According to Hillary, Vietnam and Iraq were “mistakes.” The deaths of millions of innocent people are mistakes in Hillary-world.
“An incorrigible belief in the purity of one’s motives is among the most dangerous endowments a politician can possess.”
Source: The Roots of Hillary’s Infatuation with War
Robert Wenzel points out the inconvenient truth.
Isn’t the Supreme Court decision the essence of racism, judging people by their color? Whatever happened to the goal of a color-blind society?
The 4-to-3 decision said officials may consider race of applicants in a limited way to build a diverse student body.
Source: Supreme Court upholds University of Texas affirmative action admissions – The Washington Post
Former PM accuses premier of lying about his desire for Palestinian statehood, cheapening the Holocaust by ‘Hitlerizing’ every threat
Source: Barak flogs Netanyahu, laments ‘budding fascism’ in Israel
The Democratic Party controls both houses of the New Jersey state legislature. Yesterday, in a procedural maneuver, the Democrats prevented Gov. Christie from reducing the onerous requirements to legally carry a firearm in the state. Although the Democrats are congratulating themselves for blocking Gov. Christie’s desire give New Jersey firearms owners the right to protect themselves and their families in public, the obvious take away from the Democrats’ actions are simple: they do not want people to be able to defend themselves in public venues like Orlando nightclub where 49 innocent souls were defenseless because it was “gun free zone”. Gun free zones are invitations to any one bent on committing mass murder.
“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”
The following piece was posted on the NRA-ILA website. Judges have a duty to protect the people’s constitutional rights. Even if the Second Amendment does not exist the right to self defense is a fundamental human right.
A full panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today used shameful sophistry and sleight of hand to effectively deny millions of Californians their constitutional right to bear firearms in public for self-defense. The ruling came in the long-running case of Peruta v. San Diego, which challenged California’s discretionary issuance of concealed carry permits, the only option Californians have to legally exercise this right. Ignoring that fact, the court held that concealed carry of firearms in public is not protected by the Second Amendment and that discretionary permitting for it therefore does not offend that provision.
We have been reporting on the saga of the Peruta case for a number of years (including here, here, here, and here). The issue in the case is simple: Does the Second Amendment allow California officials to deny the state’s residents the only effective means they have of carrying a firearm in public for self-defense, absent a showing of an extraordinary need to do so? The answer to that question is simple – no – and it was answered correctly in an opinion by a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit back in 2014. The panel recognized that the question at the heart of the case was “whether a responsible, law-abiding citizen has a right under the Second Amendment to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.”
Nevertheless, after that decision was issued, a majority of the full Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals took it upon itself to order the case to be reheard. In reversing the panel’s decision, the full court deceptively recast the issue in the case as whether plaintiffs, who “wish to carry concealed firearms in public” but “do not satisfy the good cause requirements in their counties” nevertheless have a Second Amendment right to be issued concealed carry licenses.
The plaintiffs asserted because concealed carry licenses are the only means responsible, law-abiding Californians have to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms in California, they cannot be subject to issuance only on a showing of extraordinary need. It was the State of California, not the plaintiffs, that decided concealed carry would be the vehicle state residents had of protecting themselves from violent crime in public.
While a majority of the Ninth Circuit judges signed onto the decision to deny Californians their rights, three strongly-reasoned dissents, accounting for the opinions of four judges, called out the majority’s chicanery. The dissents correctly point out that it was the State, not the plaintiffs, who established the “concealed carry” permitting context of the case. The dissenting judges also would have explicitly held that responsible, law-abiding Americans certainly do have a right to “bear” arms in public for self-defense. According to the dissent of Judge Conseulo M. Callahan (an appointee of President George W. Bush), the majority’s framing of the case was nothing more than “an elaborate straw man.”
While the majority opinion blithely asserts that people who believe California’s ban on open carry violates the Second Amendment have the option of challenging that ban, they ignore the fact that no provision of California law provides a means for law-abiding citizens to do so for self-defense. Thus, achieving proper standing to mount such a challenge would be difficult for anyone who does not commit a criminal violation of California’s open carry ban.
In the final analysis, the majority opinion does perform one very important public service: It provides the clearest possible example of why liberty-loving Americans need to go to the polls this November and vote for those candidates who will preserve their Second Amendment rights. The consequences of failing to do so could not be clearer.
