be able to see the two issues as the same.
We feel the same way about the involvement of state agencies and their employees in political campaigns. Sometimes it doesn’t bother us; other times it does. When does it go too far? It’s hard to know exactly where to draw the line, but we know it when we see it.
Evidently the Editorial Board has recognized pornographic equivalencies between one judge’s moral or immoral perception of pornography and one judge’s interpretation of Maine law that it is not illegal for the MDIFW to do what it did during this bear referendum. Voters need to be informed but those promoting the referendum wanted to censor MDFIW and MWS because the facts didn’t agree with their propaganda.
Other than having their own media platform to preach from, what is it the Editorial Board wants? I think they want their cake and eat it too.
We think officials should give their expert opinion and individuals should exercise their free speech rights. But as Justice Stewart said, this was not that – or at least it didn’t look like that.
What we saw appeared to be the enormous power of state government wielded against a group of citizens who were calling for a change in state law.
This is nothing but sour grapes from a bunch of misinformed and not informed losers who want to be able to exercise their rights so long as they can win with them. If they can’t, then they want to change the rules.
Surely if the Department of Environmental Protection was challenged through referendum by an out of state group with no interest in Maine government affairs, voters would want to know facts about the issue and whether or not the current administration supports or opposes the effort and why.
I see it as typical childish behavior, the result of not getting your way. It’s also irresponsible and unprofessional to attempt to smear the reputations of the MDIFW and the MWS by equating their activities to that of the promoters of pornography. Then, after accomplishing what they really set out to do, they attempted to paint themselves as some sort of reasonable and moderate compromisers; above the common fray.
But because what they did was so far from the norm, we think the Legislature should not go too far in its reaction. Just as we don’t want to see state employees getting too involved in political campaigns, we also don’t want them to be barred from participating. There is room for a happy medium, and the fact that this has not been a problem in the past should remind people that it might not need such a stringent solution.
The real issue here is that animal rights and environmental left-wing perverts lost their attempt to destroy all things normal. This began to reveal itself when the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) sued the state in the middle of the campaign in order to stop MDIFW and the MWS from doing what they should have been doing – educating the public.
Some attempted to hide behind the issue of transparency in costs to the state but that proved itself to not be the driving force in the lawsuit, nor is it the driving force behind efforts such as the Press Herald smearing the MDIFW and MWS. They don’t want transparency. They want an end to hunting, trapping and fishing. They will persist until they get it. After all, if a brat bangs his head on the floor until blood is drawn, any parent will give in.
EPIC FAIL: Sharpton March on Washington Probably Won’t Address Jobs or Freedom – Making It Nothing like the 1963 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Event Sharpton Seeks to Mimic
Washington, DC – Members of the Project 21 black leadership network are criticizing Al Sharpton’s planned weekend protest in Washington, D.C., saying the protest likely will do nothing but stir up tension while the root causes of high crime and low hope in black communities go unaddressed.
On December 13, Sharpton plans to bring thousands of protesters to the nation’s capital for his National March Against Police Violence. He reportedly hopes that the protest, capitalizing on the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner, will promote legislation to give the U.S. Department of Justice enhanced power to prosecute local police officers. Sharpton allies are trying to liken the event to Dr. Martin Luther King’s famous 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.
Project 21 members disagree, saying that the weekend protest will hinge on racial politics a almost certainly will fail to realistically address important issues such as unemployment, education and the growth of government.
