Federal Judges Rewrite the 2nd Amendment

The most confusing dependent clause in the history of the nation, at least as far as personal liberty goes, is the one that begins the 2nd Amendment to the Bill of Rights. The full text of the amendment reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

gun-control-cagle-cartoonTo understand what the Founders meant it helps to understand how much the former colonists disliked a standing army. As far as the Continental Congress was concerned the Revolution could be fought and won using an army composed entirely of citizen volunteers organized into local militia companies.

George Washington, the man actually in charge of the fighting, thought this was madness. He and the Congress had a running battle throughout the war over recruiting, equipping and paying a regular army. Washington believed only a professional, disciplined body of troops armed with military weapons could defeat the British.

Militia units simply wouldn’t stand up to line infantry. Civilians in the colonies usually owned rifles, not muskets. This meant a civilian could fire accurately at longer distances than a smooth–bore musket, but his rate of fire was not as rapid as the easier–loading musket.

Rate of fire, however, was secondary to the main problem with civilian arms: The inability to attach a bayonet to the rifle. Regular infantry charged with fixed bayonets and the men with spears always overwhelmed the men with clubs.

Militia members weren’t forbidden to buy muskets with bayonet lugs on the barrel. It was simply a matter of choice. Civilians would rather shoot a deer at 100 yds. and walk up to claim dinner, as opposed to chasing Bambi down and stabbing him with a bayonet.

As the war progressed militia units were used as skirmishers to pepper British troops with long range fire and then retire behind the regulars as the lines closed. So in the end both Washington and Congress were partially correct.

Once the war concluded under the Articles of Confederation the regular army languished, except for a remnant that manned frontier forts. State militias, again composed of volunteers bringing privately own weapons, provided defense against Indian raids and other disorder.

Before the outbreak of the Civil War there was private militia cavalry and even artillery companies operating without government control.

The role of civilian militia volunteers was codified in the Bill of Rights by the 2nd Amendment and the lasting rancor against a large regular army was found in the 3rd Amendment, which prohibited quartering troops in private homes.

The word “militia” in the 2nd Amendment means the “arms” citizens have a “right” to bear are by definition weapons of war. The Constitution doesn’t give us the right to own a BB gun or participate in paintball conflicts.

The Constitution gives us the right to own and bear light infantry weapons.

That fact escapes all leftist judges. They think government grants the right, when the Constitution obviously holds the right exists independently of government, which shall not infringe upon it.

The case that cannot be made by anyone reading the plain language of the amendment and knowing anything of history is that the 2nd Amendment does not cover weapons that are either military in nature or resemble military weapons.

Yet that is exactly what the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals did when it voted 10–to–4 to uphold an unconstitutional Maryland law that bans ownership of “assault weapons and large–capacity magazines.”

Ignoring “militia,” “arms” and “shall not infringe” the court sounded more like Chief Justice Oprah Winfrey when it concluded, “Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war.”

Only the justices don’t have to extend anything, the 2nd Amendment already protects “weapons of war.” Their job was to stop an obvious infringement upon that right.

Evidently the justices equate a militia to a sort of colonial bowling league. Just as you wouldn’t want bowlers rolling a cannonball down the lane, you wouldn’t want civilians owning a “military style” rifle. The problem with that reasoning is the militia was designed and expected to function in place of a regular military and to fulfill that role civilians must, by necessity, have weapons of a “military nature.”

Enlightened judges may not like the language of the Constitution. They may think the language is outmoded and superseded by modern life. But it is a violation of their oath of office to re–write the document to their liking or ignore provisions with which they disagree.

The Founders wisely provided a mechanism to amend the Constitution. It involves Congress, the states and voting. It does not include 10 politicians in black robes.

Trump Protesters Do Violence to “Peaceful”

The inauguration will be a learning experience for President Trump in more ways than one. To begin with, he’ll see first hand just how hard it will be to re–establish the rule of law in the United States and he will learn just how deep the “resistance” to his administration extends into government.