“Once again the 9th Circuit showed how out of touch it is with mainstream Americans. This decision will leave good people defenseless, as it completely ignores the fact that law-abiding Californians who reside in counties with hostile sheriffs will now have no means to carry a firearm outside the home for personal protection. This flawed ruling underscores the importance of the 2016 election. It is imperative that we elect a President who will appoint Supreme Court justices who respect the Second Amendment and law-abiding citizens’ right to self-defense,” Chris W. Cox, executive director, National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA).
Lew Rockwell has put together a list of books which all Americans should read to learn why liberty and free markets are the best way to create a harmonious society.
As he posted on his blog:
“Recently, on the Kate Dalley Show, I promised a list of 10 shorter works for the intelligent layman interested in learning about Austrian economics and libertarianism. After all, our first job—to make resistance possible–is to educate ourselves. Here is a great start:”
PS Many of these titles can be read at www.mises.org for free. Bernie would be proud—more free stuff!
No explanation is needed. Brought to you by both major political parties. Fascism has arrived under the guise of national security.
My parents decided to come to America in 1949 so they and their sons would live in peace and freedom. Another generation of Sabrins will have to defeat fascism…this time in America.
We must speak out forcefully and often. This descent into the abyss has to be reversed. Otherwise, the Statue of Liberty should be torn down.
James Madison warned us 200 years ago, “If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”
Murray Sabrin, son of Holocaust survivors
The Record’s Sunday Business section (Feb. 2) contains two articles on the front page, “Foes of blue laws gear up again,” and “Minimum-wage battle could cost GOP candidates.” Both articles highlight two laws that reveal how the government abuses its powers to address two economic issues. In addition, the Opinion section published about two-dozen letters to the editor about gun control and the Second Amendment, most of which criticize the ownership of so-called assault weapons and firearms ownership in general.
Article I, Paragraph I of the New Jersey State Constitution under the heading RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES states:
“All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.” (Emphasis added.)
If the above words are unequivocal and correctly understood by the people of New Jersey, including all elected officials and justices of the Supreme Court, then it is obvious that the “natural and unalienable” right of self-defense and to property including the ownership of firearms cannot be taken away by the State of New Jersey. Thus, the government should not infringe on the right to own a firearm because it allows the people to defend their lives, safety and property. That means the right to purchase a firearm–a way to exercise the above rights–should not be subject to obtaining a “permit” from the State nor should the people have to obtain a permit, which is nearly impossible to get, to carry a concealed firearm.
In other words, while the state constitution recognizes the right of the people to defend themselves and their property wherever they may be, that right, the first right enumerated by constitution is virtually nonexistent in New Jersey.
In the State of New Jersey, the right of people to defend their lives and property is restricted by a multitude of regulations that virtually eviscerate the clear meaning of Article I, Paragraph I.
In light of the mini holocaust committed by Adam Lanza on December 14 at the Sandy Hook elementary school, the drumbeat for more gun control has been nonstop. I deliberately use the term mini holocaust to describe Lanza’s savage rampage. What Lanza did on a small scale, targeting young children and their teachers in a school was no different than what the Hiltlers, Stalins, Maos and Pol Pots and other monsters have done during the past 100 years, slaughter groups of people just because they had a common characteristic.
Carnage by governments around the world have not led to world wide calls for disarming governments, the greatest threat to human life and freedom in the history of the world.
And in New Jersey, which has some of the most anti-gun ownership statues on the books in gross violation of the state’s constitution, one legislator wants the state to restrict the number of cartridges in a semi-automatic firearm magazine to five from the current 10. Not surprisingly, a vast majority of New Jerseyans want “tougher” gun controls in the state, despite the fact that more gun control or confiscation leads to more crime. Incredibly, a third of the respondents would favor amending the US Constitution to ban private ownership of guns.
The right to self defense is a logical extension of the fundamental right to life that we are all born with. In short, the right to defend one’s life and property should be nonnegotiable and respected by lawmakers and judges. But the public’s desire to be free from monsters like Adam Lanza is creating a mass hysteria against the right to protect one’s self and our loved ones or those in our care. We all pray that there will be no more Sandy Hooks. But further diminishing the people’s right to self defense guarantees that the evil ones in our society will not think twice about committing mass murder.
On Tuesday June 5th, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach easily won the Republican primary in the Ninth Congressional District. The rabbi will now square off against eight term congressman Bill Pascrell who trounced his long-time colleague Steve Rothman. Rothman moved into the newly configured 9th CD rather than face Republican Rep. Scott Garrett whose new 5th CD now incorporates towns Rothman represents in the current 9th CD.