Big government

For First Time, A Colorado Judge Denies Confiscation Request Under Red Flag Law

For the first time, a judge has denied a request to take away a man’s guns under Colorado’s new red flag law. A Limon woman claimed a man who she had a relationship with threatened her with a gun and filed the request. Since the law took effect, the red flag law has had many gun owners seeing red. At least four requests have been filed since the first of 2020; CBS4 is aware of them being filed in Denver, in Larimer County and this one — in Lincoln County. Many gun owners, like Jak Gruenberg, despise it. “Red flag laws just allow for harassment of legal gun owners,” he said. The law allows guns to be taken away from those who present a danger to themselves or others. The decision is up to a judge. A woman wrote she was getting “verbal and physical threats” with a handgun from the man identified in the order. She said he had a problem with alcohol and marijuana. The judge denied the request to take his guns. “I think it’s a good thing. I think any other new law you’re going to have a lot of case law to determine exactly where the lines are,” said Gruenberg, a gun owner not associated with the case. Lincoln County is one of the many counties that has indicated it would not honor the red flag law.

This so-called “red flag law” in Colorado (and in other states) is brazenly unconstitutional on its face.  And, the fact that some local judge can arbitrarily make the decision as to whether or not they’ll sign an order to remove someone’s guns without due process should have every law-abiding gun owner in Colorado (and other states that have similar laws) terrified.  Anybody can just go into a police station and say, “so and so scares me and I think he should have his guns taken away,” and then it goes to some local judge who makes the arbitrary decision.  Crazy!!  This is the kinda crap that happens when Democrats are in power.  The raise your taxes, increase the size and scope of government, and take away your freedoms.  Unreal…

Opinion/Analysis: Obama should apologize for shameful cash payment to Iran

Since the elimination of Iranian terrorist leader Qassem Soleimani, much of the world has rightfully held its collective breath in fearful anticipation of what might be to come. Iran is indeed a dangerous terrorist state that not only has a powerful standing army, air force, navy and advanced weapons systems — including ballistic missiles and a growing space program — but also controls multiple proxy terrorist organizations responsible for killing and injuring hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children. Included on that list of victims are thousands of American military personnel and contractors. These were facts that former President Obama knew when he deliberately chose a policy of appeasement and cash payoffs instead of strength and accountability as the way to deal with Iran. President Trump spelled this out in no uncertain terms on Wednesday when he addressed the nation while seeking to dial down the imminent threat Iran may pose to our nation, the Middle East and the world. Said the president in part, “Iran’s hostilities substantially increased after the foolish Iran nuclear deal was signed in 2013 and they were given $150 billion, not to mention $1.8 billion in cash. … Then, Iran went on a terror spree, funded by the money from the deal and created hell in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Iraq. The missiles fired last night at us and our allies were paid for with the funds made available by the last administration.” As we have seen and heard, some — especially Democrats, their allies in the media and Obama supporters — chose to challenge or quibble with Trump’s statement. That said, I spoke with a former senior intelligence official who said that much of the $1.8 billion cash payoff from the Obama administration was used explicitly to fund terrorism as an additional “screw you” from the leaders of Iran — including Soleimani — to the United States. The rest of the money, my source believes, ended up in the bank accounts of corrupt Iranian leaders and terrorists. The cash payment authorized by Obama is one of the most disgraceful and shameful “negotiations” in the history of our nation. It was a payment the Obama White House first denied, then ignored and then grudgingly acknowledged. We paid in cash, but not U.S. currency. Wary of using U.S. bills for a variety of reasons involving concealment, the Obama White House had the money converted to untraceable Euros, Swiss francs, and other foreign currencies. More troubling than those initial denials and deceptions was the fact that $400 million of that all-cash payment was used to pay a ransom to the government of Iran for the release of four American prisoners, in violation of standing U.S. policy. In a pathetic attempt to hide behind semantics, the Obama administration finally did acknowledge that $400 million was delayed as “leverage” until the Americans were allowed to leave Iran. While the Obama White House hid from the true definition of the word “leverage,” Iran’s state-run media was more than happy to brag that Iran had just forced the United States to pay a ransom. Former Congressman Ed Royce (R-Calif.), who chaired the House Foreign Affairs Committee at that time, condemned the deal: “Sending the world’s leading state sponsor of terror pallets of untraceable cash isn’t just terrible policy. It’s incredibly reckless, and it only puts bigger targets on the backs of Americans.” Former Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) seconded Royce’s warning: “Paying ransom to kidnappers puts Americans even more at risk. … The White House’s policy of appeasement has led Iran to illegally seize more American hostages.” Said Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), “President Obama’s disastrous nuclear deal with Iran was sweetened with an illicit ransom payment and billions of dollars for the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism.” What many Americans don’t realize is that the Obama White House took the ransom money from something called the “Judgment Fund,” which is administered by the Treasury. That little-known account is entirely paid for by American taxpayers and was set up in such a way that Obama could bypass congressional approval to pay the cash to Iran. Those who continually praise and defend Obama often describe him as “brilliant.” There is no doubt the former president is an intelligent person, certainly bright enough to realize — and admit, at least to himself — that the cash he turned over to the murderous regime leading Iran to ruin was not used for altruistic purposes. Any honest assessment would conclude that at least part of that secretive, massive payment was used to finance terrorist attacks against Americans, our allies and innocent civilians. Trump is correct on that point. For that reason, Obama should apologize for the thousands wounded and killed in terrorist attacks since Iran took possession of that tainted cash. That is his debt to pay.

