North Carolina county declares itself a ‘gun sanctuary’
Over the last few years we have seen numerous cities declare themselves sanctuary cities, meaning they would not enforce Federal immigration laws. It has become a growing trend especially as Donald Trump tries to crack down on illegal immigration.
Of course states are not supposed to be able to pick and choose which Federal laws they will enforce and which ones they will not, South Carolina tried this once and it did not end so well. (Although I myself believe states should have more autonomy in most areas.)
We have also seen states loosening marijuana laws in violation of Federal law so this has become a trend. And the latest trend is counties which are declaring themselves to be “sanctuary counties” which will not enforce Federal gun laws they deem are unconstitutional.
According to this story a North Carolina county is the latest to declare itself a “gun sanctuary.” Here is more:
Cherokee County in North Carolina is the latest locality in the country to take a page from the illegal alien sanctuary movement and declare itself a “gun sanctuary.”
The Cherokee County Board of Commissioners voted 3-2 in favor of the measure, which is largely symbolic.
“Therefore, the Cherokee County Government will not authorize or appropriate government funds, resources, employees, agencies, contractors, buildings, detention centers or offices for the purpose of enforcing or assisting in the enforcement of any element of such acts, laws, orders, mandates, rules or regulations, that infringe on the right by the people to keep and bear arms as described and defined in detail above.”
Officials cite similar ordinances in Oregon as a reference. The declaration, which passed last week, is considered essentially symbolic.
The Cherokee Scout reported that the county’s decision to refuse to implement federal laws that do not comport with its own policies bears some similarities to the concept of sanctuary cities refusing to enforce federal immigration policies.
As I wrote above, this is becoming a trend:
There are about 60 counties and towns across the country where local governments have expressed their preference not to enforce federal gun laws if they conflict with their idea of the Second Amendment.
Counties in Illinois, Washington, Oregon and New Mexico have declared gun sanctuaries, according to Reuters, in response to legislation they believe is an infringement on the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. All four states have Democratic majorities and governorships.
Sixty-three municipalities in Illinois have passed some type of measure and more are likely, according to Dave Campbell, a member of the board of Effingham County, Illinois, in an interview with Reuters. “If they want to have their own laws, that’s fine. Don’t shove them on us down here,” Campbell said.
Half of the counties in Washington state are prepared to declare sanctuaries in response to Initiative 1639, which raised the minimum age to purchase a semi-automatic rifle to 21, and increased background checks and the waiting period, according to Reuters. Five counties have passed actual resolutions. Eight counties in Oregon and 25 in New Mexico have passed measures to support sheriffs who defy gun control legislation.
Organizers are also working with other states, having formed a friendly coalition to share resources and strategy with California, New York, Iowa and Idaho, according to Reuters.
Democrats–who suddenly have discovered the Constitution since Donald Trump began using Executive power but were silent when Barack Obama did the same–are sure to claim this is a violation of the Supremacy Clause but they should be reminded that so then would be sanctuary cities. You cannot have it both ways.
The article linked to above admits this is largely a symbolic vote however it is part of a larger movement in regards to gun rights and the Second Amendment. We are seeing more and more states passing Constitutional carry laws and currently we are up to 15 states and hopefully many more will follow.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Sunday, March 17th open thread: ‘Overexcited’
“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 a fun little ditty from Guster called “Overexcited.” An interesting little tidbit about this song is that the band is actually from Boston but while they were recording this song one of the band members told the singer he should sing the song with a British accent. He did and this is the end result.
Enjoy:
A couple of days ago Lisa Page’s testimony in front of the Congress on Hillary Clinton’s email scandal was released and we learned that the FBI did actually think that gross negligent charges should be on the table but Barack Obama’s Department of Justice put the kibosh on it. Basically the Department of Justice told the FBI they would not pursue charges so they might as well drop it, shortly after that the FBI changed the wording from “gross negligence” to “extreme carelessness” and Hillary Clinton was off the hook.
Now her lover’s testimony has been released and it gets even worse for Barack Obama’s Department of Justice. Peter Strzok testified that the Department of Justice struck a “deal” with the FBI which would limit the FBI’s access to Hillary Clinton’s emails.
