I know the American People are much attached to their Government. I know they would suffer much for its sake. I know they would endure evils long and patiently, before they would ever think of exchanging it for another. Yet, notwithstanding all this, if the laws be continually despised and disregarded, if their rights to be secure in their persons and property, are held by no better tenure than the caprice of a mob, the alienation of their affections from the Government is the natural consequence; and to that, sooner or later, it must come.
— Abraham Lincoln, 27 January 1838 (source)
Is there a part of the Constitution that regressives aren’t willing to shred?
But of course, no one is talking about sending alarmists or their painfully ignorant acolytes–Leo Dicaprio!–to prison. On the other hand, Democrats in Washington want to silence those who have bravely stood against the government-funded monopoly to bring a modicum of truth to the climate debate. The Hill reports:
The decision about whether to investigate ExxonMobil Corporation’s advocacy on climate change is now in the FBI’s hands.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), which received multiple requests to probe Exxon for potential legal action, has sent the case to the FBI for its consideration, it told a pair of Democratic lawmakers.
“As a courtesy, we have forwarded your correspondence to the Federal Bureau of Investigation,” DOJ wrote to Reps. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) and Mark DeSaulnier (D-Calif.), who asked for the probe.
“The FBI is the investigative arm of the department, upon which we rely to conduct the initial fact finding in federal cases. The FBI will determine whether an investigation is warranted,” Peter Kadzik, the assistant attorney general for legislative affairs, wrote.
Actually, the oil companies have mostly been bystanders in the climate debate. But the Democrats are trying to deflect attention away from the fact that their global warming theory is crumbling in the face of the facts. The oil companies make convenient scapegoats.
Hillary barely squeaked out a win in Iowa (and even that result has been called into question by some). Sanders pwned her in New Hampshire by 20+ points. How, then, do you explain this?
My understanding of it is that most of Hillary’s “lead” is in so-called “superdelegates” who aren’t chosen through the usual electoral processes (caucus or primary). For people who call themselves “Democrats,” isn’t this a rather small-D undemocratic way to pick a candidate? From the outside looking in, it looks like a way for the party bosses to pick the candidate they want, and to hell with what their rank-and-file want. I understand they might have concerns with Bernie Sanders’ nonexistent electability (to say nothing of the fact that he actually wasn’t even one of them until fairly recently), but maybe they should’ve addressed those concerns early enough that they could’ve offered up a few more choices. That, of course, would require that the fix is not already in.
This election should be the Republicans’ to lose. The only fly in the ointment is that the Republicans have in recent years made a science out of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Whether the Democrats end up nominating the communist or the crook, GOP ineptitude could still give them more of a shot at winning than they deserve.
Bill and Hillary Clinton ought to be radioactive to any of the usual suspects who screech on about “rape culture,” but consistency has never been their strong suit:
Ann Coulter says the Epstein rape case is “not just a Clinton sex scandal,” but the “elites” “covering up and protecting one another.” “This is what MSNBC and the rest of the networks have been describing what they thought these fraternities, what they thought the [Duke] lacrosse rape [case was],” Coulter said on FOX News’ Hannity. This is the elites circling the wagon and protecting a pederast. It’s a shocking case and that’s just the known facts.”
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”
— Declaration of Independence
Read this and get informed. How other than “a long train of abuses and usurpations” would you describe federal actions going back more than a century?
When will enough be enough? Send these goons back to the political wilderness where they belong:
At the beginning of December, Rolling Stone writer Jeff Goodell asked Secretary of State John Kerry whether Charles and David Koch, two libertarian political activists, should be considered — his remarkable words — “an enemy of the state.” He posed the same question about Exxon, and John Kerry, who could have been president of these United States, said that he looked forward to the seizure of Exxon’s assets for the crime of “proselytizing” impermissibly about the question of global warming.
An enemy of the state? That’s the Democrats’ theme for the New Year: totalitarianism.
