Question - Are Deomcrats Socialists or Worst? : Democrats Fail the Test

The 'Bern' is real for these people but it's not a new phenomenon of citizens want to relieve themselves of the responsibility of taking care of themselves. This truly the very basis for the democrat party which is now a 'collective' as many of it's base voters are dependent, complicit and obedient to the demands for membership.

This demand for an all powerful centralized government has destroyed complete societies in America and around the world. When individuals that are living the good life of freedom to do most anything they want, say anything they want, live where ever they want, belong to any organization they want and with out fear of imprisonment for those beliefs, and yet here they are saying they don't like the way they are living. They want to be told what to do and when to do it.

The ignorance of these people is complete. They are progressive socialist liberal democrats whether they know it or not. And only by the grace of God alone our country will survive them.

The best saying that explains why these people are so wrong is they have never had their freedom taken away from;  ''Freedom means having nothing else to lose''.

I Asked Bernie Sanders Supporters If They Identified as Socialists. Here’s What They Said.
Katrina Trinko / @KatrinaTrinko / July 26, 2016

PHILADELPHIA—Turns out, Sen. Bernie Sanders supporters refer to communism more than a Fox News guest or conservative confab speaker. Or at least they do when you ask them if they identify as socialists.

On Monday night and Tuesday, I chatted with around 10 Sanders supporters, both at the Wells Fargo Center, where all the prime-time speeches during the Democratic National Convention are taking place, and at a rally of Sanders supporters adjoining City Hall, where statements on signs included “End Capitalism Before It Ends Us (And the Planet),” “Peace, Love, Bernie,” and “Human Needs Over Corporate Greed.”

Curious to learn more about Bernie’s supporters, I asked them what policy priorities they’d like to see the next president and Congress focus on, whether they thought their movement would have a long-term impact, and whether they identified as socialists.

Socialists or Not?
At the Wells Fargo Center, Laura Simon told me she doesn’t consider herself a socialist, although she believes in “socialist policies.” “There’s a lot of policies like Social Security, education, [that] have their roots in a socialist philosophy, but to call somebody a socialist because they believe in those things I think is ‘Red-baiting’ and I think is … pointing fingers as if we’re communists,” Simon, who lives in Hartford, Vermont, said. She added:

I think it’s real important not to go there, because some of the best policies in our country and our beliefs come out of the socialist beliefs, that we have to take care of each other.

Like Simon, Zach Pate of Greenville, North Carolina, was unhappy about the view of socialism in the U.S.  “Socialism is tied to communism … the way it’s spun in the media, which is complete nonsense,” Pate said. Touting the democratic socialism of Scandinavian countries,  Pate noted he didn’t want the government  to “take over the lives of people.”

Pate and Chris Mallin both identified themselves as democratic socialists, as does Sanders. When I asked Mallin, who lives outside Cleveland, what that distinction meant, he said: “It means I have worked within the system for a very long time, and I intend to continue to work within the system.”
“My goal is to see the Democratic Party brought back to the ideals of Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson,” Mallin added.

Alice Wendt, who is from Atlanta, dismissed the idea that what she sees as socialism was connected to communism. “Communism is about taking people’s businesses away,” she said, “and … [socialism] isn’t even closely related.”  Wendt added:

We’re talking about government services, we’re talking about roads and things that [the] public uses, schools, education, and at one time, the wealthy paid a portion, and they need to do their share. They also use the roads and all the other government facilities.

Michaela Bennett said she didn’t know if she is a socialist, noting, “The labels are so difficult that, by saying that, it groups you automatically into something or something not.” “The idea of the community working together and supporting each other, that idea I do support,” Bennett, who lives in Bend, Oregon, remarked. “So if that’s socialism, I guess so.” Bennett, who was a history major, noted that in countries such as Russia and China it hadn’t worked “when they’re tried to implement communist or socialist policies.”

Greg Gregg, a Sanders supporter who said he was a democratic socialist, also offered tentative support to capitalism, saying his type of socialism didn’t mean the “traditional” view of socialism as “taking all the private industry and … having the government run it.” “We believe in capitalism,” he said, but “we need capitalism regulated so it doesn’t overpower the voice of the people.”

Policy Priorities
One policy that Sanders backers kept bringing up was the trade agreement known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). “Getting rid of the TPP,” Gregg, of Salem, Oregon, replied when I asked what his policy focus was going forward. “We don’t want that thing at all because it’s corporate written and corporate friendly and it takes power from the people,” Gregg said. “And it’ll ship our jobs overseas.” Bennett also expressed concern about the economy, saying: “Everybody I know is poor, and they’re working way too hard and nobody’s got any money and that’s not right.”
“We got to do something,” she said. When I asked what, she talked about the minimum wage.
“The $15 minimum wage Bernie says is a good start, and so that would be a good start.”

