Archive for Right wingnuts

Republicans Graham & Labrador Lead Charge Of Anarchy

Share

IncarceratedImmigrantChildrenKOMOw292h212image:  KOMO News

The law is the law. If you don't like it, change it, but don't break it.

Sadly, the cry from the confused right wing is two-fold. The first is a given. Whatever the issue is, it's Obama's fault. The second is, only follow the law when you like it. Look at Cliven Bundy as an example.

We are now facing a critical time on our borders. Vast numbers of undocumented immigrants, many of them unaccompanied minors, are crossing our border in order to seek refuge and asylum. Others just looking for a new start, being sent by their families to stake out a new start for a more promising future.

Regardless of the reason they are here, we have laws and they must be followed or else we have anarchy -- something the right wing of the Republican party is wont to commence. They're losing their grasp on the control of the country and will do everything within their capacity to not fall into obscurity. Even if it means our system must fall along with them.

The law is quite simple in regards to this immigration crisis. There's a legislative process set up and it must be followed until such time as it's changed. Sadly GOP mouthpieces like Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) and Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho), two loudmouths without brains, are leading a charge of anarchy. They want due process of law ignored. Law that their party passed. In 2002 it was the Homeland Security Act and then in 2008 it was the Human Trafficking Act -- both bills signed by Republican George Bush. Both laws spell out exactly how children are to be dealt with who arrive across our borders as undocumented immigrants. 

Congressman Luis Gutierrez, (D-Illinois) spelled it out quite simply and clearly with Chris Hayes last night during All In. Please take a look and you'll understand what the Republicans and right wingers refuse to accept.

Share

Romney All In For Another Run To Purchase White House

Share

dollar signs

Six months ago, I posted on The Political Carnival that Mitt Romney was leading in the New Hampshire polls for a 2016 run. And in those six months, nothing has changed. He still leads.

Last week's Suffolk University/Boston Herald poll of New Hampshire Republicans finds Romney to be the overwhelming favorite to be their 2016 GOP presidential nominee, with 24 percent going for Mitt and a mere 9 percent for the second-place finisher, Christie.

On the surface, Mitt is saying no, but in reality, he's pulling out all the stops behind the scenes to make a third go of it, having failed in 2008 to McCain and having bested the GOP crowd in 2012. Romney is actively looking to blunt the fundraising of the other Republicans in consideration, Rand Paul, Rafael Cruz, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie and even Jeb Bush.

It takes huge money to run for POTUS. Romney not only has a lot of it himself, but according to this report from THE HILL:

Here is the dirty little secret of the GOP donor class, i.e. the rich establishment bundlers who funded the recent presidential campaigns of the Bushes, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and former Gov. Mitt Romney (Mass.): They are actively trying to recruit Romney to run again in 2016 — and Mitt is indeed interested.

With the Chris Christie Bridge scandals and the lack of support for Jeb Bush, there's nowhere for the Republican party to turn if they want to beat Hillary Clinton. And for once, this is a smart choice for the Republicans. Romney has a ground organization. He's got name recognition. And he's got the bankroll.

How certain can we be that Romney's really going to go full bore?

At least that was the word sweeping through emails and conference calls heading into mid-June's exclusive Romney-sponsored GOP ideas summit out in Utah.

The truth is that the entire Utah event was actually aimed at beginning the process of having Romney again be the candidate of this Establishment Money Machine — only with some severe, but reachable, caveats.

Romney spoke to this summit — and on Sunday morning TV shows — on "how to beat Hillary," without actually saying what many were thinking: "Mitt Romney is the only Republican who could beat her."

 

Share

Police Stop A Well Regulated Militia in Minnesota

Share

guns

I guess the police in Rosemount Minnesota haven't heard of the Second Amendment:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This unconstitutional action in Minnesota cannot be tolerated. This is hereby a formal invitation to all armed NRA and Militia members to fall in line and help defend the actions of 61-year-old Gary Drake. If you think Cliven Bundy in Nevada needed your help, you were right. And now the newest call is up to the land of lakes.

In case you missed it, here's some of the details of Drake's arrest, from the Raw Story:

A Minnesota man was arrested last week after pulling a shotgun on a neighbor who was teaching his 7-year-old daughter to ride a bike.

“If you don’t like my advice, get off my street,” Drake told the man, who reminded his neighbor he didn't own the street.

This apparently angered Drake even more, and police said he went inside to retrieve a Remington 870 shotgun. He came back with the weapon and threatened to kill the father, but Drake’s wife came outside, pulled the gun away from him, and physically dragged her husband back inside.

Now what's hard to understand here? This guy Drake was just protecting his street -- and isn't that the job of any state militia guardsman? How much clearer can you make it? The neighborhood father and his daughter were infringing on the armed man's rights to peace and quiet as he deems fit.

Drake admitted to police that he had a confrontation with the father, saying he didn’t like how the man treated the girl during the bike-riding lesson.