My fear is Trump’s inauguration will either be an asymmetrical warfare defeat for security forces or a willing surrender. The homeland security apparatus appears to be preparing to prevent an attack by jihadis when the big threat to the ceremony is an attack by jerks.

trump-protestThe mainstream media who vilified and lied about candidate Trump can now hardly wait to cover Trump inauguration protests it helped generate. The Washington Post is fired up, “Planning for protesters is taking up more bandwidth ahead of the quadrennial festivities in the District than at any time in over a decade.”

The focus of security planning should be on people coming to enjoy the inauguration. These citizens should be able to travel to and from the event safely and otherwise undisturbed as they celebrate the victory they worked so hard to produce.

Unfortunately, planning priorities are exactly backwards. I have yet to read a statement by any security functionary, police chief, mayor, congressman or even K–9 dog assuring law–abiding citizens here to witness a peaceful transfer of power that the government will do its best to make sure Trump supporters enjoy the day.

The sentiment seems to be: What did you expect? We voted for Hillary.

Official pronouncements certainly fail to reassure law–abiding Trump voters who plan to attend the festivities. See for yourself what collaborating officialdom says and what a rule–of–law response to disruption should be by clicking the link below and reading the rest of my Newsmax.com Insider column:

http://www.newsmax.com/MichaelShannon/trump-inauguration-protest-illegal/2017/01/17/id/769037/

 

Shortest Letter in the Bible Solves Illegal Immigration Problem

The New York Times found a vaguely Christian church that merits approval. This is harder than it seems. While the Times sets a low bar for approving mosques — no exploding members in the last six months — standards for Christian approval are much more stringent.

Happily Philadelphia’s Arch Street United Methodist Church is a “reconciling” church, which evidently means reconciling the Bible to embrace leftist cultural fads, rather than changing culture to reconcile with the Bible.

pay-american-maidArch Street is an eager participant in the left wing conspiracy to subvert immigration law. It has joined the “Sanctuary Movement” that harbors illegal aliens on church property. Arch Street’s sanctuary program is starting small. It’s getting its feet wet — is that a slur when writing about Mexicans? — by hosting one illegal: Javier Flores who’s been sleeping on a cot in the basement for the last six weeks.

Secular journalists like nothing better than using the Bible against believers and when pastors are enthusiastic helpers, so much the better.

Rev. Robin Hynicka justifies his rebellion by citing Matthew 25: 34 – 36 and explaining “Jesus said we are to provide hospitality to the stranger.” But Flores has evidently made himself quite at home since he arrived in 1997. He’s been arrested nine times, served a felony prison sentence and was wearing an ankle bracelet when Hynicka offered asylum. Evidently the good reverend offers a no–fault, no–judgment, no–salvation ministry, because Flores’ family isn’t burdened by any marriage obligations.

Immigration? Fornication? It’s all fine with Rev. Hynicka.

Hynicka’s politically motivated reading of the Bible makes perfect sense to ignorant reporters, but it’s important Christians know how wrong he is. Hynicka is a heretic for three important reasons:

  1. The Lord does not reward a criminal class for breaking the law. Eventually judgment always comes.
  2. In the Old Testament when Jews took in strangers they had to obey to all Torah law or they had to leave.
  3. Most important, Hynicka ignores the one book in the New Testament that applies most directly to illegal immigration, because Paul’s solution doesn’t conform to trendy leftist politics.

Cultural Christians like Hynicka and the media both suffer from Mistaken Lazarus Syndrome. The only Lazarus in the Bible was a friend of Jesus that He raised from the dead. Emma Lazarus is not found in the New Testament, although she is frequently disinterred to support obstructing immigration law.

Even that isn’t relevant since “Give me your tired, your poor” was written in reference to a statue not a statute and has no bearing on case law or Commandments.

Paul’s Letter to Philemon makes Hynicka uncomfortable because Paul demonstrates Christians are required to follow the path of truth. The letter concerns Onesimus; a runaway slave who stole from his master and fled to Rome while Paul was imprisoned there.

In contrast to Hynicka’s “come and sin some more” philosophy, Paul converted Onesimus. He repented under Paul’s guidance and became a new man. Then came the hard part. Paul loved Onesimus and, like the freelance landscapers in the 7/11 parking lot, he was useful around the house.