Here is more:
The Justice Department “negotiated” an agreement with Hillary Clinton’s legal team that ensured the FBI did not have access to emails on her private servers relating to the Clinton Foundation, former FBI special agent Peter Strzok testified during a closed-door appearance before the House Judiciary Committee last summer, according to a newly released transcript.
Republicans late last year renewed their efforts to probe the Clinton Foundation, after tax documents showed a plunge in its incoming donations after Clinton’s 2016 presidential election. The numbers fueled longstanding allegations of possible “pay-to-play” transactions at the organization, amid a Justice Department probe covering foundation issues.
Under questioning from Judiciary Committee General Counsel Zachary Somers, Strzok acknowledged that Clinton’s private personal email servers contained a mixture of emails related to the Clinton Foundation, her work as secretary of state and other matters.
“Were you given access to [Clinton Foundation-related] emails as part of the investigation?” Somers asked
“We were not. We did not have access,” Strzok responded. “My recollection is that the access to those emails were based on consent that was negotiated between the Department of Justice attorneys and counsel for Clinton.”
You really have to read that last line a second time to let it all sink in because it is truly unbelievable! Here we have the Department of Justice reaching a deal with the person being investigated on which pieces of evidence the FBI will be allowed to see.
We knew it anyway but now we are gathering proof the fix was in. The FBI eventually got possession of the email server but by that time it was way too late. For all of the talk about possible obstruction of justice by Donald Trump in the Russia investigation it looks as if Barack Obama and Loretta Lynch are the ones guilty of obstructing justice in order to buy time for Hillary Clinton to win the election and bury this whole story. But she lost and slowly but surely we are learning the truth.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Today the Senate voted on the House-passed resolution to end Donald Trump’s declaration of a national emergency on the Southern border and it passed with 12 Republicans voting in favor. Here are the 12 Republicans:
- Rand Paul (R-KY)
- Mike Lee (R-UT)
- Susan Collins (R-ME)
- Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
- Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
- Mitt Romney (R-UT)
- Jerry Moran (R-KS)
- Pat Toomey (R-PA)
- Rob Portman (R-OH)
- Roger Wicker (R-MS)
- Marco Rubio (R-FL)
- Roy Blunt (R-MO)
The resolution is now headed to the President’s desk where it awaits his first veto. The resolution failed to gain a veto-proof majority in either chamber of the Congress so unless there are defectors the next battle will be in the court system. And with John Roberts’ recent record there is no telling how this will end up.
One thing that I have found fascinating to watch is how the Republicans and the Democrats have changed positions. Suddenly the Democrats care about the Constitution and find this to be an overreach on the part of the President when for eight years they defended Barack Obama for doing much the same thing while on the other side of the aisle, with the exception of the 12 named above, the Republicans do not seem to have a problem with a President using Executive Action to move his agenda forward after failing to persuade the Congress to get on board.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Lisa Page testimony reveals the FBI discussed bringing charges against Hillary Clinton but the Department of Justice said no
We all remember that ill-fated day when James Comey held his press conference in which he listed all of the things Hillary Clinton did illegally before claiming no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges against her. We also remember he said her actions did not amount to “gross negligence” but rather she was just “extremely careless” with classified information.
The change in terms from “gross negligence” to “extremely careless” was the saving grace for Hillary Clinton because she could have been prosecuted if the FBI believed she was grossly negligent. Well, it turns out the FBI did think she might have been grossly negligent after all and the agency was talked out of bringing charges against the former Secretary of State by the Department of Justice. That is what newly released testimony from Lisa Page has shown us.
Here is more:
Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page testified last year that officials in the bureau, including then-FBI Director James Comey, discussed Espionage Act charges against Hillary Clinton, citing “gross negligence,” but the Justice Department shut them down.
Newly released transcripts from Page’s private testimony in front of a joint task force of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees in July 2018 sheds new light on the internal discussions about an investigation into Clinton’s emails. This goes back to the FBI’s “Midyear Exam” investigation, which looked into whether Clinton committed crimes when she sent and received classified information on her unauthorized private email server while serving as secretary of state.