Other policies mentioned included fracking bans, free college, and more government-provided health care. “Obamacare, I still support, I think it’s great, but it just doesn’t go far enough,” Sarah Henderson of Atlanta said, adding:

We all knew that when it was passed and signed into law. Now … we need to go further and allow everyone to get on a Medicaid-type plan so that no one has to go bankrupt or die because they can’t get health care.

Still Feeling the Bern
The Bernie backers who spoke to me saw their movement as lasting. Henderson suggested that the two-party system could be affected by the rise of third parties. Simon remarked that some of Sanders’ ideas had made it into the Democrat Party platform.

“I think we’re at a real beginning,” she said, “and I’m excited.” 

Neighborhoods Headed Down Hill : Beyond the Pale (Humor)

I knew things were getting bad in the this country but I am really worried now.

Climate Change or ISIS Worst? : Democrats Tell All

Little wonder the mind of sane individuals begin to wither and wane when it comes to finding out what the average citizen democrat believes to be reality. Trying to deal with a person that has no grip at all on reality, much less common sense or logic, brings near debilitating frustration and stress when trying to debate with a person that is by any standard known to mankind, is insane.

Insanity by any other name is this fiction of  'man made climate change'. How does this happen when the amount of information that is available for all to see that climate investigators have lied over and over again to make their collective points makes no difference to the climate change church goers. And that the predictions that were made of total doom decades ago have not come to pass is of no concern.

How else can one define 'man made climate change' as just being a willing accomplice to delusional detachment escape from reality and mental debasement from of basic human traits of civilized society.

ISIS or Climate Change: Which Worries Democrats More?
Kelsey Harkness / @kelseyjharkness / July 28, 2016    

PHILADELPHIA—As delegates and other attendees came and went outside the Democratic National Convention, The Daily Signal asked some of them what issue they are more concerned about this election season—climate change or the threat of terrorism. Here’s what they had to say.

https://youtu.be/QBypd-FxnV8
 

The Lion Needs A Tamer : Old Golfer & A Brunette Apply for The Job(Humor)

Okay, time to take a break and laugh a little - it's a little racy but, come on, it's okay to let down just a little as it's Saturday and it's Miller time.

An ad ran in the paper; “Lion Tamer Wanted! But only two people showed up!
One, was a retired golfer in his mid-fifties.  And the other was a drop-dead, gorgeous brunette

in her mid-twenties….with just a killer body!

The circus owner tells them, "I'm not going to sugar coat it, this is one ferocious lion.  He ate

my last two tamers so you two had better be really good or you too will be history!  Here’s

your equipment: a chair, a whip and a gun.  Who wants to the tryout first?"

The gorgeous brunette says, "I'll go first!"  She slowly walks past the chair, the whip and the

gun and steps right into the cage.  

 

The as the Lion gets close it snarls and pants and then immediately charges at her.  But when

it gets close, the gorgeous Brunette, throws open her coat revealing a beautiful and perfectly formed naked body.

 

The lion stopped dead in his tracks!  Sheepishly, he then crawled up to her and started licking her feet and ankles.  He continued to lick and kiss every inch of her body for several minutes and then just dropped down and rested his head at her feet. 

 

The circus owner's jaw is on the floor!  He says,"That's amazing!  I've never seen anything like that

in my whole life!"  He slowly turned to the retired golfer, shook his head and asked him, "Can you top that?"

The old golfer thinks about it for a minute and replied, "Possibly, but you've got to get that damn Lion out of there first!"

Mr Ogbjma On Meet The Press 9/7/2008 : ''Bombs & Flags Scare Me''

Interesting note maybe of why Mr Ogbjma and his ideology of 'one nation and one god' approach to making the nuclear treaty with Iran so important to his legacy. Mr Ogbjma religious jihad for transformation becomes much clearer given his approach to pride in America's accomplishments and founding.

Are these statements true or ramblings of someone that believes they should be, Snoops doesn't have anything on this Meet The Press item, but then Snoops can be shown it usually has their thumb on the scales of bias much of the time when it comes to progressive democrat short falls.

 (You decide)
The following is a narrative taken from a 2008 Sunday morning televised "Meet The Press".  From Sunday's 07 Sept. 2008 11:48:04 EST, Televised "Meet the Press" THE THEN Senator Obama was asked about his stance on the American Flag.