Paul recognized that like all Christians he has personal and public obligations. He fulfilled his personal obligation to Onesimus by introducing him to Christ, changing his life and making him part of his household. Paul’s public obligation was harder. He was required to “render unto Caesar” and obey the law.

Instead of offering Onesimus sanctuary, Paul sent him back to his master, Philemon, with the letter that forms the book. Onesimus faced a penalty much worse than an ankle bracelet and a bus ride. Under Roman law both theft by a slave and running away merited the death penalty. Fortunately, Philemon was a friend and fellow Christian.

The letter acknowledges the violation of the law and the consequent requirement for restitution or recompense. Paul personally offers to pay any damages or compensation owed by Onesimus. Then he asks Philemon as a fellow Christian to greet the returning slave as a brother and to free him.

The request for freedom adheres to God’s law and the decision to grant or not grant it is in accordance with Caesar’s law.

Hynicka’s publicity–seeking solution is true to neither.

The Christian approach to illegal aliens is to personally care for immediate physical needs and then help the illegal to return to their country or put them in contact with immigration authorities. Christians who disagree with immigration law are free to petition the government and vote for politicians who share their views. They are not free to contribute to a growing disrespect for the rule of law.

It’s a course of action that won’t get a fawning profile in the New York Times, but it will put you in accord with the Bible.

White Reporter Contends Dark–Skinned People Can’t Control Themselves

Samantha Sunne had an authentically gritty New York City experience during a recent visit. She “spent four hours curled in a ball, balancing on a narrow wooden bench…trying to avoid the freezing cinderblock walls and the cold cement floor, splattered with cigarette butts and rotten food.”

This is just the kind of first–hand experience writers used to crave, but Sunne is not too happy about her brush with the NYC justice system.

Maybe it’s because they refused her request for a gluten–free cell.

reagan-crime-sentencesSamantha doesn’t contend she was innocent — the Hillary defense — her contention is the offense is guilty.

Sunne writes in the Washington Post that in the wee hours she was riding the A–train and propped her feet up on the seat in front of her. The next thing she knew it was Eric Garner all over again.

Only Sunne was arrested by a woman, didn’t resist the arrest and, except for exposure to second–hand tobacco products, she was none the worse for wear. But that’s not how she sees it: “I became one more victim of ‘nuisance laws,’ regulations that criminalize small misbehaviors that don’t hurt anyone.”

The left characterizes these ordinances as “nuisance laws” when the statutes only inconvenience lawbreakers. A better term would be “respect your neighbor” laws, but leftists are completely unwilling to make any contribution to public order if doing so has even the slightest influence on their personal preference at that particular moment.

Instead Sunne takes a law designed to keep seats in the NY subway clean and ready for tired behinds and morphs it into yet another sinister plot to keep the black man down.

She explains, “On its face, this might not seem like a big deal — everyone wants clean subways and orderly cities. But criminalizing small acts can have major consequences for nonwhite and low-income people, who are disproportionately arrested and convicted for these infractions.”

How is Samantha’s viewpoint regarding the “nonwhite” population’s adherence to the law any different from that of the Klan? The Klan thinks “people of color” can’t control their sexual urges and Sunne evidently believes minorities lack the self–control necessary to resist the urge to break the law.

It’s just in their nature.

If you ask me Sunne and her fellow traveler’s mindset is the real bigotry. These laws aren’t designed to inflict discrimination on blacks or browns; they are designed to establish a baseline for public behavior.

Besides, even in the Post not everyone is in agreement that enduring a gritty nonchalance toward behavior norms is worth it because the resulting atmosphere makes visits to the big city so much more authentic for leftist tourists.

Natalie De Vincenzi writes, “We need security cameras on all Metro cars…[cameras] could hold accountable the teenagers who threw objects at me on the train.” Now I’m sure Samantha would object and saying throwing objects, as opposed to throwing curses, is assault and not a nuisance.

But that’s the big problem with disorder. It has a tendency to escalate.

Samantha’s delicate feet on the seat are quite a bit different from say Michael Brown’s. I’m sure Samantha would be happy to remove hers when the little old white lady asked, but I’m not sure grandma would even bother to ask Brown.

