Now that our Executive Order issuing, bump stock banning President has thrown his support behind confiscatory “red Flag” gun control legislation it looks like the Republicans are getting on board with the gun grabbing Democrats and it is only a matter of time before “red flag” legislation is passed. Here is more:
Congressional Republicans, under pressure to respond to this weekend’s massacres, appear to be coalescing around legislation to help law enforcement to take guns from those who pose an imminent danger — a measure that, if signed into law, would be the most significant gun safety legislation enacted in 20 years.
“Red flag” laws such as this might not be as momentous — or controversial — as the now-expired assault weapons ban or the instant background check system, both of which were enacted in 1994 as part of President Bill Clinton’s sprawling crime bill. But they may be politically feasible.
With President Trump endorsing the idea, a number of Republicans — including Senator John Thune of South Dakota, the No. 2 Republican — are embracing the concept. Mr. Thune told his hometown newspaper, The Argus Leader, that he was “confident Congress will be able to find common ground on the so-called red flag issue.”
Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, has asked three committee chairmen to “reflect on the subjects the president raised” and hold bipartisan talks of “potential solutions.”
Lindsey Graham has been on board with this type of legislation for awhile and actually started talking about it in March so it looks pretty certain something is going to happen unless something changes.
Of course nobody wants guns in the hands of people who are dangerous but the problem with this legislation is that it would allow the confiscation of a person’s weapons before a crime has been committed and it is too open to abuse by people with a vendetta against somebody–such as an ex-lover or spouse, a disgruntled employee or co-worker. Who gets to decide what constitutes a “red flag?”
We all know how even the narrowest of legislation gets expanded over time and it would not be surprising to see being against certain liberal political views considered a “red flag” in the near future. When Donald Trump loses his reelection bid the people who are calling all of his supporters Nazis, white nationalists, and terrorists will then be determining what a “red flag” is.
This legislation needs to be defeated but with the support of Donald Trump and a weak Republican party I do not see how we can stop this.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Donald Trump voices support for ‘red flag’ gun control laws
So-called “red flag” gun control laws have been in the works for quite awhile with the support of Republicans like Lindsey Graham, who mentioned pushing for them back in March before dropping it while waiting for–or orchestrating–the next opportunity.
Well that opportunity is here and now Donald Trump is on board with passing legislation which would allow the confiscation of weapons before a person has committed a crime. Here is more:
Trump voiced support for “Red Flag laws, also known as Extreme Risk Protection Orders.” He explained, “We must make sure that those judged to pose a grave risk to public safety do not have access to firearms and that, if they do, those firearms can be taken through rapid due process.”
The President and Lindsey Graham are not alone on this and it looks like this might have some legs. “Red flag” legislation sounds reasonable on the surface but it should send up a red flag of its own. As I stated above, we are talking about confiscating weapons from people who have not committed a crime. That is bad enough, but on top of that there is the issue of a person’s motive for reporting another individual. This would be ripe for abuse by people with a personal vendetta against another person, a disgruntled lover, or even a coworker. The list goes on and on.
America’s Watchtower has been questioning Donald Trump’s Second Amendment credentials since before he was elected. When Donald Trump did his Barack Obama impression and banned bump stocks using his pen and his phone most people did not bat an eye because bump stocks were a novelty item and most people never use them, but some of us saw this as a warning sign. I hope people are paying attention now…
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Chief of Staff under investigation for campaign finance violations
On Friday we learned that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Chief of Staff and her spokesman both quit suddenly. It was made to sound as if Corbin Trent, her spokesman, quit to focus on her re-election bid while her Chief of Staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, was on the outs with the rest of the Democratic party for going after Nancy Pelosi on Twitter. But that might not be the case.
Back in March, although for the most part the story flew under the radar, there were rumors out there that Saikat Chakrabarti had diverted over $1 million in campaign donations to his own private companies which he had set up to hide campaign donations.
Now it looks as if there is something to the rumors and that might be why Saikat Chakrabarti stepped down on Friday, because he is now under investigation if this story is true.
The Feds are looking into possible campaign finance misdeeds by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff and lead rainmaker, who suddenly resigned Friday, federal sources told The Post.
The inquiry centers on two political action committees founded by Saikat Chakrabarti, the top aide who quit along with Ocasio-Cortez spokesman Corbin Trent, the sources said. Trent left to join the congresswoman’s 2020 re-election campaign.
The two PACs being probed, Brand New Congress and Justice Democrats, were both set up by Chakrabarti to support progressive candidates across the country.
But they funneled more than $1 million in political donations into two private companies that Chakrabarti also incorporated and controlled, according to Federal Election Commission filings and a complaint filed in March with the regulatory agency.
In 2016 and 2017, the PACs raised about $3.3 million, mostly from small donors. A third of the cash was transferred to two private companies whose names are similar to one of the PACs — Brand New Congress LLC and Brand New Campaign LLC — federal campaign filings show.