 

General Bill Gann' USAF (ret.) asked Obama to explain WHY he doesn't follow protocol when the National Anthem is played.  The General stated to Obama that according to the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171... During rendition of the national anthem, when the flag is displayed, all present (except those in uniform) are expected to stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. Or, at the very least, "Stand and Face It".

 

Senator Obama replied :

 

"As I've said about the flag pin, I don't want to be perceived as taking sides." "There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression..." "The anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all that sort of thing."

 

Obama continued:

 

"The National Anthem should be 'swapped' for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song 'I'd Like To Teach the World To Sing'. If that were our anthem, then, I might salute it. In my opinion, we should consider reinventing our National Anthem as well as 'redesign' our Flag to better offer our enemies hope and love. It's my intention, if elected, to disarm America to the level of acceptance to our Middle East Brethren. If we, as a Nation of warring people, conduct ourselves like the nations of Islam, where peace prevails - - - perhaps a state or period of mutual accord could exist between our governments ......"

When I Become President, I will seek a pact of agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity, and a freedom from disquieting oppressive thoughts.We as a Nation, have placed upon the nations of Islam, an unfair injustice which is WHY my wife disrespects the Flag and she and I have attended several flag burning ceremonies in the past".

"Of course now, I have found myself about to become The President of the United States and I have put my hatred aside . I will use my power to bring CHANGE to this Nation, and offer the people a new path. My wife and I look forward to becoming our Country's First black  Family.Indeed, CHANGE is about to overwhelm the United States of America."

Negotiating With Ogbjma Like Playing Chess With A Pigeon : Vladimir Putin

"Negotiating with Obama is like playing chess with a pigeon. The pigeon knocks over all the pieces, shits on the board and then struts around like it won the game."

~Vladimir Putin~

OgbjmaCare Debate On Jobs or HealthCare : Voters Won!

The smartest people in the room at the White House debated OgbjmaCare as to, will it hurt the economy or help save jobs in a down market economy. Saving jobs won out as they knew who votes democrat and who doesn't.

The progressive socialist liberal democrats believe no sacrifice too large for the citizen taxpayers to bear when it comes to keeping progressives in power.

Obamacare’s Perverse Job Creation Program
By John R. Graham Filed under Health Care Costs on July 26, 2016

The latest jobs report gave the stock market a boost and injected some optimism into public sentiment about our economic prospects. Unfortunately there’s a problem with the current employment situation that few understand: Obamacare has likely led to too many jobs in health care, drawing labor from more productive functions.

Dan Diamond of Politico reports jobs in health care have grown 23 percent since 2005, while jobs overall have grown only 6 percent. Much of this was driven by the collapse of non-health jobs in 2008-2010, while health jobs remained undisturbed.

As the economy recovered, Obamacare kept layering jobs onto health care that did not actually improve health care:

“We knew our economy spends more than it should on health care,” says Bob Kocher, a venture capitalist who served as a special assistant to the president in 2009 and 2010 and helped shape the Affordable Care Act. “And we had good battles inside the White House” over whether to preserve health jobs — which were one of the biggest drivers of those costs, but kept Americans employed at a bleak economic time. The resulting law — born at the very moment the economy was bottoming out — ultimately came down on the side of saving jobs. Many of those jobs are effectively waste. “For every doctor, there are now 16 FTEs that are non-doctors,” Kocher said. “Nine of them are administrators — and it’s jumped from six” in the past few years. (Dan Diamond, “Obamacare, the secret jobs program,” Politico, July 13, 2016.)

The article emphasizes cutting health costs will be difficult if more and more people are employed in health care. I would challenge that. If those jobs are in billing and administration, with relatively low incomes but good job security, they can be expanded while cutting health spending by imposing government policies that harm innovation. Price controls on prescription drugs or regulation impeding the adoption of labor-saving information technology (e.g. remote monitoring of patients at home) would be examples of such policies.

Let’s put it this way: If the federal government had controlled farming two hundred years ago the way it controls health care today, it would have sought to preserve all farming jobs. Today, 72 percent of the population might still be farming (instead of two percent). Just think of all the markets that would never have arisen.

The King Goes Fishing for Donkeys : Hillary Is Soaking Wet

I just knew that there had to be a reason why our government is so dysfunctional and corrupt. But it's not because they ruling class is hiring donkeys, it because the ruling elites have the ability to hire people that act like humans without any sense of moral propriety other then to believe they are the smartest people in the room and therefore suited to take from others.

Never confuse the true nature of a donkey that displays obstinate behavior with that of a unscrupulous, unethical and immoral human like Mr Ogbjma or Hillary Clinton. 

Hillary falsely believes she is one of the smartest people in the room, yet she is a serial criminal and proud of it as she has stolen $millions of dollars from people and governments from around the planet and gotten away with it.