Public order laws are designed to protect the elderly, the infirm, the young, the female and the wimpy, while restraining the unruly. Politely asking the impolite to behave puts a burden on people that most are too timid to assume. That’s when the government acts.

“Nuisance” laws aren’t like Obamacare. Obamacare makes you buy health insurance or the government penalizes you. “Nuisance” laws don’t require you to polish seats on the subway with anything other than your behind.

Rather than acknowledging how much better city life has been since the implementation of the “Broken Windows” theory of policing, people like Sunne delight in attempting to reverse the major gains made in public safety over the past two decades, by attributing the progress to “flawed and unfair” police tactics.

And by flawed I mean racially–biased, for as patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, racism is the first refuge for the leftist. What’s more, the critics offer no alternatives for replacing police tactics that have saved lives and rescued communities.

Instead these “journalists” are like Tom and Daisy Buchannan in The Great Gatsby, “…careless people, Tom and Daisy — they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made.”

Another Way Citizen’s Pay for Illegal Aliens

The Shannon family’s latest unexpected encounter with federal immigration policy couldn’t have come at a more inconvenient time. Here it is almost tax day and my daughter is hit with an unexpected HOLA! bill. That’s HOLA as in Hidden Outlay for Left’s Amnesty.

illegal-alien-path-to-citizenshipMy daughter is driving along in Dallas and as she proceeds through an intersection, her car is T–boned by a red–light–running illegal alien who’s here to cause the car crashes Americans don’t want to cause.

Jessica instantly finds herself wrapped in a soft cushion of government mandates and protection as every airbag on the driver’s side explodes. Once the balloons deflate, she calls 9–1–1.

Dallas is a Sanctuary City and investigating citizen Vs. illegal car crashes is no problemo. Since the INS won’t be involved this time the automovilista doesn’t choose to flee the scene. No driver’s license or other form of legal identification means the officer takes down whatever alias the illegal is using that day and issues Jose two tickets. (Que lastima! More government paperwork!) Those are tickets that will never be paid, but that’s not the officer’s concern.

No need for the tedious exchange of insurance information and arguments over penmanship because the Mexican export not only has an aversion to government documentation, he also eschews insurance company certificates. Leaving the officer free to answer the next call.

The paying begins as Jessica experiences first hand the hidden cost of undermining the rule of law. Here is a brief rundown of some of the expenses imposed on a citizen, first–year school teacher by the Democrat’s plan to change the electorate and the RINO conspiracy to import Central America’s wages.

First, Jessica’s car is totaled. If she’d won the locomotion lottery and been hit by a citizen, their insurance would have paid her deductible. But in a no papers, no policy situation she’s out the entire amount. Next she’ll be spending hours negotiating a deal on a new car. The longer that takes, the more she pays for the rental car she driving in the interim.

Once she makes the deal, it’s time to pay sales and property taxes on her new ride. Taxes Jessica assumed were years away, with a car less than three years old, until she had a personal encounter with Obama’s border policy.

Long term, the accident will be costing her every month in the form of higher insurance rates for a crash she didn’t cause.

This isn’t our family’s first head–on with illegals on wheels. A drunk Mexican illegal killed my dear friend and cycling coach, while she was on her bicycle training a client. After we moved to Virginia another acquaintance from our gym was — you guessed it — killed by a drunk–driving illegal. And a little over a year ago I was rear ended by an anchor baby with no insurance.

My car survived and my daughter did, too, so I’m counting my blessings.

Increased transportation costs aren’t the only HOLA charges. At a nearby elementary school there’s no money for a math specialist, but there are four English as a second language teachers with a fifth on the way.

Residents without children are paying higher property taxes to fund soaring school budgets as our classrooms educate and often feed Honduras’ best.

All this is invisible to Washington and ignored by ethnic enablers already in office because they simply could care less. Citizens who play by the rules are bearing the brunt of the elites’ open border policy.

John “The Apostle” Kasich tells us you can’t deport illegals because “it would break up families.” Marco Amnesty claims “law abiding” illegals will have a chance for permanent residency.