“While Al Sharpton marches to the U.S. Capitol to protest the deaths of Michael Ferguson and Eric Garner and raise awareness about alleged police brutality, I would instead prefer a march for increased job opportunities for black Americans and better educational options in urban communities,” said Project 21 Co-Chairman Cherylyn Harley LeBon, a former senior counsel for the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. “Representative Emanuel Cleaver said it’s everyone’s responsibility ‘to get involved in the fight to ensure that the criminal justice system is working well for everyone.’ I can agree, but we must also realize black Americans have not fared well in the past six years of the Obama Administration. Homeownership has decreased, personal bankruptcy is on the rise and food stamp enrollment increased due to prolonged periods of unemployment. Black unemployment hovers around 11 percent, and black youth unemployment more than doubles that rate. There is no magic solution that can be summarized in a clever sentence, and I’m sure Sharpton’s protest will not help create more jobs in the black community, nor will it ensure more black teens graduate from high school with promising college or employment options. Provide black youth with a path to earn a good living and perhaps we would not have to focus on the criminal justice system.”
“Sharpton’s upcoming march in Washington, D.C., and the many other protests against police shooting of unarmed black men, are rapidly losing the moral high ground they might have briefly achieved after liberals and conservatives across the board decried the no-bill decision by the grand jury in the Eric Garner case. Violent riots in Berkeley, protesters intimidating and disrupting Christmas shopper at a Toys ‘R’ Us in New York City and a militant group now threatening to shoot members of the NYPD clearly shows protests are devolving into anarchy,” said Project 21’s Niger Innis, national spokesman for the Congress of Racial Equality and executive director of the TheTeaParty.Net, who visited Ferguson, Missouri and met with local leaders and residents to try to ease tensions there. “Progressives such as Sharpton, President Barack Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, Professor Michael Eric Dyson and Mayor Bill de Blassio are tripling down on the history of racism — even bringing up slavery to revive their flagging politics. Progressivism’s failed policies have dominated our nation since Obama’s inauguration and controlled most urban centers for more than half a century. The fruits? Young black male unemployment is at levels exceeding the Great Depression while Wall Street booms. It is safer for a young black man to walk the streets of Kabul than Detroit and Chicago — not because of racist white cops but because of other young black men. Racial unity in America is worse now than when hope and change came to power in 2009. The progressives are running out of cards, so they hurt America more by now playing the race card from the bottom of the deck.”
“Al Sharpton seems to have one agenda, and that’s garnering money and influence for himself within the liberal establishment,” said Project 21’s Lawrence B. Jones III, a freelance investigative journalist who was in Ferguson, Missouri after the grand jury decision and who plans to attend the December 13 Sharpton protest. “After we have this conversation about race in Washington this weekend, we are still left with real problems in America — notably, a progressive agenda that is not advancing the best interests of the black community. Blacks are suffering an unemployment rate approximately double the national average, black-on-black crime is high, urban schools are failing, abortions are outnumbering live births in New York City and we have a President who continues to put blacks last with his amnesty immigration policies.”
“As a Bible-believing, born again, constitutionalist and conservative black clergyman who believes in the issues of justice, righteousness and peacemaking in the face of violence and crime, I wonder when we will march, protest and show righteous indignation over black-on-black crime and lift up our so-called collective voices with similar moral outrage,” said Project 21’s Reverend Steven Louis Craft, a prison chaplain. “There is an eerie silence regarding the destruction of our urban youth in inner-city America, and yet Al Sharpton and his so-called marches are nowhere to be found. There is enough blame to go around without false ministers such as Sharpton stirring up a racial cesspool of fear, hatred and false pride. We are dealing with a spiritual malady of the sinfulness of the human race, and true ministers of the Gospel need to be peacemakers and not racial agitators!”
Since August, Project 21 has issued six press releases and published numerous news-related blog posts addressing the deaths of Michael Brown, Eric Garner and related events. Over the past four months, Project 21 members have completed nearly 350 radio and television interviews and been otherwise cited in the media on issues related to police officers and the black community.
