Democrats Prove They Are Not Serious About Keeping Terrorist From Buying Guns.

From Today's the Hill

A Democratic source said the more controversial gun-purchase provision may be similar to a bill sponsored by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) that’s backed by the National Rifle Association.

Democrats say the Cornyn bill doesn’t go far enough since it includes a “probable cause” standard that would require law enforcement officials to prove that a gun buyer is an actual terrorist rather than a suspected terrorist.

Instead, Democrats want a vote on legislation that would bar firearm sales to anyone on a terrorism watch list or no-fly list.

Get that? The Democrats don't think you need to actually prove a suspect is a terrorist before you deny him the right to keep and bare arms.

This just shows how un-serious they are about passing constitutional gun laws. It may thrill their base but not the majority of Americans who actually believe in the second amendment.

This is a political loser for the Democrats. Fortunately for the Republicans, Nancy Pelosi is too stupid to figure that out.  

Abortion and the Slippery Slope of Public Morality

From National Review Online:

Abortion and Killing a Newborn: What's the Diffrence

This morning, I read this news article:

ZANESVILLE, Ohio (AP) — A former college student who gave birth in her sorority house was sentenced Monday to life in prison without parole for killing the newborn by throwing her in the trash.

Emile Weaver, 21, was found guilty by a jury last month of aggravated murder, abuse of a corpse and tampering with evidence.

Prosecutors said Weaver gave birth in a bathroom at the Delta Gamma Theta sorority at Muskingum University on April 22, 2015, then purposefully caused the death of her baby.

They said the baby girl died from asphyxiation after Weaver put her in a plastic trash bag and left it outside the sorority house.

 Two questions: What in our culture would have let Miss Weaver know that what she ended up doing was wrong?

Also: What is the difference between her act and abortion? I mean, really? What is the difference? Why is one a celebrated “choice” and the other a crime worthy of life in prison?

Indeed it is two good questions. Especially in light of the following:

The Supreme Court has ruled in Roe v Wade that the state has no interest in protecting the life of an unborn child. The fate of the child is solely in the hands of the mother.

There are intellectuals on the left that have seriously argued that a baby doesn't become a person until he or she obtains the age of 3 years (or even longer). One of these intellectuals was the chief medical adviser on Obamacare.

It is assumed that since these babies are "not persons" the mother has the absolute right to kill them.

Justice Kennedy has ruled that a law must have a "rational basis" and that the state has no interest in enforcing a common morality.

Which leads to another questions. What are these people celebrating:



They are celebrating a barbaric practice that no civilized country should be proud of.

They are celebrating the existence of substandard butcher shops that act as "women's health centers", that profit from killing unborn babies while putting the life and health of the mother in danger.

A society is judged by the people it protects and failure to protect the most innocent of life whether unborn or born is an indictment that will haunt us forever.

Even Joe Scarborough Gets Benghazi

But the Obama and Clinton sycophants say there's nothing here, move along.

A Word About the House Benghazi Report.

Democrats in Congress and the White House are screaming to high heaven about the house Benghazi report.

They accused Republicans of posturing.
They accused Republicans of playing politics.
They even accused Donald Trump of being behind it.

What they are not doing however, is accusing the Republicans of writing a false and slanderous report.

And that speaks volumes.

Because no matter how much the Democrats scream, two truths are now painfully obvious.

1. Hillary Clinton knew from the very beginning that the attack was an organized terrorist attack, not a spontaneous riot due to an internet video.

2. Barack Hussain Obama was missing in action for the entire night. We see a military frozen and frustrated because of a lack of orders from the commander in chief.