In the United States it's call 'Pay for Play' were individuals and corporations pay her in the form of giving a twenty minute speech that will guarantee them to have access to government rulings and the United States treasury. In the 8 years she has been in and out of office, she has acuminated more then twenty $million dollars for her self and more then two hundred $million for the Clinton Crime Family Foundation.

No, Hillary isn't a donkey as she isn't that smart, she's just a horses ass that has dedicated her self to become as rich as possible by taking from others. Actually earning a honest living was never part of her plan after the age of 12, when she became a progressive socialist liberal democrat a the knee of the democrat's most deeply held teachings of the prophet Saul Alinsky.  


The King and Queen go fishingOnce upon a time there was a king who wanted to go fishing. He called the royal weather forecaster and inquired as to the weather forecast for the next few hours. The weatherman assured him that there was no chance of rain in the coming days. So the king went fishing with his wife, the queen.
 On the way he met a farmer on his donkey. Upon seeing the king the farmer said, "Your Majesty, you should return to the palace at once because in just a short time I expect a huge amount of rain to fall in this area".
 The king was polite and considerate, he replied: "I hold the palace meteorologist in high regard. He is an extensively educated and experienced professional.  Besides, I pay him very high wages. He gave me a very different forecast. I trust him and I will continue on my way."  So he continued on his way.
 However, a short time later a torrential rain fell from the sky.  The King and Queen were totally soaked and their entourage chuckled upon seeing them in such a shameful condition.
 Furious, the king returned to the palace and gave the order to fire the professional. Then he summoned the farmer and offered him the prestigious and high paying role of royal forecaster.
 The farmer said, "Your Majesty, I do not know anything about forecasting.  I obtain my information from my donkey. If I see my donkey's ears drooping, it means with certainty that it will rain."
 So the king hired the donkey.

And thus began the practice of hiring dumb asses and criminals to work in the government and occupy its highest and most influential positions.
 
And the practice is unbroken to this date...

 

 

 

 

Debbie ''Babbler Mouth'' Schuliz : A Picture Explains

One has to wonder how this woman was able to remain as the head of the democrat national committee for years and no one cared enough to dump her as a disgrace.

But in reality, this is truly the face of the democrat party, better known as a collective of willing compliant soldiers.

As more of her emails come to light, Debbie's emails attacking Bernie are a written picture of this face.

Vote democrat.

Young AND Old Democrats On American History : Demand More

It really is astounding and incomprehensible the extent of the ignorance of many young and older  people for that matter, that have no clue who they are or what a privilege it is to be born in America,  that are benefiting from what this country has accomplished over the centuries relative to nearly all other countries around the world.

Still the most direct and simplest statement to make that explains irrational behavior on this subject is ''When ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise''. Also if you aren't happen in this country, go some place else to find happiness. I'm sure North Korea will welcome you with open arms.

Know to that mentally imparted people have always been a prat of our society, demanding others do their particular bidding so they don't have to take responsibility for anything. In essence, the very philosophy and ideology of the progressives socialist liberal democrat party, that is, a Marxist collective.

The History of the United States, as Told by Young Democrats
Katrina Trinko / @KatrinaTrinko / July 28, 2016

PHILADELPHIA—Young Democrats appear to be part of the coalition championing that dictum from William Faulkner: “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.”

I expected the youth caucus meeting at the Democratic National Convention, which I attended Wednesday, to focus almost entirely on current liberal concerns such as student loans, jobs, LGBT issues, and climate change. (Given the near absolute lack of mentions of terrorism on the convention’s main stage, I wasn’t so naïve that I expected any talk about the Islamic State terrorists or national security.) But this was no MSNBC event, and far from leaning forward, two of the three participants on a panel went on extended diatribes about the United States’ history to a room with enough empty chairs to satisfy an army of Clint Eastwoods.

Sitting about half a mile from Independence Hall, where the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were signed, I got a whirlwind course in Liberal History 101.

“We understand that we have never had a fully participatory democracy,” said Catalina Velasquez. “We understand that democracy, the way it’s defined in the United States, has been about contracting, disenfranchising. The more we disenfranchise, the better. And we are tired of it.”

Velasquez is the director of Young People For, a group that declares on its website that it is “taking a stand for progressive values.” Earlier in the event, Velasquez got enthusiastic applause after boasts of being “undocumented and unafraid” and “transgender and unashamed.” Nor was the earlier statement the sum of Velasquez’s criticisms about the United States.