What none of the amnesty supporters tell you is Jessica’s collision buddy qualifies for amnesty under that framework. The two traffic tickets he won’t pay are driving infractions and not criminal violations. As far as Obama and the RINOs are concerned he has the same claim on citizenship as Jessica does.

I’m tired of all the hand–wringing over illegal’s families. How about some outrage over the damage this slow–motion erosion of our American culture is doing? Illegals choose to come here and they can bear the consequences. Citizens certainly have.

As far as I’m concerned if Uncle Sam put a man on the moon, he can return a Mexican to Mexico.

Maine’s Unpretentious First Lady Takes a Real Job

This summer we have an interesting contrast between first ladies at the state government level.

Ann LePage, wife of Maine Gov. Paul LePage is waiting tables, while Maureen McDonnell, wife of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, is waiting to see if she can avoid going to jail.

Maureen McDonnell explains how she lost 40 lbs. by having her portrait painted.

Maureen McDonnell explains how she lost 40 lbs. by having her portrait painted.

The other difference is how members of the political class achieve their desires.

Ann has her heart set on owning a new Toyota RAV 4 and she’s getting it the old fashioned way — by earning the money. Ann is working at McSeagull’s where according to WGME she’s hoping to average the same $28/hr. her daughter earned last summer. On an annual basis that’s $58,240 a year – far in excess of the $15/hr. “living wage” that produces only $31,200 and penalizes initiative. The amount is even close to her husband’s state salary of $70,000.

LePage is charmingly unpretentious and obviously doesn’t suffer from a Hillary–sized ego. I’ve been peering intently at all the photos accompanying the coverage and can’t find a single state trooper or other “security detail” member lurking in the background.

It’s only Ann bustling from table to table.

I’m sure this strikes many as too bourgeois for words. A governor’s wife working in a tourist trap instead of a “think tank” or corporate “community outreach” was obviously so novel it interested the Washington Post.

The next thing you know that wacky Ann will be browsing the aisles at the Dollar Store.

A smart political operator — a “two for the price of one” first lady — would’ve started the LePage Foundation to “make the world a better place.” Initial contributions could have gone to buy something more fitting for a governor’s wife, say a nice black Mercedes SUV, so Ann, as foundation president, could have a stylish way to get around town.

Instead she’s now one of the state’s 10,000 seasonal employees and hoping McSeagull’s owners don’t pull a Trump and replace her with H–2B visa worker from Carjackistan.

I’d like to think Ann is sincere in wanting to work and not engaged in a domestic drama, but it is a fact husband Paul has pushed for a higher salary. He was either feeling the economic pinch or the status pinch, because the mister proposed giving himself an $80,000 raise.

In Virginia the governor makes $175,000, but even that isn’t enough for some.

Take Maureen McDonnell. She had a wish list, too, but her tastes were more upper crust, preferring Bergdorf Goodman and Rolex to Toyota and the “Lobster Chicken Bomb.” Maureen’s sweating out a jail sentence because she decided to get her goodies the old backroom way by swapping political influence for money.

During only one term as first lady, Maureen persuaded an “old family friend” dating back to a few days before the inauguration — to give her and the McDonnell brood almost $200,000.00.

The Post has the totals:

$6,500 Rolex watch

$15,000 Bergdorf Goodman shopping spree

$10,000 wedding gift to daughter Jeanine

$15,000 catering for daughter Cailin’s wedding

$50,000 no–doc loan to Maureen

$70,000 no–doc loan to Bob

Maureen raked in this amazing total and didn’t have to replace a single insole, so take that Ann!

Of course in prison they supply the shoes, so Maureen still won’t be buying Dr. Scholl’s even if the appeal is unsuccessful.

Not all political wives and politicians have Ann Leave’s strong moral compass, so here’s some advice for those tempted to keep up with the Trumps by accepting favors from “old friends” whose arrival coincided with your election.

