A rally against gun-control measures in Richmond, Va., Jan. 20. PHOTO: MIGUEL JUAREZ LUGO/ZUMA PRESS
Middletown, Va.
Troy Carter, 49, says that, other than voting, he’d never been involved in politics. That changed late last year, when he heard that a county board of supervisors in Virginia voted to become a gun sanctuary. On Monday he was one of an estimated 22,000 people who gathered peacefully at the Capitol Square in Richmond, Va., to support gun rights. Many of those attending were visibly armed.
Ninety-one of Virginia’s 96 counties have passed sanctuary measures to resist proposed state gun regulations. Last year Democrats took control of both chambers of Virginia’s General Assembly for the first time in nearly three decades. They, along with Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam, have stood firm on their campaign pledges to enact stricter gun control, partly in reaction to a shooting last May in Virginia Beach.
For Virginians like Mr. Carter, the effort has brought about a political awakening. He learned to shoot when he was six years old. Guns are a normal part of his life, like fishing or going to church every Sunday, and something he considers vital to protecting and providing for his family. Mr. Carter choked up as he described a tradition of safety, protection and providing taught to him by his grandfather—and his grandfather before him. When he discovered the sanctuary movement, he decided to go to a meeting two counties away to learn more.
Becoming a Second Amendment sanctuary means a locality won’t use law enforcement resources to prosecute the proposed antigun laws. Whether such resolutions have any teeth depends on local officials’ resolve, but at the very least these measures are a reflection of regional sentiment on gun control.
This grass-roots movement is largely composed of people like Mr. Carter, who aren’t otherwise political but strongly believe in the importance of the Second Amendment. At his first meeting, he encountered massive support, “I just couldn’t believe the amount of people that showed up.”
Mr. Carter soon found himself attending another gathering in another county, and then another. When it finally came time for his county supervisors to take a vote, he spoke at the meeting. They passed a sanctuary measure.
Ladies Don’t be shy about letting your conservative opinions be known. There is nothing more fun than irritating a liberal – Go Girls ! Nancy
In the mainstream media, women on the left are almost always portrayed as paragons of compassion and virtue. But when it comes to conservative women, it’s a different story. Why is this? Heather Higgins, chairman of Independent Women’s Forum and CEO of Independent Women’s Voice, explains the reasons behind the double standard.
For more information on Independent Women’s Forum visit IWF.org
Very informative article regarding which organizations George Soros is funding. However, at the end of the article the liberal author of the article, compares Soros’s funding to the funding that the Koch brothers spend on their conservative causes. Whoa ! Big difference – Conservatives do not go rampaging through the streets like the liberals do, interrupt congressional hearings with loud and obnoxious protests, corner senators in elevators and berate them for their votes or pound on the Supreme Court doors. The nerve of that woman to compare conservatives to the crazed and violent liberals !!! Nancy
Washington
Some 200 protesters march across the lawn of the U.S. Capitol to the foot of the south wing. Inside, the U.S. Senate is wrapping up its debate, hours before the Saturday afternoon vote to confirm Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Members of the crowd rush up the steps, unfurl professionally printed banners, stand defiantly, and pump their fists in the air.
“Whose house?” they shout.
“Our house!” they answer.
By the time of the vote, they’ve moved across the street to the Supreme Court building. After getting word of the vote, again they rush the steps. Two women climb the statues flanking the steps—“Contemplation of Justice” and “Authority of Law”—for more fist-pumps.
On the steps, Bob Bland, a co-founder of the Women’s March, silently sends a thumbs-up signal to another leader, later boasting: “We took the Supreme Court.” On Friday the Women’s March had tweeted out a photo of Sen. Susan Collins, who cast the deciding vote for Justice Kavanaugh, with “Rape Apologist” written across her image.
In a series of tweets and rally comments, President Trump described the crowd as “an angry left-wing mob” of “professional protesters who are handed expensive signs” and “paid for by [George] Soros and others.” Mr. Trump’s detractors accused him of engaging in conspiracy theories, and even of anti-Semitism against Mr. Soros, a billionaire donor to liberal causes. Yet he has a point. Many Americans genuinely oppose Mr. Trump and Justice Kavanaugh. I am a liberal feminist whose views on abortion and same-sex marriage align with the Democratic Party’s. Yet while most demonstrators are not paid for their efforts, the protests at the Capitol Saturday, and the ones that have included stalking lawmakers inside and outside their offices, are organized by groups of which Mr. Soros is an important patron.
I started following the money for the “resistance” when it was born, hours after Election Day 2016. I have organized my findings in a spreadsheet I have made public. At least 50 of the largest organizations that participated as “partners” in the Jan. 21, 2017, Women’s March had received grants from Mr. Soros’s Open Society Foundations or similar funds in the “House of Soros,” as his philanthropic empire was once called internally. The number of Soros-backed partners has grown to at least 80. At least 20 of the largest groups that led the Saturday anti-Kavanaugh protests have been Open Society grantees.