“We are really looking introspectively about how this country came about,” Velasquez said. “This country’s built off the backs of native, indigenous people, the genocide of such. This country’s built off the backs of black people … this country is built on the backs of immigrant labor.”
Velasquez added:

And we are tired, and we are tired because history continues to repeat itself over and over again. We are not seeing the change and we are being told to wait. And we don’t want to wait. We’re ready and we’re coming.

Velasquez then proceeded to tick off how long it had taken different groups to be able to vote in the United States. “And some of us who are undocumented, let’s not forget, are still fighting for suffrage rights.”
Curiously—or perhaps not curiously, given that Eleanor Roosevelt is still enough in the good graces of the left to be given an enthusiastic shoutout by Meryl Streep on the convention’s main stage—there was no mention of the Japanese being thrown into internment camps by Franklin Roosevelt.

At any rate, I’m under no illusion that the history of the United States is free from injustice, immorality, and bad decisions. But what was striking about the account Velasquez gave was, by my memory, the complete absence of any mention of the strikingly great parts of our country’s history. (And of course, the view that somebody who came to the United States illegally should not only be entitled to live here, but also to vote.) It was unmentioned how the U.S. championed freedom, how our Founding Fathers created a government system that sought both to avoid mob rule and to push citizens to truly govern themselves, to have a government of, by, and for the people, and to have a founding document that recognized the equality of men.  

There was no discussion of how the United States had promoted freedom abroad, and had helped other nations with both financial resources and our soldiers’ lives.  There was no consideration of how many immigrants had fled lands where opportunity was limited and found the United States to be a place where they and their children and their children’s children could truly live the American dream.

While Velasquez focused on the more distant past, another panelist offered a narrative (equally depressing) about the past few decades. Nelini Stamp, who describes herself as an “organizer,” “agitator,” and “believer in community centered liberation” in her Twitter bio, detailed her views on past presidents:

Our parents saw [Ronald] Reagan, saw what happened, and then when … [Bill] Clinton gets elected, and everybody’s like ‘Oh, we’re here, this is amazing.’ And then we had  [George W.] Bush. Eight years of Bush. And we went to war. We started to prioritize Washington [over] … Main Street. In 2008, we bailed out the banks instead of breaking them apart and they stole 60 percent of the wealth of African-American communities.

But don’t think Stamp’s dislike of the banks bailout means she has any empathy for or interest in exploring the views of the tea party:

A lot of folks thought … Obama gets elected, we kind of packed up. We were like ‘Oh, black president, yes, like I’m so happy.’ And then the tea party came along. And a lot of people thought we were this post-racial society and the tea party came along, and … white supremacy starts to become on the rise.

“If we don’t have a black liberation, black movement in this country … we won’t get anything accomplished,” Stamp added. Nor was it just young Democrats who championed a narrative obsessed with America’s imperfections. Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., who is 47, appeared at the event. Booker quoted “the late, great Langston Hughes,” a poet who flirted with communism at one point, to discuss America. Booker focused on these lines from Hughes’ 1935 poem “Let America Be America Again”:

O, let America be America again—
The land that never has been yet—
And yet must be—the land where every man is free.
The land that’s mine—the poor man’s, Indian’s, Negro’s, ME—
Who made America,
Whose sweat and blood, whose faith and pain,
Whose hand at the foundry, whose plow in the rain,
Must bring back our might dream again. …

O, yes,
I say it plain
America never was America to me,
And yet I swear this oath—
America will be!

“Let us swear that oath,” Booker concluded. “Let us stay strong in faith.” Stamp also grounded her call to young adults in her historical perspective. “We are the warriors and … the visionaries of the Great Society that people talked about in the past, of that New Deal that went unpromised for communities of color,” she said. “So I think that the reason we’re going through this is because it’s just history leading up to this moment where we need to take it.”

Knife Rights : The Bebate on What Is Legal To Carry

Interesting stuff when one considers the number of laws in the states on the type and size of knives that can be carried on your person. Also this is something that used to be debated in the past decade  but has fallen through the cracks given the push for gun control.

From the beginning though the debate was driven by the fear of someone possessing a 'switch blade' as being a weapon rather then just a knife that opened with the push of a button that many of us carried and used without incident. But that scared the elites, and if the elites are frightened by a situation, they believe there has to be a law or regulation passed that will potentially provide a shield from the lesser classes that posses such instruments of destruction.

As with the fear of guns by the elites that have no connection what so ever to the general public, the huddled masses, they believe that it's important to disarm these average law abiding citizens in hopes that it will stop 'the good boy from  going bad'. To the progressive liberal, it's just feels like the right thing to do.

But don't be fooled into believing these stalwarts of population control have any intention of becoming rational about their own personal protection and their maniacal belief they know what's best for you. Still that many progressives are on board with knife law changes is astounding and perplexing.