Your life may not be as lavish, but on the other hand you won’t be sharing a toilet with Maureen McDonnell:

  1. Don’t take a gift from any ‘old friend’ you made after you left high school unless it comes with a receipt, preferably from Walmart.
  2. Don’t buy stock in a ‘friend’s’ hot company if you didn’t know him in high school.
  3. Don’t take a gift from any ‘friend’ who owns a company the SEC, FEC, IRS, FDA or the PTA is investigating.
  4. Don’t hitch a ride on an airplane, yacht or submarine owned by a stranger you met after high school, unless you all chip in for gas.
  5. Don’t accept free vacation housing from a ‘friend’ you met after high school, unless it’s a tent.

Meanwhile let’s close on Laurie Green’s thoughts regarding Ann LePage as told to AP, “I really hate a lot of our politicians nowadays that have the wealth, the money. They have no clue what the average person out in the world is doing.”

But Ann does.

Obama Insults the Bereaved in Dallas

It takes a special kind of president to travel to Dallas, ostensibly to speak at a memorial service for five assassinated police officers, and instead deliver a Black Lives Matter convention speech. A president completely oblivious to the purpose of the occasion and what decency requires.

Obama delivered a speech the Daily Caller said was almost entirely his composition, so sympathizers can’t go to the default excuse and blame it on the staff.

Obama lights fuseThis was Obama letting Obama be Obama.

Less than half the speech can generously be attributed to honoring the officers who gave their lives.

The rest was an insulting travesty that combined Obama’s usual self–referential adulation (45 mentions of “I”) with his faculty lounge race–baiting and hectoring of a society that after almost eight years still doesn’t deserve him.

It was a slap in the face to every member of the Dallas police family when Obama made excuses for Black Lives Matter and included sympathetic references to Alton Sterling who was shot resisting arrest in Baton Rouge: “And I understand these protests — I see them…Sometimes they can be hijacked by an irresponsible few. Police can get hurt. Protesters can get hurt.

“…But even those who dislike the phrase “black lives matter,” surely, we should be able to hear the pain of Alton Sterling’s family.” Maybe later, but certainly not at the Dallas service.

There is no sentimental equivalence between the deaths of five police officers killed while protecting people expressing their dislike of cops and the death of a career criminal.

Obama justifies this bizarre show of mortuary equivalence by explaining that in addition to his criminal career, Alton was the black male answer to Paula Dean, “We should — when we hear a friend describe him by saying that, whatever he cooked, he cooked enough for everybody, that should sound familiar to us, that maybe he wasn’t so different than us. So that we can, yes, insist that his life matters.”

Yes, nothing says loving like something from the oven. If only Sterling expressed an equal love for the law.

Dallas cops gave their lives trying to keep the peace, Sterling lost his life running a low–class hustle where he sold pirated CDs and DVDs to a customer base that has as much respect for intellectual property as China.

Examined in the light of his overall criminal career, Sterling’s activities that night were almost benign, except for brandishing the gun at the person who called 9–1–1. The individual Obama eulogized on the Dallas stage was a convicted pedophile, domestic abuser, burglar and thief with previous gun convictions.

That’s enough to get you banned from the NFL, but if a cop shoots Sterling as he reaches for the illegal gun in his pocket, it rates a shout out from the president.

Hands down, I want to shoot!

The speech would’ve been a perfect time for Obama to point out it’s not only whites who fall prey to racial bigotry and that the nation as a whole would be better served if we resisted the urge to jump to conclusions before all the facts where known. And to give some credit, he did say painting all cops as criminals, serving a corrupt justice system, was wrong.

And then Obama turns around and gives Black Lives Matter, the group doing just that, absolution for the climate of cop hatred it created!

 

“We also know that centuries of racial discrimination, of slavery, and subjugation, and Jim Crow; they didn’t simply vanish with the law against segregation…So that if you’re black, you’re more likely to be pulled over or searched or arrested; more likely to get longer sentences; more likely to get the death penalty for the same crime…we cannot simply turn away and dismiss those in peaceful protest as troublemakers or paranoid.

“…To have your experience denied like that, dismissed by those in authority, dismissed perhaps even by your white friends and coworkers and fellow church members, again and again and again, it hurts. Surely we can see that, all of us.”

So maybe these Dallas cops were innocent, but keep an eye on the rest of those crackers.