Exactly!!!  Thanks to Douglas MacKinnon for that absolutely spot-on analysis.  Douglas is a political and communications consultant, was a writer in the White House for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, and former special assistant for policy and communications at the Pentagon during the last three years of the Bush administration.  Keep everything you said in mind as you read the next article about John Kerry.  Excellent!!     🙂

Taxpayer group cites AOC as ‘Porker of the Year’ for 2019

A watchdog group named Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Tuesday as its annual “Porker of the Year” for 2019, citing her sponsorship of the costly “Green New Deal” proposal. Citizens Against Government Waste President Tom Schatz said the New York Democrat received 54% in the group’s online poll, easily beating out Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who garnered 25%, and four other candidates. “The results are not surprising, as Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s $93 trillion proposal exemplifies the Congress’s failure to protect the taxpayers’ hard-earned money,” Mr. Schatz said. “For pushing a radical plan that would destroy the American economy, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez deserves the distinction of 2019 Porker of the Year.” The Green New Deal is a liberal blueprint for everything from cutting carbon emissions to guaranteeing every American a job. A left-leaning think tank estimated in 2018 that the jobs guarantee a portion of the plan alone would cost the government about $543 billion per year. President Trump and the GOP have seized on the Green New Deal as proof that Democrats have turned too far left heading into the 2020 election and are trying to enforce a costly, socialist utopia on the rest of the country that would ruin the U.S. economy. Asked last year how she would pay for the plan, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez told NPR: “I think the first thing that we need to do is kind of break the mistaken idea that taxes pay for a hundred percent of government expenditure. It’s just not how government expenditure works.” “We can recoup costs, but oftentimes you look at, for example, the GOP tax cut, which I think was an irresponsible use of government expenditure,” she said at the time. “But government projects are often financed by a combination of taxes, deficit spending and other kinds of investments.” CNN pointed out that her agenda of Medicare for all, guaranteeing jobs, eliminating student loan debt, free college tuition, paid family leave and Social Security expansion would cost $40 trillion over 10 years. She has proposed tax increases on wealthier Americans to pay for $2 trillion of that. The freshman Democrat also had won the CAGW’s “Porker of the Month” award in March when she first introduced the Green New Deal. “Her bill would be a disaster for American taxpayers for a litany of reasons that are difficult to count,” CAGW said in a statement. “Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and her allies have yet to submit a plan that comes even remotely close to paying for this tsunami of new spending.” The taxpayer group noted that a fact sheet introduced with the Green New Deal cited a goal of replacing every combustion-engine vehicle and create a rail system that would make air travel unnecessary. Her office later distanced itself from those goals. Ms. Warren, one of the top contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination, also won a monthly “porker” award last year for her proposal for “free” college and a taxpayer-funded bailout of all student loan debt.