All this time we have been under the impression that James Comey was the one providing cover for Hillary Clinton but it turns out it was the Department of Justice if this testimony is true. Here is more still:
Page told the committee that the FBI “did not blow over gross negligence.” Responding to a question from Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, Page testified the FBI, including Comey, believed Clinton may have committed gross negligence. “We, in fact — and, in fact, the Director — because, on its face, it did seem like, well, maybe there’s a potential here for this to be the charge. And we had multiple conversations, multiple conversations with the Justice Department about charging gross negligence,” she said.
Page further testified the DOJ put a stop to that: “The Justice Department’s assessment was that it was both constitutionally vague, so that they did not actually feel that they could permissibly bring that charge.”
Page said Comey and the FBI spoke with DOJ about a gross negligence charge for Clinton multiple times, but that the DOJ consistently pushed back on it. “We had multiple conversations with the Justice Department about bringing a gross negligence charge. And that’s, as I said, the advice that we got from the Department was that they did not think — that it was constitutionally vague and not sustainable,” she said.
And here is the kicker, according to Lisa Page’s sworn testimony this was basically an order from the Department of Justice:
Ratcliffe asked if the decision not to charge Clinton with gross negligence was a direct order from the DOJ. “When you say advice you got from the Department, you’re making it sound like it was the Department that told you: ‘You’re not going to charge gross negligence because we’re the prosecutors and we’re telling you we’re not going to,’” he said.
Page responded: “That’s correct.”
So it looks as if that infamous tarmac meeting between Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton paid dividends, but of course we knew it did. When James Comey said no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges against Hillary Clinton perhaps what he really meant to say is there were no reasonable prosecutors in the Department of Justice who would bring charges against her. Of course I still do not think it took too much to convince James Comey not to recommend charging Hillary Clinton…
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Nancy Pelosi takes impeachment off the table
According to this story Nancy Pelosi believes that Donald Trump is unfit to be President on many levels but she has taken impeachment off the table because she does not believe he is “worth it.”
Here is more:
“This is news,” she added. “I haven’t said this to any press person before. But since you asked, and I’ve been thinking about this, impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it.”
Yet, Pelosi also said that she does not believe Trump is up for the job of running the country. Asked if he was fit to be president, she countered, “Are we talking ethically? Intellectually? Politically? What are we talking here?” When a reporter said all, she said he was not.
“All of the above. No. No. I don’t think he is,” she said. “I mean, ethically unfit. Intellectually unfit. Curiosity-wise unfit. No, I don’t think he’s fit to be president of the United States.”
So Nancy Pelosi thinks that Donald Trump is unfit to be President on multiple levels yet she is not for impeachment? It is clear that the Speaker of the House is walking a tightrope here, trying to please people like Maxine Waters while at the same time explaining why she is against impeachment.
There has to be a just reason to impeach a President, it cannot simply be because you do not like him as a person or disagree with his policies and those are the grounds on which most Democrats and their voters are using to push for impeachment.
I believe this is an indication that the Mueller investigation is almost over, and I would not be surprised if some have been briefed about what is or is not in it, and I think at this point the Democrats know there is nothing in the report. Why else would Nancy Pelosi come out so shortly before the report is released and try to tamp down expectations?
It is going to be interesting to see the reaction of the Democrat voters and I am also curious as to whether or not Nancy Pelosi ran this by the real leader of the Democratic Party–Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez…
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Lindsey Graham says Republicans and Democrats can come together on ‘red flag’ gun confiscation legislation
Lindsey Graham’s Senate Judiciary Committee is going to hold a hearing later this month on gun control legislation and according to this story the Senator from South Carolina supports expanding background checks and the focus of this hearing will be gun confiscation in “red flag” cases. Here is more:
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Wednesday that the Senate Judiciary Committee, which he leads, will hold a hearing on March 26 on gun control laws.
The senator told CNN that the hearing will likely focus on “red flag” laws, which give authorities increased ability to confiscate guns from individuals deemed dangerous by a court. He said he did not believe witnesses for the hearing have yet been selected.
“We’re trying to drive states to create these laws with certain guidelines to make sure they actually work but to let the states deal with this issue but to incentivize them to do so,” Graham told CNN.
The March 26 Senate hearing will take place roughly a month after the House approved legislation that would extend the review period for background checks on firearm purchases, as well as a bill that would require all gun sellers to conduct background checks on firearm buyers.