During an occasion that called for truth Obama endorsed a racial shakedown movement based on the lie that Michael Brown was shot down in cold blood while on his way deliver cigars to orphans.

It was a travesty. It was offensive. And it was a disservice to the families of the slain police officers.

Black lies matter, Mr. President. If you don’t believe it, call the chief in Dallas.

Comey & FBI Blink After Email Investigation

FBI Director James Comey’s news conference on the conclusion of the Hillary Clinton investigation reminded me of another staged media event in a hostile environment almost 50 years ago. During the Vietnam War Commander Jeremiah Denton had been shot down on a bombing raid and was being held in a Hanoi prison camp.

In May 1967 Denton was marched out by his captors to face a battery of television cameras. The goal of the propaganda event was to “prove” to gullible leftist journalists that the prisoners were well–treated in Hanoi.

Hillary Rodham Nixon

Hillary Rodham Nixon

During his forced testimony Denton fooled his captors by blinking out the Morse code letters that spelled TORTURE. This was the first proof the Pentagon had that POWs were being tortured.

Denton paid the price for his courage by suffering more beatings.

In some ways the stakes at Comey’s event were as momentous as those at Denton’s: Potential duress, hostile leftist environment, psychological pressure and anxiety about his future. And although the final conclusion let Hillary off the hook, for a while it looked as if Comey was trying undermine the general tone of exoneration by using facts to contradict her lies and the administration’s pre–determined outcome for the investigation.

(For those of you who don’t believe it was pre–determined, note the timing: Comey recommends no indictment on the same day Obama travels with Hillary to Charlotte for a public endorsement.)

Comey’s stated the felony portion of the investigation was to determine if classified information was mishandled “either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way.”

He then methodically proved Clinton had been lying to the American public for months, which is not usually the script for a government whitewash.

  1. Instead of a single email server for “convenience” Hillary “used several different servers and administrators…and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail.”
  2. Although the Nixon–like Hillary has denied ever sending classified email, the FBI found 110 messages containing classified information when Hillary sent or received the email. Classification varied from Top Secret, to Secret, to Confidential.
  3. Hillary assured the public — a statement not covered by perjury law — that all non–yoga email had been returned to the State Department. Comey said “thousands” of work–related email had been withheld from investigators.
  4. During the tooth–extraction like process that characterized Hillary’s return of official business communication, she promised the public her legal team “read” every email to see if it was official or yoga. Comey found the Clinton team “did not individually read the content.”
  5. Even after finding thousands of email messages not returned to investigators, Comey explained, “It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce” and will never be produced because her lawyers erased the server in a manner that left the email impossible to recover.

Just offhand it seems to me we have obstruction and conspiracy, in addition to the other offenses. Comey then, as if waking from a trance, returned to the official line that there was no intent to violate the law, just “extreme carelessness.”

So how does one distinguish between the earlier “gross negligence” and “extreme carelessness”?

Easy, with the same set of facts if you’re just another government employee it’s “gross negligence,” but if you’re the Democrat presidential nominee, it’s “extreme carelessness.”

Anyone whose ever gotten a speeding ticket for unknowingly going faster than allowed knows ignorance of the law is no excuse, unless you’re a Clinton. Comey knows this and maybe it bothered his conscience, briefly, hence the damning details.

But he recovers fast. The conclusion he delivered exonerated Hillary in this instance and confirmed that henceforth under Democrat rule we will have a two–tier system of justice. One for Hillary and administration favorites and another for us little folks. That’s why NBC’s David Gregory can violate DC gun laws and face no consequences and Katie Couric can violate federal gun laws and not even get a call from ATF.

While David Daleiden who went undercover to videotape the damning Planned Parenthood organ selling scandal is now the one under indictment.

Even Comey recognizes that now the law “defers to the great” as he sheepishly explains, “this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences.”

Maybe Comey thought pointing out the lies and laying out the evidence was enough to absolve him of blame for this travesty. But it most certainly was not.

When faced with a career–defining test Jeremiah Denton did all he could do, I’m not sure Comey did the minimum he could do.