Knife Rights: The Unseen Side of the Second Amendment
Faith Vander Voort / July 25, 2016    

While congressional Democrats and Republicans go head-to-head over gun control, proponents of a smaller, often overlooked facet of the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms pursue a battle of their own—the right to carry a knife.

Knife Rights, an Arizona-based advocacy group aimed at ridding states of existing bans on specific types of knives, is leading the fight against restrictive knife laws across the U.S. “Protecting knife rights is the second front in the defense of the Second Amendment,” Todd Rathner, director of legislative affairs at Knife Rights, told The Daily Signal. The group also seeks passage of “knife law preemption,” which essentially removes local and county restrictions that conflict with state laws on using and carrying knives.

Doug Ritter, founder and chairman of Knife Rights, noted an “interesting contrast between our fight versus the gun rights fight because we generally receive a significant amount of bipartisan support for our bills.” “We have had a number of NRA F-rated members supporting our bills,” Ritter said, referring to lawmakers in Congress and state legislatures with low scores on gun rights from the National Rifle Association. That support, he said, made it possible for the group to successfully pass 21 bills in 15 states, all in the past seven years.

The Knife Rights leaders say they’re finding more and more Democrats advocating the group’s mission, a stark contrast between knife rights and gun rights. “There’s a large group of traditional Democrats saying people shouldn’t get arrested for using a pocketknife as an everyday tool,” Rathner said. “To put it simply, we’ve got to stop arresting people for using a tool.”

After Knife Rights successfully lobbied to pass knife law preemption in Arizona, Utah, and New Hampshire, as well as legalize switchblades in New Hampshire, the group decided to take on Texas.
Rathner said Texas was a daunting legislative body to his small team, but before they could visit Second Amendment sympathizers in the Texas House, state Rep. Harold Dutton Jr., D-Houston, proposed a bill of his own.

In February 2013, Dutton filed H.B. 1862, which, when passed, repealed the statewide ban on switchblade pocket knives. When Rathner asked Dutton what motivated him to make pro-knife strides, the representative emphasized the need to reduce the amount of conflicts between his constituents and law enforcement officers. Rathner recalls Dutton questioning why someone has the right to walk into a store and purchase an AR-15 rifle legally, but is subject to arrest if he or she does the same with a switchblade.

New York state legislators also are fighting, and winning, the battle to rewrite knife laws by redefining the term “gravity knife” to protect common pocket knives, including knives with what is called bias toward closure. According to Knife Rights, these knives have a safety mechanism that “prevents the blade from opening in your pocket” and account for about 80 percent of common pocket knives in the U.S.

“Assembly member Dan Quart, a Democrat, sponsored our bill to define knives that have a bias toward closure to say that those knives are not gravity knives, and that essentially, you couldn’t be arrested for having a knife with a bias toward closure,” Rathner said. A gravity knife, as defined by the New York bill, houses the blade within the handle and releases the blade with “centrifugal force,” or the flick of a wrist. Knives with a bias toward closure are not classified as gravity knives because they require “exertion applied to the blade by hand, wrist, or arm” to open the knife.
Ritter told The Daily Signal:

Essentially, the issue is that gravity knives, as everyone understands them, are a specific kind of knife, but the New York City Police Department and District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. are trying to stretch that definition to cover the common folding knives that people carry in their pockets every day. In an attempt to remedy that situation, the bill and our lawsuit would clarify that these common folding knives are not the gravity knives that [the] legislature was trying to restrict back in the 1950s.

New York banned gravity knives because they are considered a weapon—a foot-long knife that could be wielded with a flick of the wrist. Gravity knives, in the original sense, are rarely manufactured today.

Because of an outdated law, electricians, carpenters, and construction workers have been arrested for carrying a workplace tool on their person. According to the Village Voice in 2014, “there have been as many as 60,000 gravity-knife prosecutions over the past decade, and … the rate has more than doubled in that time. If those estimates are correct, it’s enough to place gravity-knife offenses among the top 10 most prosecuted crimes in New York City.” “Nowhere else do we see this organized persecution of pocket-knife owners. That’s been an ongoing, five-year effort to stop it,” Ritter said.

After two years of passing in the Democrat-controlled state assembly and failing in the Republican-controlled Senate, the bill to redefine the gravity knife and legalize the common pocket knife passed both assembly and Senate. Gov. Andrew Cuomo has until the end of the year to either veto or sign the bill. “It really is fascinating how Democrats are waking up to this issue and realizing that it is a civil rights issue,” Rathner said.
 

5 Califronia Democrats Set New Record : Asylum Escapees

I wonder if the progressive liberal democrats have any idea what a real person is suppose to look like and what they say should make sense, not crazy stuff that sounds like babble from an  mental asylum.