On Saturday I also studied the fine print on the signs as protesters waved them defiantly at the Capitol and the high court. They came from a familiar list of Democratic interest groups that have received millions from Mr. Soros: the American Civil Liberties Union, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America, the Center for Popular Democracy, Human Rights Campaign and on and on. MoveOn.org, a Democratic organizing and lobbying group founded with Soros money, sent its army of partisan followers regular missives that led them to a Google form to ask for train tickets and places to stay.
Please support the Internet Bill of Rights.
I don’t know if you are aware, but dozens of voices are being censored from the internet, only for asking the questions that MSM should be asking. Their channels are being terminated, their intellectual property/videos are being confiscated, their email lists and subscribers are being trolled, and they are being accused of hate crimes. You might ask how companies can get away with this. The answer is that private companies are not held accountable for upholding First Amendment and private property rights when you sign away all of those freedoms by signing up for accounts on YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc., which are all privately owned.
Please please please sign the petition to support IBOR, and ask everyone you know to do the same. We are at a critical point in history where we will either stand up for our personal liberties, or lose them all together. God bless America.
Sign Petition on Bill of Rights Link: petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/internet-bill-rights-2
EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE: President Obama declared on national television during the height of the scandal that there was “not even a smidgen of corruption” in the agency. That’s laughable. But then, when it comes to policing executive agencies, his administration was arguably the most lawless in modern history. In 2014, 47 of the 73 federal inspectors general signed a public letter accusing the administration of intimidation, stonewalling their investigations, and generally interfering in their “ability to conduct our work thoroughly, independently, and in a timely manner.”
The promise of the Trump administration, especially in contrast to Hillary
To understand the pragmatic realities of federal governance in the 21st century, one must recognize the existence of a fourth branch of government: the administrative state. We have some two million federal bureaucrats with extraconstitutional legislative powers. Not only do they write the reams of regulations that order our lives, they have the authority to enforce them capriciously. And thanks to absurd civil service protections, it is exceedingly difficult to hold them accountable for abuses of power, even when Congress demands it.
Posted by Ann Corcoran on September 14, 2017
Sure looks like it!
On the morning we are getting news that the President is selling out American workers and sacrificing the safety of US citizens by soft talk on the border wall and DACA, we see this announcement.
First, readers may remember that the Heritage Foundation published a dreadful report,here, on the Refugee program demonstrating a total disconnect from what is happening in communities where refugees are secretly dropped off, and now this….
Here (below) we have a panel of bureaucrats and policy wonks who will discuss a bunch of esoteric BS in the Washington swamp about “reforming” the program. I don’t see one serious critic on the panel and not one person who knows what is happening in communities where the refugees are placed.
This is Larry Bartlett from the US State Department who is responsible for admitting refugees to the US. He is standing in front of a map showing more than a hundred resettlement towns and cities. That map from 2015 has since disappeared from the State Department’s WRAPSNET website.
There are several very very good spokesmen for our point of view in Washington who could get over to the Heritage Foundation in a heartbeat—at FAIR, at the Center for Immigration Studies and at NumbersUSA—why isn’t one serious critic of the program on the panel?
“Reform!”
These people will suggest tinkering, or worse!
And, to top it off the program is headlined by Larry Bartlett, pro-refugee bureaucrat extraordinaire. Just two of many posts on Bartlett you should review are here and here.
WE THE PEOPLE – YOUR VOICE IN THE WHITE HOUSE
THIS URL is important. There are various petitions on the White House site…many are from left wingers…but there are ones there we should ALL think about signing. The one at the very end is the one re Hillary’s emails. There are others such as declaring Black Lives Matter for what it really is and one for Soros….to indicate what HE’s doing. I have no clue what the ramifications will be for putting your name on such a petition but the Hillary one is certainly one that needs support.
These are the promises that Trump ran and won on. Call or write to your representatives in congress if you agree that these cuts need to be made. Without those of us at the grassroots letting our voices be heard, congress won’t have the backbone to do this. Nancywww.wsj.com/articles/trump-budget-seeks-big-cuts-to-environment-arts-foreign-aid-1489636861?mod=djemalertNEWSTHE WALL STREET JOURNALTrump Budget Seeks Big Cuts to Environment, Arts, Foreign Aid
EPA, State Department are among those to see sharp spending reductions to offset military outlay in White House plan
March 16, 2017President Donald Trump called for sharp cuts to spending on foreign aid, the arts, environmental protection and public broadcasting to pay for a bigger military and a more secure border in a fiscal 2018 budget blueprint released Thursday.
The budget proposal is certain to run into stiff opposition in Congress, where lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have already signaled they are unlikely to enact Mr. Trump’s deep cuts when they pass spending bills that actually fund the government.
The budget proposes hefty cuts for the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Institutes of Health and the State Department. It also seeks to eliminate funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the National Endowment for the Arts and other independent agencies long in the crosshairs of some conservative Republicans.
The cuts, if enacted, would mean some agencies would have to lay off federal workers, though the budget doesn’t always offer exact head counts. It does specify that cuts to the EPA “would result in approximately 3,200 fewer positions at the agency.”
“You can’t drain the swamp and leave all the people in it,” said Mick Mulvaney, the president’s budget director. “I would expect there would have to be reductions of forces at various agencies.”