He admitted to drinking during the day but denied the alcohol had influenced his behavior.

I mean really, so the armed man had a few drinks before pulling his rifle....that's his right. It doesn't mean he's under the influence because he felt justified in arming himself to deal with a father teaching bike riding to his daughter. That's dangerous stuff. He might have even launched the girl at him where he'd be so fearful of his life that he's have to shoot her right off the two-wheeler.

“Maybe next time I should have shot him,” Drake said, according to the arrest complaint.

Drake’s wife turned over his shotgun and a rifle, and he was charged with second-degree assault and terroristic [sic] threatening.

Don't know about you, but I find this blatant infringement on Drake's Constitutional rights to be totally unwarranted and the police in Minnesota need to be stopped. Are you with me? Grab your guns and rifles. We've got our rights to protect.

Here's the coverage if you'd like to know more:

Share

Gun Control: Soak, Wash, Rinse, Reject -- And It Still Stinks

Share

guns Asperger Syndrome

Every time there's a horrific mass shooting, and sometimes when there's a single random killing, there's a momentary blip on the heart meter over sane gun control laws. A voice or two calling out for reasonable gun regulation.

This past weekend's Isla Vista, California, massacre has once again brought out the cry for gun control. Despite a vast majority of the US population agreeing with this, Congress will continue its spin cycle and do nothing. The latest voice to attempt the seemingly impossible is Sen. Peter King (R-N.Y.)

Huffpo:

Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) joined the charge of politicians calling for a review of gun control legislation on Sunday in the wake of a gunman's deadly rampage on the campus of University of California, Santa Barbara.

“This tragedy demonstrates once again the need to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill,” he said.

Boy, haven't we seen that so often before? But don't worry, you NRA enthusiasts and right-wing gun nuts, nothing is going to come of this. It's just another case of "soak, wash, rinse, repeat." Wishy-washy, wishy-washy.

Just asking, what is so hard and so wrong with a common sense law regarding guns? We do have some regulations, so it's not a totally foreign concept. We refuse sales of certain automatic weapons, we don't allow people to carry guns openly in many places and we don't let ex-felons purchase guns. Why not a simple bill which might weed out unstable or unqualified citizens from getting them. It would still protect citizen's 2nd Amendment rights. Call it a sanity clause -- but with a loose interpretation of sanity.

In this case, maybe a better word might be a responsibility clause. Anyone of legal age who wishes to get a gun to join the state militia (that's the 2nd Amendment) or even wants a gun for their own personal protection (a very loose interpretation of the 2nd Amendment), needs only to pass a proficiency test to show they know how to safely handle the gun or rifle. At the time of licensing, DGS (Department of Gun Safety) would also assess any overt signs of mental or emotional instability which would not prohibit the applicant from getting licensed. If and only if the inspector feels there is a problem the applicant will be directed to get a mental evaluation stamp from a certified health specialist before the license would be approved.

Now before you go thinking that's an abuse, let me confess that my younger brother has Asperger Syndrome. He was diagnosed years ago. He's the kindest, finest person you'd want to know. Yet, you would only need two minutes talking to him to know there's something a little off. He's still capable of living on his own, he worked for 25 years for the City of Los Angeles, and he's self-supporting. But truthfully he should not have a weapon of any kind.

This brings me to the Santa Barbara area tragedy. The shooter was reportedly diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome, so obviously I'm a bit familiar with it. Why was he sold weapons? That truth is, because there's no rule against it.

Despite that, with the dearth of meaningful  restrictions on who can buy a gun, this ill young man went twice to a gun store and plopped down money and bought weapons. That was it. And that's really the sum total of gun control in our nation.

We make people get and renew driver's licenses ever few years for the privilege to get behind the wheel of vehicles, classified as deadly weapons. So what's the harm in doing the same with guns? The only ones who should fear this regulation are those who shouldn't have guns in the first place.

Oh, just as a side argument for this sanity  or responsibility gun licensing-- my brother, when he was younger, decided he wanted to learn how to fly. He paid his money, took flying lessons and passed the flying test. But he was denied a license. Why? Simply because the certifying instructor noticed his slightly different behavior (the Asperger Syndrome) and reported it the the FAA. They interviewed my brother and had him meet with a licensed psychologist. It was determined that he was emotionally unqualified to deal with the stress of flying.

That was the right move. And this same logic and reason should be part of a congressional bill. Let's not stop gun sales. Let's stop gun sales to those who might be unqualified to handle the stress and responsibility. What I propose is not new, nor is it a fail-safe system. Some people will fall through the cracks. But it's sure going to make it safer for all of us.

Watch this distraught father of one victim from the recent shooting. He wants two things-- Congress to get off their asses to do something and he really wants equal rights for all of us -- the right for us to live even if it trumps some interpretation of our right to bear arms.

Share