 

But hey they are democrats and the voters, especially in California where the entire state is from a different dimension where reality is no where to be found, only fantasy.

 

(Author unknown)

Quote of the Day from the Los Angeles Times:

"Frankly, I don't know what it is about California, but we seem to have a strange urge to elect really obnoxious women to high office. I'm not bragging, you understand, but no other state, including Maine, even comes close.

 

When it comes to sending left-wing dingbats to Washington, we're Number One. There's no getting around the fact that the last time anyone saw the likes of Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Maxine Waters, and Nancy Pelosi, they were stirring a cauldron when the curtain went up on ' Macbeth '.

 

The four of them are like jackasses who happen to possess the gift of blab. You don't know if you should condemn them for their stupidity or simply marvel at their ability to form words."

Columnist Burt Prelutsky,

Los Angeles Times

Ogbjma'sTransgender Bathrooms : Parents Fight Tyranny in Texas!

Think about this for a minute, when one person decided they believe they are female, even when they are biologically male, the entire civilized society believes they must change to accommodate the one individual.

Now, why is that if one person decides that they don't like that change, they are ignored? Why is that??? Is it that only a few have rights under the Constitution, especially those few that are in power that believe they can take away the rights of the majority?

How can one person in Washington dictate policy that changes civilized society that brings total chaos and danger to so many among us? And why do so many among us that have the responsibility to serve nd protect our communities, agreed to such catastrophic, disastrous, illegal and dangerous proclamations?

Good grief - Does anyone need a better reason to NOT vote for more of the same this November???

Parents Beat Back Obama’s Transgender Bathroom Mandate in Texas Schools
Leah Jessen / @_LeahKay_ / July 24, 2016    

Administrators of a Texas school district changed guidelines for transgender students to involve parents and work with families on a case-by-case basis, after an uproar among parents.

The Fort Worth Independent School District announced the two new pages of guidelines dated July 19 after parents and others had a chance to speak at school board meetings, six public forums, and five meetings of a safety advisory panel, among others. “The new guidelines place a heavy emphasis on involving parents and trusts students, teachers, and parents to work together to make the right decisions,” Superintendent Kent Scribner said in a prepared statement.  “We are grateful Superintendent Scribner reversed and repealed his illegal transgender directive,” a group of students, parents, and taxpayers called Stand for Fort Worth, said of the change.

The school district, comprised of 143 schools and 87,000 students, said it received comment from 235 individuals, including 119 separate emails. “The new guidelines reflect what we’ve heard from students and teachers, parents, and pastors,” Scribner said. “Our focus from the beginning has been the safety of all children and that, overwhelmingly, was the concern we heard from our parents and others.”

 Texas School District Adopts Transgender Guidelines Without Parental Approval
The previous eight pages of guidelines, approved by Scribner in April, allowed students to use the male or female restroom of their choice and directed school personnel to address a student by the name or gender pronoun he or she prefers, even without permission from a parent or guardian.

“It’s not surprising to see concerned parents in Fort Worth … standing up to school bureaucrats to ensure the safety and privacy interests of their children.” —Roger Severino @Heritage

The Board of Education Trustees oversees the management and policymaking of the Fort Worth school district.  Scribner prepared the original guidelines, “completely done in secret,” and without “all the board members being aware of it, much less having parents having input on the process,” Julia Keyes, a Fort Worth resident and mother of five children, told The Daily Signal.  “It kind of came as a shock,”  Keyes said.

Keyes, a member of Stand for Fort Worth, said parents and others were “outraged” and sent over 2,000 emails to school board members  to hold the superintendent accountable.  “It was really the community that rose up,” Keyes said.

In May, the Obama administration issued a transgender student directive to schools around the nation, threatening to withhold federal funding if schools do not open up restrooms and shower facilities based on a student’s chosen gender identity.  Roger Severino, director of the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal:

Texas and 23 other states have already sued the administration over its lawless edict on school showers, bathrooms, and dorms. So it’s not surprising to see concerned parents in Fort Worth and around the country standing up to school bureaucrats to ensure the safety and privacy interests of their children.

“We feel good about the guidelines as they stand,” Keyes said. “However, trust has been broken with the superintendent.”  In an email to The Daily Signal, Matthew Kacsmaryk, deputy general counsel at First Liberty Institute, said Scribner’s original guidelines overrode rights guaranteed by the First and 14th Amendments to the Constitution:

Like its federal counterpart, [Scribner’s directive] was replete with speech codes that violated the free speech clause, shower mandates that violated the free exercise clause, and parent blocks that violated the 14th Amendment rights of parents to the care, custody, and management of their children.