Donald Trump may talk like a brownshirt, but the Democrats mean business. For those of you keeping track, the Democrats and their allies on the left have now: voted in the Senate to repeal the First Amendment, proposed imprisoning people for holding the wrong views on global warming, sought to prohibit the showing of a film critical of Hillary Rodham Clinton, proposed banning politically unpopular academic research, demanded that funding politically unpopular organizations and causes be made a crime and that the RICO organized-crime statute be used as a weapon against targeted political groups. They have filed felony charges against a Republican governor for vetoing a piece of legislation, engaged in naked political persecutions of members of Congress, and used the IRS and the ATF as weapons against political critics.
That bumper-sticker phrase is normally associated with taxes, but it turns out that it applies equally well to the legalized theft known as “civil asset forfeiture:”
Between 1989 and 2010, U.S. attorneys seized an estimated $12.6 billion in asset forfeiture cases. The growth rate during that time averaged +19.4% annually. By 2014, that number had ballooned to roughly $4.5 billion for the year. Now, according to the FBI, the total amount of goods stolen by criminals in 2014 burglary offenses suffered an estimated $3.9 billion in property losses. This means that the police are now taking more assets than the criminals.
The sneer quotes around “scientist” are mine, as he’d appear to be just another grifter among the Grünsturmabteilung:
Leader of 20 scientist effort to prosecute climate skeptics under RICO revealed as ‘Climate Profiteer’! ‘From 2012-2014, the Leader of RICO 20 climate scientists paid himself and his wife $1.5 million from government climate grants for part-time work.
George Mason University Professor Jagadish Shukla ( email@example.com) a Lead Author with the UN IPCC, reportedly made lavish profits off the global warming industry while accusing climate skeptics of deceiving the public. Shukla is leader of 20 scientists who are demanding RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) charges be used against skeptics for disagreeing with their view on climate change.
Shukla reportedly moved his government grants through a ‘non-profit’. The group “pays Shukla and wife Anne $500,000 per year for part-time work,” Prof. Roger Pielke Jr. revealed.
“The $350,000-$400,000 per year paid leader of the RICO20 from his ‘non-profit’ was presumably on top of his $250,000 per year academic salary,” Pielke wrote. “That totals to $750,000 per year to the leader of the RICO20 from public money for climate work and going after skeptics. Good work if you can get it,” Pielke Jr. added.
I have a better idea: how about a gun-grabbing-liberal-free society? Whether they realize it or not, that will be the end result of any attempt at undermining the 2nd Amendment:
They had previously lied about their goals, claiming to be in favor of “sensible gun safety measures” or other rot.
But now they’re becoming more honest: a Washington Post editor just explicitly called for a “gun free society.
A Gun Free Society.By Fred Hiatt
Washington Post Editor
Maybe it’s time to start using the words that the NRA has turned into unmentionables.
A gun-free society.
Let’s say that one again: A gun-free society.
Doesn’t it sound logical? Doesn’t it sound safe? Wouldn’t it make sense to learn from other developed nations, which believe that only the military and law enforcers, when necessary, should be armed — and which as a result lose far, far fewer innocent people than die every year in the United States?
Yes, even saying these words makes the NRA happy. It fuels the slippery-slope argument the gun lobby uses to oppose even the most modest, common-sense reforms. You see? Background checks today, confiscation tomorrow.
And yes, I understand how difficult it would be. This is a matter of changing the culture and norms of an entire society. It would take time.
Note that he claims that using these words is dangerous, because the NRA would interpret them as a slippery slope argument to claim that the left wants a gun free society.
But that is precisely what Hiatt wants.
It’s not just the bedwetters in the press, either. 0bama has nothing left to lose at this point, and his domestic and foreign policy “legacy,” such as it ever was, is a total shambles. He’s already threatened to use his pen and his phone if the feckless weasels in Congress won’t bend to his will. If you’re already set on destroying America, why not just go for the brass ring and make sure it’s “blown up real good?”