AOC is such a stunningly stupid person…  She said, “Government projects are often financed by a combination of taxes, deficit spending and other kinds of investments.”  Huh??  Wtf is that psychobabble?  Government is paid for by we-the-taxpayers.  Period.  Kudos to CAGW for calling her out, and naming her their “Porker of the Year.”  She has more than earned that unflattering distinction.

FDA to ban all e-cig flavors except menthol and tobacco, report says

The Food and Drug Administration plans to ban the sale of fruity flavors in cartridge-based e-cigarettes, but the restriction won’t apply to tank vaping systems commonly found at vape shops, according to people familiar with the matter. The action is seen as a compromise between Trump administration officials who want to address a rise in teen vaping and those concerned about the impact on small businesses and the possible political fallout for President Trump, these people said. Polls commissioned by the vaping industry have shown an outright ban would be unpopular in key states for the 2020 election. Federal officials are expected to announce the new plan as soon as Friday. Open-tank vaping devices, which allow users to mix their own nicotine liquids, aren’t popular among children or teenagers, who tend to use vaporizers with prefilled cartridges such as those made by Juul Labs Inc. Open tanks are typically found in vape shops and allow consumers to custom-mix flavors. The new policy, intended to curb a surge in underage vaping, would apply only to pod-based vaporizers such as those made by Juul, NJOY Holdings Inc. and Reynolds American Inc. It would pull from the market all e-cigarette refill pods except those formulated to taste like tobacco or menthol, the people said, dealing a blow to an industry estimated to have $9 billion in annual revenue. The sweet and fruity flavors that would be banned under the new policy represented about 80 percent of retail-store e-cigarette sales in 2019, according to analyst estimates.

We all saw this coming for months.  To be clear, the new regulations were put in the 2020 budget by the Dem-controlled House as part of a compromise with the Administration.  For that, they agreed to fund Trump’s border wall, increase the DoD budget, create Trumps “Space Force,” and a host of other priorities for the Administration.  And, in election year, those are priorities which Trump can claim as promises kept.  For more, click on the text above..

Gun control standoff heats up in Virginia as ‘sanctuaries’ grow, big votes loom

A battle over gun control in Virginia with national implications is heating up as the legislature prepares to vote on sweeping new restrictions and localities band together to defy them in growing numbers. Virginians turned out to debate the measures and other issues at public budget hearings on Thursday, less than a week before the General Assembly’s first legislative session of 2020. Both the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) and Gun Owners of America specifically warned about Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam’s related budget proposal, which directs $250,000 for the Department of Corrections to incarcerate people as a result of new restrictions. Another measure included over $4 million and 18 “authorized positions” — part of an apparent team that Second Amendment groups warn could be used to enforce an assault weapons ban. The new General Assembly is expected to vote on two bills in particular – SB 18 and SB 16 – which would ban assault weapons, raise the minimum age of purchase to 21 and require background checks for any firearms transfer. In the run-up to the session and following state elections in November, a defiant protest movement has taken shape that could influence similar movements in other states. More than 100 cities, towns and counties have passed “sanctuary” resolutions meant to flout an assault weapons ban and other proposals. According to local outlets, activists on both sides of the debate raised concerns during a hearing in Suffolk. “This is not about gun safety, public safety, or whatever you want to call it,” one speaker said, according to WTKR. “It’s about control of people based solely on a radical, political, extremist agenda.” The meeting in Suffolk was “packed,” according to WAVY, and included at least 100 speakers — although it’s unclear how many spoke about gun control.

For those of you in Virginia, be afraid.  Thank God I don’t live there…  This is a cautionary tale for the rest of us, and the importance of elections.  When Dems are in control, the raise your taxes, and come for your guns.  Keep this in mind as we head into an election cycle.  For more, click on the text above.