Apple’s Potemkin Privacy Suffers a Breach

Apple and fingerprintsThe bad news is Tim Cook’s privacy chastity belt is starting to itch in a spot where it’s embarrassing to scratch in public. The good news is if he forgets his password or loses his touch ID finger, the FBI can help him unlock his iPhone.

You may recall the Apple CEO made a big production out of refusing to comply with a court order to help the FBI extract the data from an iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino Islamic terrorists.

I wrote about initial developments in the controversy here.

In a letter to the public Cook characterized his refusal to cooperate as a principled stand for personal privacy, “Customers expect Apple and other technology companies to do everything in our power to protect their personal information, and at Apple we are deeply committed to safeguarding their data.”

So they’re breathing a sigh of relief from Brussels to Mosul. But then the FBI, of all organizations, had to rain on the privacy parade.

Learn how Cook put himself in a box that’s entirely of his own making by clicking on the magic hyperlink below.

http://www.newsmax.com/MichaelShannon/Apple-Cook-FBI/2016/04/07/id/722821/

 

What’s Next? Voting Absentee from Prison?

Banned-Tennessee-and-Florida-felon-votingMaryland Democrats are hoping that allowing 44,000 ex–cons to vote in the next statewide election will accomplish what cancer failed to do: Get rid of Republican Governor Larry Hogan.

As far as they’re concerned Hogan broke bad long before he was diagnosed with late stage 3 non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in June of 2015. Since this is an aggressive form of cancer, the Skyler White strategy looked quite viable for a time and legislators prepared to wait for what they assumed would be the inevitable.

A sentiment Hogan didn’t share. A combination of his iron will, prayer, doctors at Georgetown University Medical Center and 18 weeks of intensive chemotherapy has rendered Hogan 100 percent cancer free.

Even worse for the opposition, Hogan’s public fight against the disease and his refusal to let chemo prevent him from keeping his campaign promises has made politically bulletproof in this uniformly Democrat–registered state.

A Goucher College survey that came out just this week shows his popularity is increasing despite of Democrat efforts to paint him as the Maryland Obama: Divisive, confrontational, arrogant and dismissive of the legislative branch. The only thing they haven’t accused him of is playing golf.

Hogan’s job approval has increased from 58 percent in October to 63 percent now.

It’s no surprise Republicans love him — 86 percent approval rating — which is expected, but half of Democrats surveyed also approve of his performance in office.

So for the legislature it’s now time for Plan V: Restore the Violator Vote.

Supporters of the plan like to talk about how these individuals have “paid their debt to society,” only in this instance these 44,000 are still making payments in the form of probation or parole. This is like allowing a layaway customer to take possession of the Xbox before he’s made the last payment.

Come to think of it, some of these future Democrat votes may be on probation or parole because they took the Xbox without making any payments.

Hogan originally vetoed the bill because he harbors quaint notions about the need for consequences to follow when someone breaks the law. He felt that no one put a gun to the criminal’s head and made them take up a life of crime. On the contrary the people with the guns to their heads were the law–abiding. Forfeiting the right to vote until they paid their entire debt to society was only right and proper.

Democrats saw a block vote coming their way in November and disagreed. They were so committed to erasing this so–called injustice they overrode Hogan’s veto. Still the inclusion of some rights and the exclusion of others by the Democrats almost forces one to conclude they are cynically exploiting this overwhelmingly minority voting block for purely political reasons.

If, as the Democrats say, these individuals are ready to assume their place in society as reformed men and women, why doesn’t the legislature also restore their Second Amendment rights?

It’s strange that a political party that has embraced a philosophy that avoids finality — except in the case of capital punishment for the unborn — would also have this fixation on permanently banning former felons from owning firearms. Don’t prison rehabilitation programs work?

Is the Constitutional right to vote absolute, but the Constitutional right to bear arms conditional?

I think the real reason Democrats don’t include the 2nd Amendment in right restoration is another instance of hypocritical self–interest. Democrat members of the legislature assume, with good reason, that former felons in the voting booth can only hurt Republicans.

While a rapist with a restored right to be in possession of a roscoe might not be concerned with asking one’s political affiliation before he opens up.