Yeah, that sounds a little shady but then there is something else that is very interesting. Remember when Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez gave all her employees a raise? Well, at the same time Saikat Chakrabarti took a massive pay cut which exempted him from reporting outside income.
Forgive me if I am wrong but is not Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez one of the new members of the Congress who promised to get dirty money out of Washington?
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Sunday, August 4th open thread: ‘Run to the Hills’
“This is the day which the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.” (Psalm 118:24 KJV)
Here is this week’s open thread. Please feel free to post links to interesting articles and to discuss whatever issues arise during the course of the day. Nothing is off-topic here.
You can subscribe to America’s Watchtower to receive email updates and you can also follow America’s Watchtower on Facebook and Twitter by clicking the links on the right.
Last Thursday night Lauri, Andy, and myself saw Iron Maiden in Mansfield Massachusetts. It has been at least 35 years since I have seen them play and those guys still have it. What a great show they put on and we had a great time. Here they are closing out the night with “Run to the Hills” from last Thursday. The audio is not great but this is from a cellphone.
I am not sure how reliable this source is, and I am not sure how much it even matters any more, but here we go anyway. According to this story, the ACLJ has been able to gain access to documents which show to what extent the FBI might have gone to protect Hillary Clinton in her email scandal and the ensuing investigation.
As you probably recall some of Hillary Clinton’s closest confidants, namely Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, were granted immunity and eventually turned over their computers to the FBI. However, if this story is true, not only were the two granted immunity but the FBI was very limited by the agreement in what they could look at.
Subsequently, Mills and Samuelson finally gave the computers over to the FBI, which per their agreements, limited the FBI’s investigation. The FBI agreed to limit a) the method by which the emails investigated would be obtained; b) the scope of files which would be investigated, and c) the timeframe parameters for investigated emails. In other words, the FBI agreed in the immunity contracts not to do a full investigation on the Clinton emails.
So the scope of the investigation was limited by the agreement but that is not all:
To make matters worse, again, per the immunity agreements, the FBI agreed to destroy the computers that had the back-up emails. As Congressman Jim Jordan referenced during the Mueller hearings recently, the FBI used bleachBit to purge the server so the information could never be accessed in the future and used hammers to smash the cell phones involved. In other words, the FBI and DOJ participated in the destruction of the evidence. In effect, this constitutes is a conspiracy between the Obama DOJ (under Loretta Lynch) and the Comey-led FBI to cover up Clinton’s crimes.
The FBI not only limited its own scope in the investigation but helped to destroy the evidence when it concluded its scam investigation. Again, I do not know how reliable this source is but at this point I would not doubt the FBI was capable of this type of cover up–especially where the Clinton’s are involved…
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Federal judge dismisses DNC hacking/collusion lawsuit against the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks
Putting another nail into the coffin of the already dead Russian collusion narrative, last night a Federal Judge tossed out the Democratic National Committee’s lawsuit against Russia, Wikileaks, and members of the Trump campaign because…there was no collusion.
Here is more:
A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit the Democratic National Committee filed against the Trump campaign, the Russian government, WikiLeaks and various Trump campaign officials over alleged involvement in the hacking of Democratic Party email accounts during the 2016 presidential race.
U.S. District Judge John Koeltl rejected the central theory of the racketeering suit: that the Trump campaign, campaign aides and Trump allies abetted the theft of the emails by encouraging WikiLeaks to publish the messages and by urging they be released when they would be of maximum political benefit to then-candidate Donald Trump.
Did you catch that? Donald Trump’s joke during the campaign, which basically started the whole conspiracy theory known as Russia collusion, does not amount collusion with a foreign government, but here is more:
Koeltl said such actions were protected by the First Amendment when taken by people not involved in the actual hacking.
“Even if the documents had been provided directly to the Campaign [and] the Campaign defendants … they could have published the documents themselves without liability because they did not participate in the theft and the documents are of public concern,” the judge wrote in an 81-page opinion. “The DNC cannot hold these defendants liable for aiding and abetting publication when they would have been entitled to publish the stolen documents themselves without liability.”
“The DNC’s published internal communications allowed the American electorate to look behind the curtain of one of the two major political parties in the United States during a presidential election,” Koeltl wrote. “This type of information is plainly of the type entitled to the strongest protection that the First Amendment offers.”
Koeltl, a Manhattan-based appointee of President Bill Clinton, also rejected the DNC’s contention that fundraising-related records amount to trade secrets that get special protection under the law.
“The DNC’s interest in keeping ‘donor lists’ and ‘fundraising strategies’ secret is dwarfed by the newsworthiness of the documents as a whole,” the judge wrote. “If WikiLeaks could be held liable for publishing documents concerning the DNC’s political financial and voter-engagement strategies simply because the DNC labels them ‘secret’ and trade secrets, then so could any newspaper or other media outlet.”