Project 21 members have been interviewed or cited by the media almost 2,000 other times in 2014, including TVOne, the Philadelphia Inquirer, Fox News Channel, Westwood One, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, SiriusXM satellite radio and the 50,000-watt radio stations WBZ-Boston, WHO-Des Moines, KDKA-Pittsburgh, KOA-Denver and WJR-Detroit, on issues that include civil rights, entitlement programs, the economy, race preferences, education and corporate social responsibility. Project 21 has participated in cases before the U.S. Supreme Court regarding race preferences and voting rights, defended voter ID laws at the United Nations and also provided regular commentary during the Trayvon Martin judicial proceedings in 2013. Its volunteer members come from all walks of life and are not salaried political professionals.
Project 21, a leading voice of black conservatives for over two decades, is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research (http://www.nationalcenter.org).
Contributions to the National Center are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.
“A Man Died over Cigarettes and Tax Revenue”
Washington, DC – WASHINGTON, DC — As members of the Project 21 black leadership network mourn the regretful loss of Eric Garner’s life during a confrontation with New York City police officers, they see the root problem in government overreach.
Garner died at least in part from a chokehold administered by a police officer last July after he was accused of selling “loose” untaxed cigarettes outside a New York City storefront. On December 2, a grand jury did not indict the officer who put Garner in the apparently deadly hold. While most protesters are focused on the issue of police brutality, Project 21 members are looking at the bigger-picture problem of an increasingly powerful government which zealously enforces regulations so that even minor offenses can have deadly outcomes.
“A man died over cigarettes and tax revenue. Eric Garner died because of an all too powerful state,” said Project 21 member Shelby Emmett, an attorney and former congressional staffer. “We must ask ourselves what exactly we want the police enforcing with such deadly strength. These officers confronted Garner because he was selling single cigarettes and was thus depriving the government of revenue. He was not threatening anyone’s life, starting fires or even holding up traffic. He was not suspected of a violent crime, so such force should never have been justified. Any person concerned with individual liberty should be disgusted.”
“The overregulated nanny state not only inconveniences our everyday lives, but — as we’ve now witnessed in New York City — it can even end up costing someone their life,” said Project 21 member Christopher Arps, a resident of St. Louis who was witness to both cycles of violence in Ferguson, Missouri after the death of Michael Brown. “I would never condone breaking the law, but it is inconceivable to me that a citizen can be put into a police chokehold and, despite repeatedly saying he couldn’t breathe, be allowed to die over the crime of selling untaxed, loose cigarettes on the street.”
Besides government, violent cultural factors and unchecked crime within the black community is cited as a factor in the death of Eric Garner.
“Black lives do matter, and Eric Garner should not have died for selling loose cigarettes. I agree with Al Sharpton and the racialist lobby that there is a crisis of black men losing their lives, but my harmony with them ends there because they tend to only mourn the loss of black lives taken by whites,” said Project 21 Niger Innis , national spokesman for the Congress of Racial Equality and executive director of the TheTeaParty.Net. “The plague on young black men in urban centers is not white racists and nor murderous cops because 93 percent of black men are killed by other black men. There are far too many black men raised in households that have no black male role models and the entertainment-industrial complex perpetuates a gangsta criminal chic. Until so-called civil rights leaders can openly and honestly address this problem, the plague will continue unabated. We need to target the real cause of the genocide of young black men.”
Project 21 member were interviewed or cited by the media over 1,900 other times in 2014 – including TVOne, Fox News Channel, CNN, the Philadelphia Inquirer, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Orlando Sentinel, National Public Radio, Westwood One, SiriusXM satellite radio and the 50,000-watt radio stations WBZ-Boston, WHO-Des Moines, KDKA-Pittsburgh, KOA-Denver, WGN-Chicago and WJR-Detroit – on issues that include civil rights, entitlement programs, the economy, race preferences, education and corporate social responsibility. Project 21 has participated in cases before the U.S. Supreme Court regarding race preferences and voting rights, defended voter ID laws at the United Nations and provided comment during the Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown judicial proceedings. Its volunteer members come from all walks of life and are not salaried political professionals.
Project 21, a leading voice of black conservatives for over two decades, is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research (http://www.nationalcenter.org).
Contributions to the National Center are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.