Christian Persecution in America

The dark pessimism of American Christians

A review of Mary Eberstadt's book It's Dangerous to Believe: Religious Freedom and Its Enemies 

By Michael Brendan Dougherty

The following is an excerpt:

Eberstadt documents in exhaustive detail this widespread social urge to rob Christians of their livelihoods and their good names, merely for believing what their churches have always taught, and acting on those beliefs. This is not just a handful of bakers who refused to make gay wedding cakes. There was the U.S. Marine Monica Sterling, who was given a dishonorable discharge for posting the Biblical verse "No weapon shall prosper against me" on her own computer, which a military judge said "could be interpreted as combative." Or the mayor of Houston, who demanded that pastors turn over their sermons to her for inspection. Religious colleges are faced with challenges to their accreditation. Charity groups and adoption agencies are subjected to continual and costly campaigns of legal assault for acting in accordance with the tenets of their religion. Even in the last few weeks since Eberstadt's book has been published, Catholic hospitals, which service some of the poorest areas in the country, are being portrayed as an alien and malignant force as the ACLU sues them for not performing abortions.

Eberstadt, in a neat series of chapters, contrasts the self-descriptions of progressives and secularists with their actions. They believe themselves champions of civil rights, while circumscribing the freedoms of fellow citizens. They imagine themselves tolerant, while prosecuting their cultural enemies with the zeal of inquisitors. They make blacklists and call themselves open-minded.

And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved. Matthew 10:22

Is the Washington Post and ABC Polling for a Story?

This analysis by Ed Morrissey at Hot Air makes a prescient point. 

While the WaPo/ABC sample and poll results aren’t “dirty” or dishonest, the presentation seemed a bit misleading. Here’s the second paragraph:

Following a month of self­inflicted [sic] controversies, the survey shows that support for Trump is plunging, including among fellow Republicans, propelling Democrat Hillary Clinton to a double-digit lead nationally. The poll reveals fresh doubts about Trump within his own party just three weeks before Republicans convene in Cleveland for their national convention.

 Trump’s performance might have had some impact on those changes, but the Post neglected to note that the difference might also have come from a change in its sample composition. The previous poll, in which Hillary led 48/42, had a D+8 sample, while this one had a D+12 — and that might account for most of the change, with Hillary gaining three points and Trump losing the same amount. It claimed significant motion where perhaps little really existed.

In other words, the  Clinton surge and Trump's decline can be all be traced back to a change in the sampling.

So if you adjust for the sample, there is no change in the race between Trump and Clinton since last month.

But that wouldn't make for a good story would it?

Brexit Vote a Celebration of Freedom

Britain’s vote for freedom proves power is with the people

By Michael Goodwin

The parallels to America’s tumult are obvious — right down to the hairy similarities of Trump and mop-top Brexit leader Boris Johnson.

While the original Redcoats tortured rebels, killed their families and confiscated their lands, the new Redcoats in Washington and Brussels kill the spirit of innovation, enforce conformity with regulations and punish dissidents with charges of bigotry.

Elitists of both parties try to silence Trump by accusing him of “hate speech” for demanding that America control its borders and enforce its immigration laws. Similarly, Johnson was greeted with calls of “racist scum” first thing in the morning.

Johnson, potentially the next prime minister, committed the crime of suggesting that Great Britain would be greater outside the suffocating embrace of European Union bureaucrats. He favors a liberated country that can make its own laws and decisions, and put its own people first.

While not carbon copies of Trump’s rallying cries of “Make America Great Again” and “America First,” the sentiments come damn close. As does the growing fear in both countries that distant, self-serving governments are slaves to political correctness and are not doing enough to stop Islamist terrorists.

To be clear, Trump and Johnson are not sainted men of unquestioned virtue. Rather, they are leaders speaking on behalf of millions upon millions of middle- and working-class people who feel left out of the globalized economy.

It is indeed a celebration of freedom as the people of Great Britain took their nation back from unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels.  

Is Seeing Boobs Making America Less Great?

For some saturday light reading. This column by Amy Otto at the Federalist argues that men did greater things when they couldn't see a woman's boobs.