Liberals are sure to lambaste this decision but they should remember that if the Democratic National Committee, like the Republican National Committee, acted when they were informed somebody was trying to hack into the system none of this would have happened. But while the Republican National Committee took the threat seriously and took actions to prevent a hack the Democratic National Committee laughed it off because they thought it was a prank call when the FBI tried to inform them.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
California Governor signs law requiring candidates to release their tax returns to appear on the ballot
Now that Robert Mueller’s testimony did not yield the results Democrats had hoped for most of them–Jerry Nadler excepted–have moved on to the next line of attack; trying to coerce Donald Trump into releasing his tax returns.
Today California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a bill into law which requires all Presidential candidates to release five years of tax returns in order to appear on their party’s primary ballot. Here is more:
California governor Gavin Newsom has signed a law into immediate effect that would require President Trump to disclose his tax returns in order to appear on the California Republican primary ballot.
The law, which was approved by the legislature along party lines earlier this month, requires all presidential and gubernatorial candidates to disclose the past five years’ worth of tax returns in order to appear on a primary ballot.
“As one of the largest economies in the world and home to one in nine Americans eligible to vote, California has a special responsibility to require this information of presidential and gubernatorial candidates,” Newsom said in a statement. “These are extraordinary times and states have a legal and moral duty to do everything in their power to ensure leaders seeking the highest offices meet minimal standards, and to restore public confidence. The disclosure required by this bill will shed light on conflicts of interest, self-dealing, or influence from domestic and foreign business interest.”
This is obviously targeting Donald Trump in an attempt to get him to release his taxes but the problem is that even if this law does hold up in court–and I am not sure it will not–this only affects the primaries so it seems kind of pointless to me. However, there is power in numbers and according to this story there are a total of 18 states considering similar legislation. We will have to wait and see now that the first domino has fallen if other states will start to follow suit. (Pardon the mixed metaphor.)
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Sunday, July 28th open thread: ‘She’s Lost Control’
“This is the day which the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.” (Psalm 118:24 KJV)
Here is this week’s open thread. Please feel free to post links to interesting articles and to discuss whatever issues arise during the course of the day. Nothing is off-topic here.
You can subscribe to America’s Watchtower to receive email updates and you can also follow America’s Watchtower on Facebook and Twitter by clicking the links on the right.
Here is New Order performing the Joy Division classic “She’s Lost Control” live in 2002:
Elizabeth Warren campaign staffers claim she runs a deceptive and exploitative campaign
Bernie Sanders is facing some blow back for failing to pay his staffers a living wage–his staffers described it as “poverty wages”– although he advocates for a $15 an hour minimum wage, and his woes were compounded when some of his campaign staffers filed a Federal labor complaint against the candidate for being vindictive and threatening retribution against people working for his campaign.
It turns out Bernie Sanders is not the only candidate for President on the Democratic side of the aisle to have a little trouble with campaign staffers because according to this story Elizabeth Warren is being accused by former staffers of having a misleading and exploitative process for allowing entry into the campaign. Here is more from The Daily Beast, of all places:
the Massachusetts Democrat faces criticism from several of her own supporters who said the lowest tier of her campaign structure doesn’t match the image she projects.
Two early converts to Warren described the process for entry into her campaign’s volunteer fellowship program as deceptive and at times exploitative in interviews with The Daily Beast. They said they were pushed toward unpaid positions over paid ones, misled over the availability of financial assistance, and asked to sign highly restrictive nondisclosure agreements that worker advocacy groups concede are irregular. Both applicants verified their accounts with emails and text messages from the Warren campaign.
“What was sold to me was very different than it actually was,” said Jonathan Nendze, a rising senior at Seton Hall University who was offered a volunteer fellowship position on Warren’s campaign. “It was kind of a great scam of getting people to show up and work in the capacity of volunteer, but to function as a paid intern in the amount of work they’re doing,” he said.
Apparently she took a little different approach than Bernie Sanders by tricking people into volunteering instead of paying them altogether. It was extremely hypocritical for Bernie Sanders not to pay his campaign workers $15 an hour when he claims he will make this the minimum wage if he is elected and the hypocrisy of Elizabeth Warren was not lost on The Daily Beast:
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has built much of her political career as a champion of workers and consumers against the deceptive and exploitative practices of corporations and employers.
The complaints from those offered unpaid fellowships could raise new questions for Warren as she seeks to put her lengthy history of advocating for consumer and worker rights at the center of her rising campaign.
It makes it hard to take these two candidates seriously when they claim they will be advocates for the working man when we hear how they actually treat the people who work for them when they think nobody is watching. This is just another classic example of politicians who do not believe they have to live under the same rules as the people they long to govern.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
America's Watchtower 