Opinion/Analysis: Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s stall tactics hurt America’s economy

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if for one brief shining moment in Washington, Congress put good policy over politics — and passed a bill that would benefit American workers, investors and businesses? We haven’t had a true bipartisan victory in Washington for seemingly ages, but we are tantalizingly close to getting there. This would be the passage of the U.S. Mexico Canada Trade Agreement (USMCA). Both parties want this modernized version of NAFTA to pass. It is the legacy of Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. But this latest modernized trilateral trade deal for North America hasn’t happened yet because of an endless parade of stall tactics by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She is blockading a vote of the 435 members of the House of Representatives. The odds are very favorable that Democrats and Republicans would provide enough yays to pass it and move it on to the Senate where the trade deal would be approved by a wide margin. The whispering campaign on Capitol Hill is that Mrs. Pelosi is worried about giving Mr. Trump a “win,” so she’s inventing flimsy excuses for endlessly delaying a vote. Her strategy might have some credibility if she had credible objections to this modernized trade deal, which was carefully crafted by Donald Trump with trade negotiators from our neighbors Canada and Mexico. First, Mrs. Pelosi said she wanted more worker protections in the trade deal — but this bill actually has stronger job and wage protections for American workers (some of which I think go too far) than the old North America Free Trade Agreement. Mr. Trump insisted on those broader labor protections for the auto and other blue-collar workers in many of those Midwestern states that have seen middle class job losses. She continues to broach the idea of attaching a pension bailout bill to the trade deal. That pension bill has nothing to do with trade. It would also potentially cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars of costs to bailout mismanaged labor union pension funds. This is Mrs. Pelosi’s way of throwing a wet kiss to the union bosses as payback for their support in helping her become Speaker. An even wilder idea is a scheme by Democrats to force Mr. Trump to allow the United States back into the Paris Climate Accord — a $100 billion tax on Americans — as the ransom for passing USMCA. These are obvious poison pills and the speaker knows it. Mr. Trump would never allow the U.S. into the climate treaty and many fiscally-conscientious Republicans would withdraw their support for the USMCA if they were forced to endorse these new giant taxpayer liabilities for obese pensions. Then there is Mrs. Pelosi’s ploy to reopen the trade deal to repeal the hard-won patent protections for American pharmaceutical companies. Mrs. Pelosi is acting as if this were a giant “giveaway” to the U.S. drug companies that will raise prices for American consumers. She has it all wrong. This provision of the trade deal actually protects America patent rights for 10 years when made-in-America drugs and “biologics” are sold in foreign countries. The USMCA — expertly negotiated by Mr. Trump’s lead trade negotiator, Robert Lighthizer — actually forces Mexican and Canadian citizens to honor our patents and pay more for American drugs. This could in the end mean lower prices for these drugs here in the United States because our two neighbors would pay their fair share to cover the billions of dollars of research costs to bring to market new life-saving drugs. Mr. Trump should be applauded for getting Mexico and Canada to agree to live by the same patent protections that we require here in America. Why would Mrs. Pelosi object to a provision that effectively curtails foreign freeloading off the medical R&D investments of American firms? Why should foreigners get special discount deals on our patented drugs that are not similarly available to American patients? Mrs. Pelosi’s cynical strategy to change the USMCA would bust the trade deal wide open and kill it. Trying to renegotiate a trade deal that has been years in the making is like putting toothpaste back in the tube. Opening up one section of the law makes every section negotiable and brings us back to square one. The victims here would be American farmers, ranchers and hard-hat manufacturing workers. The economic benefits of the USMCA have been estimated by the U.S. International Trade Commission to be almost $60 billion in higher exports each year and some 175,000 new jobs. Passage of this law would put added pressure on China to pass its own trade deal with the Trump administration. Mrs. Pelosi should put America first by putting the political games aside and bringing USCMA to a vote urgently. Democrats won back the House in the 2018 elections by promising Americans that they could govern the country. Obstruction is not governing and blocking free trade deals is no way to keep the Trump economic boom going. I hate to think that may be the point of her political tactics.

No kidding!!  Thanks to economist Stephen Moore for calling out Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on her shameless, and shameful, politics that are just hurting everyday Americans. Stephen Moore is an economic consultant with Freedom Works and served as a senior economic adviser to Donald Trump. His latest co-authored book is “Trumponomics: Inside the America First Plan to Revive Our Economy.”

