Are NC Riots "Swing State" Politics?

In the past week, there have been two controversial police shootings. 

One, was in Tulsa Oklahoma, the other in Charlotte, North Carolina.

In Tulsa, an unarmed black man was shot and killed by a white police officer. There were multiple video accounts of the shooting, and while all the facts are not yet known, there is enough evidence to charge the shooter with manslaughter. 

In Charlotte, an armed black man was shot by a black police officer. Again, while all the facts of the case are yet to be revealed, there appears to be NO evidence on which to charge the officer involved in the shooting.

Yet, the BLM movement sprang to life INSTANTLY in which of these cities?

Charlotte NC, of course.

But why?

Could it be that North Carolina is a crucial swing state in the upcoming Presidential election and that motivating black voters to vote Democrat is crucial to the chances of Hillary Clinton winning the state - while Oklahoma is virtually uncontested?

Sadly, in the current state of our politics, it's likely to be true. BLM isn't about Blacks, it's about whites - or more particularly, it's about one elderly white woman and her insatiable lust for power.

Sorry Black folks, you're being used - again.

Add a comment

Pot Smokers Lose 2A Rights

I will admit. I didn't see this one coming.

Two days ago the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Federal Law banning the sale of firearms to anyone with a medical marijuana user card. 

Marijuana is still illegal under Federal law, and States that have legalized marijuana have done so with no specific change to Federal law - simply a wink and nod from the Obama administration that they wouldn't challenge the State laws legalizing marijuana.

It seems, however, the Feds have no intention of "looking the other way" when it comes to enforcing prohibitions against owning firearms and using "illegal drugs." 

Although this ruling is specific to "Medical Marijuana Card Holders," given that the Feds have now affirmed that using marijuana negates ones right to bear arms, it is only a matter of time before various City, State, and Federal laws expand this legal theory. There is little doubt that in the near future we will see firearms sales banned to marijuana users, and perhaps even confiscation.

Like I said, I didn't see this coming - but it's I'd be stunned if it the prohibition of gun ownership based on marijuana use stopped here. 

Add a comment

Trump vs. Kahn et al - method or madness

For the past several days, Donald Trump has been excoriated from all sides for his willingness to engage in verbal fisticuffs with Kazir Kahn, Paul Ryan, and John McCain. The the case of the latter two, Trump has only withheld his endorsement of them.

Despite almost universal disagreement. I don't think Trump is wrong in any of these cases. 

The Ryan / McCain case is easy. These are people running in a GOP PRIMARY! It's hardly uncommon to not endorse during a party primary. Both Ryan and McCain emphatically campaigned AGAINST Trump in the GOP primary - and then both even waffled on endorsing him against HILLARY. To say it's controversial for Trump to not endorse these two in a GOP primary is absurd.

In the case of Kahn it's a bit trickier. The point here is that Democrats, have for years, used people with various human shields to attack Republicans. In turn, Republicans have always caved and cowered as the likes of Cindy Shehan, Kazir Kahn, have railed mercilessly against Republicans. These people have NEVER paid a price for their disgusting political profiteering.

Trump has decided to hit back. It's a street mentality. He's not fighting this fight - he's fighting the next one. Kahn may get the best of Trump on the score card of the media judges, but he will pay a price. Kahn's business as an immigration peddler has suffered. He's had to take down his web site. His wife's non-burka picture with Barack Obama is all over the internet. His political gaming of his sons death has been exposed, and it's likely that his life as changed for the worse since trying to take out Trump.

Trump is letting it be known, he's willing to suffer some short term loss to make some one pay for attacking him.  In truth, the low information voters - who will decide this election, still haven't heard of Kazir Kahn; and this spat will not effect the election outcome.

Trump doesn't need an intervention from the GOP advisers - but perhaps the GOP could learn something from Trump.

Add a comment

What Trumps Immigration Policy SHOULD be (but won't)

Tomorrow Donald Trump will make a major policy speech about immigration. While he's been accused of "flip / flopping" he COULD easily reconcile his position - like this:

Meet the New Comprehensive Immigration Plan.

Wall: Yes. It's been Federal Law since 2006.

Enforce Visa Overstays: Yes:

Limit immigration from Terrorist States: Yes

Stop Refugee Immigration: Yes - except in extreme cases with strict vetting

Deportation: YES. That means that Deportation is the default status of those found to be here illegally. 

Deportation Force: YES. We already have one. It's called ICE. They will be tasked with enforcing the law - and that includes deportation.

None of the above means going house to house looking for illegals - but when they are discovered through the normal course of life - the default position is - they are subject to deportation.

Exceptions to Deportation: YES. -Negotiable

Citizenship: No. Never. Not Negotiable. May require a Constitutional Amendment. Perhaps the Amendment could clarify "birthright" citizenship - but also state; "ANY person who entered the United States illegally - shall forever forfeit the right to become a citizen."

I call this the Moses clause. God forgave Moses - but because of previous offenses - Moses was never allowed into the promised land. 

Lacking a Constitutional Amendment, citizenship will be decided by the Supreme Court, and that's unacceptable. Besides, if its good enough for Moses - it's good enough for illegal immigrants.

 

Add a comment

Will Scalia Death Save the Hillary Campaign?

As much as I hate conspiracy theories, here goes....

-In New Hampshire, The Hillary Clinton Campaign appeared almost as dead as Justice Scalia,

-Hillary Clinton, desperate to energize the "Obama Coalition" - declares that Obama would make a great nomination to the Supreme Court.

-Scalia dies, and body embalmed faster than an email server can be "wiped."

-Mitch McConnell, discovers testicles, immediately  declares that Obama should not appoint successor. 

-Obama immediately declares he WILL appoint a successor.

So, if the GOP holds up the confirmation - Obama becomes party to the Clinton Campaign - running as her appointment to the Supreme Court.

Is it just a coincidence that this could be the only thing that saves the Hillary Campaign and at the same time immunize her from email and corruption scandals?

Conversely, if the GOP wimps out and confirms an Obama appointee; it won't matter who wins the election - the Supreme Court will become a rubber stamp for every over-reach by the EPA, IRS, HHS, and the rest of the non-elected bureaucrats that really run the country.

In addition, if the GOP wimps out again - it will dramatically depress conservative turn out in November.

In effect, in what could be the last chance to salvage and revive a Government of the people, by the people and for the people; the GOP needs to not only block the nomination, but hold the Senate, and win the Presidency. Anything short of running the table - will make it almost impossible to reverse the current advance of tyranny.

Add a comment