Men Did Greater Things When It Was Harder To See Boobs

This may sound a bit Trumpesque, but to Make America Great Again we may need to Make Seeing Boobs Rare Again. Men did great things often in pursuit of women. Eric Clapton, in desperate love with George Harrison’s wife Patti, wrote the famous rock anthem “Layla” in pursuit of her. Men used to be rewarded with attention from women based on their accomplishments. When homeless millennial men can find shelter by hooking up with a different woman every night, you need to question feminists’ tactical battle plans.

I would point out that in the 17th century women's boobs were quite prominent in the fashion of the day.

And we got achievements like the American and French revolutions.

Brexit Vote is Today

Today voters in Great Britain go to the polls to decide whether to stay or leave the European Union.

A vote the leave will be the beginning of the end of the EU. While the globalist and security hawks are aghast at the possibility I say good riddance to the EU.

It was an ill concive quasi national government  of bureaucrats , by bureaucrats, and for bureaucrats.  It's parliament was a toothless figurehead body created to give the veneer of democracy when in fact it was nothing more and a rubber stamp to the autocratic decrees of the bureaucrats.

It's time to end this aberration and return to the common market arrangement that pre-dated the EU or create a union more responsive to the people it's suppose to serve.

What Trump has to do to Win

There’s no doubt about it, this has been a bad two weeks for Donald Trump. But it’s certainly not hopeless for the Trump train and there is movement to turn the ship around.

Chief among them was firing campaign manager Corey Lewandowski. I don’t believe for second his firing had anything to do with Michele Fields or Ivanka Trump.

Lewandowski was fired because he was a bad political manager. Whatever position he held before the campaign did not translate well into politics.

Chief among his mistakes was the failure to create a campaign organization in all 50 states to secure the gains of Trump’s primary victories.  This mistake almost (and may still) cost him the nomination as the Trump delegates to the Republican convention are not really loyal to Trump.

However, Trump is still the odds on favorite to win the nomination and this is what he need to do to win the general election:

·         Discipline, Discipline, Discipline. Pick a message of the day and stick to it. Do not go off on personal tangents about lawsuits and judges at best you seem petty and narcissistic and at worst you allow your opponents to define you as a racist and bigot.

·         Make peace with the Republican establishment. They don’t have to like you, but they need to be on-board with shared political interest.  Remember, you will need their organization since you failed to create one yourself.

·         Find the money. Hillary Clinton is outspending you three to one in Florida and the polls are showing it.

·         Define Hillary before she’s finished defining you. From foreign policy, to a liberal social agenda, to cozy relationships with wall street bankers, to a character issues, Hillary Clinton is a target rich environment. Time to start shooting.

·         Make this campaign about the voters. The means concentrating on trade, energy, and economic policy.  You have the convince them that their situation will improve under you and that you will “Make America Great Again”.

Hillary’s Tired Prescription: Infrastructure Spending... Call It a Stimulus!

This is in the ballpark of the argument that is probably most effective against Hillary Clinton: she is the status quo. Earlier this month, when asked by Bret Baier how her economic policies would differ from President Obama’s, she immediately praised the president’s record and then eventually called for “a big infrastructure plan… Our roads, our bridges, our tunnels, our ports, our airports, our water systems — we have work to do! It’s good work, that will put people back into the middle class and keep them there!” You may have noticed that no matter how much the federal government spends on infrastructure, politicians continue to lament “our crumbling roads and bridges.” How easily everyone forgets Obama touting the stimulus as “the largest new investment in our nation’s infrastructure since Eisenhower”! MAP-21, signed into law in 2012, funded $105 billion for roads, bridges, and highways. Here we are, eight years after the stimulus, and Hillary Clinton is making the same promises about infrastructure spending driving the economy to prosperity — forgetting Obama’s sheepish admission, “Shovel-ready was not as… uh… shovel-ready as we expected.” There is no reason to think Hillary Clinton’s economic policies will be all that different from President Obama’s. And if you feel like Obama’s economic policies haven’t helped you and your family, there’s no reason to expect anything different from hers.

This post by Jim Geraghty underlines the bankruptcy of a Hillary Clinton adminstration. It is essentially the same tired old prescription we've seen for the last eight years.