“I haven’t really looked at the House package, but this is, to me, the area where we can come together,” Graham told CNN of the “red flag” hearing.
There you have it, according to Lindsey Graham Republicans and Democrats can come together on gun control legislation which will allow the confiscation of firearms before any crime has been committed.
“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.
And to be honest with you I do not trust Donald Trump on this issue, I believe this is the type of gun control legislation he will support.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Sunday, March 10th open thread: ‘Firestarter’
“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.
We had several celebrity deaths this week and lost among them was the lead singer from the band Prodigy, Keith Flint, who sadly took his own life. Prodigy had a few hits on alternative radio in the ’90’s and I have chosen “Firestarter” live from 1996.
Michael Cohen met with Adam Schiff for 10 hours before his Oversight Committee hearing
Michael Cohen has told investigators that before his Oversight Committee hearing last month staff for Adam Schiff traveled to New York four times and met with him for ten hours to discuss the upcoming hearing. Here is more:
President Trump’s former personal attorney Michael Cohen told House investigators this week that staff for Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., traveled to New York at least four times to meet with him for over 10 hours immediately before last month’s high-profile public testimony, according to two sources familiar with the matter
The sources said the sessions covered a slew of topics addressed during the public hearing before the oversight committee — including the National Enquirer’s “Catch and Kill” policy, American Media CEO David Pecker and the alleged undervaluing of President Trump’s assets.
That seems rather odd, doesn’t it? Republicans are now investigating the possibility of witness coaching and questioning the legitimacy of the hearing.
Republicans have raised concerns with the sessions, with Ohio Rep. Mike Turner sending a letter to Cohen’s team on Wednesday demanding answers.
“These questions are important for the public to understand whether or not they were watching witness testimony, a public hearing, or well-rehearsed theater,” he wrote.
I thought the whole thing was political theater before I read this news, now I am sure of it. But then again, I think everything that happens in Washington nowadays is nothing but theater…
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
David Duke defends Ilhan Omar
Over the weekend it was reported that the Democrats were preparing a resolution of condemnation against Ilhan Omar for her blatantly anti-Semitic comment the week before. This of course was not her only anti-Semitic comment, just the latest in a growing series of comments, but then we learned of a rebellion in the Democratic party.
The Democrats weakened the condemnation by not mentioning the offending Representative by name, just condemning anti-Semites in general but that was not enough to appease the hard left so the Democrats decided to draft a resolution condemning all hate. It takes quite a bit of courage to come out against hate, doesn’t it…what a joke!
And then to top it off Nancy Pelosi defended Ilhan Omar by saying she did not mean to be anti-Semitic, that she just did not understand the ramifications of what she said. (I would say that means the anti-Semitism is so ingrained in her DNA that it doesn’t seem wrong to her, it is just who she is.)
And now Nancy Pelosi has a new ally helping her to defend Ilhan Omar and it is none other than former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke, here is more:
David Duke, the former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan and an open racist and antisemite, is publicly defending Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) in the wake of the freshman Democrat’s series of antisemitic statements that have rankled the Democrat Party nationally.
Duke tweeted his praise of Omar on Thursday, calling her the “most important member of the US Congress” now that she has stood up to Democrat Party leadership after making antisemitic statements against Israel
Here is one of the Tweets:
https://twitter.com/DrDavidDuke/status/1103767456424882178
You might remember the uproar which was created the last time David Duke weighed in on politics but in case you have forgotten it was during the 2016 Presidential election when he praised Donald Trump. You might also remember how the media and the Democrats attacked Donald Trump for this endorsement and made it sound like something he sought after and was proud of.
The Democrats were in front of the television every chance they got demanding Donald Trump condemn David Duke–which he did–but so far not one Democrat has called for Nancy Pelosi or Ilhan Omar to condemn the former leader of the KKK and the mainstream media basically has a blackout on this story.
But at this point it does not even matter if they condemn David Duke or not because the Democrats have finally showed their true colors. Because of Ilhan Omar’s words and the Democrats failure to find fault with them they have shown they were cast with the same die as David Duke. And that is perhaps why he has already endorsed a Democrat for President in 2020…
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
America's Watchtower 