Durham’s investigation into possible FBI misconduct is now criminal probe, sources say

U.S. Attorney John Durham’s ongoing probe into potential FBI and Justice Department misconduct in the run-up to the 2016 election through the spring of 2017 has transitioned into a full-fledged criminal investigation, two sources familiar with the investigation told Fox News on Thursday night. One source added that DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s upcoming report on alleged FBI surveillance abuses against the Trump campaign will shed light on why Durham’s probe has become a criminal inquiry. Horowitz announced on Thursday his report would be available to the public soon, with “few” redactions. The investigation’s new status means Durham can subpoena witnesses, file charges, and impanel fact-finding grand juries. Fox News reported on Tuesday that Durham’s probe had expanded significantly based on new evidence uncovered during a recent trip to Rome with Attorney General Bill Barr. Barr reportedly told embassy officials in Italy that he “needed a conference room to meet high-level Italian security agents where he could be sure no one was listening in.” A source in the Italian Ministry of Justice told The Daily Beast earlier this month that Barr and Durham were played a taped deposition made by Joseph Mifsud, the professor who allegedly told ex-Trump aide George Papadopoulos that the Russians had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. Mifsud reportedly was explaining to investigators in the deposition why people would want to harm him, and why he needed police protection. Papadopoulos has suggested he was connected with Mifsud as part of a setup orchestrated by intelligence agencies. Sources told Fox News that Durham was “very interested” to question former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former CIA Director John Brennan, an anti-Trump critic who recently dismissed the idea. The New York Times reported Thursday that Durham’s criminal review has prompted some CIA officials to obtain criminal legal counsel in anticipation of being interviewed. Brennan and Clapper were at the helm not only when Mifsud spoke to Papadopoulos, but also when an unverified and largely discredited dossier, written by British ex-spy Christopher Steele and funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee, was used to help justify a secret surveillance warrant against former Trump adviser Carter Page in the run-up to the 2016 election. (The Times’ reporting on Thursday, which overtly framed Durham’s probe as politically tainted without evidence, did not mention the Steele dossier at all.) The FBI apparently obscured the fact that the Clinton campaign and DNC funded the dossier in its warrant application, telling the secret court only that the dossier was prepared at the behest of an unidentified presidential campaign. Additionally, in its original FISA application and subsequent renewals, the FBI told the FISA court it “did not believe” Steele was the direct source for a Yahoo News article implicating Page in Russian collusion. Instead, the FBI suggested to the secret court, the September 2016 article by Michael Isikoff was independent corroboration of the dossier. But, London court records showed that contrary to the FBI’s assessments, Steele briefed Yahoo News and other reporters in the fall of 2016 at the direction of Fusion GPS. It has further emerged that Steele had communications with a State Department contact — which were relayed to the FBI — in which Steele claimed the Russians were running a “technical/human operation run out of Moscow targeting the election” and that “payments to those recruited are made out of the Russian Consulate in Miami.” There is no Russian consulate in Miami, a fact the State Department official, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kathleen Kavalec, emphasized in her notes. And, Steele had suggested his client was “keen” to see his information come to light prior to Election Day. Kavalec forwarded her notes to the FBI and other government officials several days before the FISA warrant was issued for Page. Additionally, Special Counsel Robert Mueller was unable to substantiate other key claims in the dossier, including that the Trump campaign employed hackers in the United States, that there was a compromising recording of the president in a hotel room, and that ex-Trump attorney Michael Cohen flew to Prague to build a conspiracy with hackers. Cohen has denied ever heading to Prague, and no public evidence has contradicted that claim.

Uh oh!!  Boy are the Dems and their willing accomplices in the dominantly liberal mainstream media losing their minds.  They can’t stand that the shoe is now on the other foot.  Rachel Maddow nearly had a meltdown last night on MSNBC.  The whole Russia so-called “collusion” hoax is unraveling, and those responsible for creating it in an attempt to undue the results of the 2016 election are the ones now being investigated.  Some of them will probably end up going to jail.  Guess we’ll see..  This story is developing..  Sit back and pop some popcorn..  This is gonna be fun to watch!      🙂