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, a Republican, called for Scribner’s resignation over his unilateral implementation of the original guidelines.

 3 Things Texas Is Doing to ‘Defy’ Obama’s Transgender Directive
Kacsmaryk said the Fort Worth school district’s original directive “expressly discouraged use of binary terms like ‘boy’ and ‘girl’” and made “no reasonable accommodation for dissenting Muslims, Jews, Mormons, Catholics, and Protestants who adhere to the Book of Genesis and continue to believe that God ‘created them male and female.” The First Liberty Institute lawyer, who consulted with Keyes and her husband before Scribner backed down, added:   

This is not diversity but displacement, the absolutist imposition of a sexually revolutionized view of the human person without any accommodation for religious dissenters who may have a different view of man and woman, male and female.

The group Stand for Fort Worth said it had “mobilized a bipartisan, multiracial coalition of students, taxpayers, and parents who were initially excluded from the process but whose voices have now been heard.” The new guidelines say the school district will work with parents to create individual support plans for transgender students to address “the student’s unique needs.”  If the student requests access to an opposite-sex restroom, locker room, or related facility, the campus  administrator, the student and his or her parent or guardian, and guidance counselor will review the request on a case-by-case basis.

The goal will be to create a “safe and supportive environment for students impacted by the accommodation with due recognition of the privacy rights of all students,” the guidelines say.  

WikiLeaks Says Democrats Manage The News : Really? Who Knew?

Who knew? Oh my goodness, you mean the progressive socialist liberal democrat party,(collective) are in control the mains stream media? Tell me it isn't so. How can this be? WOW - this is news!  A wake up call for everyone to understand the democrats are not being truthful and honest?

Yikes! And now with these emails making there way into the hands of the unwashed in the trenches, the democrats say it's not true we are biased, it's standard operating procedure for everyone in the news business. Really????

What the WikiLeaks Hack Exposes About Democrat Media Bias
Philip Wegmann / @PhilipWegmann / July 25, 2016

Leaked emails seem to suggest that the Democratic National Committee maintains cozy relationships with mainstream media outlets but takes a more caustic approach with publications it believes to be conservative.

According to these emails, party officials stonewalled and blacklisted the Washington Examiner when editors approached the party in May to gather the names of delegates to the Democratic National Convention for publication in a souvenir edition of its magazine. “I can send an alert to the state parties not to respond to this inquiry,” DNC Deputy Communications Director Eric Walker wrote in an email of May 10. “Examiner is a right wing rag.” The episode came on the eve of Democrats’ convention this week in Philadelphia. The organization WikiLeaks released nearly 20,000 hacked emails from seven party officials, revealing the inner workings of the national committee’s communications team.

Washington Examiner Editorial Director Hugo Gordon told The Daily Signal, “It doesn’t surprise me; they’re a partisan organization explicitly working to elect Democrats. On the other hand, it does seem fairly close-minded—to the point of paranoia—that they’d assume the worst.” The DNC did not respond to numerous phone calls and emails from The Daily Signal.

Reporter Fred Lucas, while on assignment with Fox News in May, didn’t receive a response when he approached the party committee for comment about claims Donald Trump made about President Bill Clinton’s having extra-marital affairs in the past. Instead, DNC Communications Director Luis Miranda emailed his team May 13to ask, “Is there a f*** you emoji?”

When Lucas followed up, asking again for a quote, Mark Paustenbach, the national committee’s press secretary, cracked another joke at the journalist’s expense. “The asshole from Fox emailed us again,” Paustenbach wrote. “I did some research and there’s still no f*** you emoji, unfortunately.” Lucas joined The Daily Signal in June as a White House correspondent.

While the DNC was ignoring Lucas and the Washington Examiner, leaked emails show Democrat officials worked to feed quotes and coordinate news coverage with several more liberal outlets.
A senior Politico reporter, Ken Vogel, sent an unflattering article about presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton to DNC officials on April 30 for review before publication.
“Per agreement … any thoughts appreciated,” Vogel wrote in the subject line. After the emails were leaked, Vogel admitted that coordinating with the DNC on his May 2 article was “a mistake.”

DNC officials also seemed to coordinate with CNN producer Jason Sheher in another email exchange about what questions to ask communications chief Miranda when he appeared on CNN’s “The Lead with Jake Tapper.” “Window closing on this. Need to know ASAP if we want to offer Jake Tapper questions to ask us,”  then-DNC media booker Pablo Manriquez wrote to Miranda on April 28.
Tapper defended his staff in a Tumblr post Saturday, writing that it’s “fairly standard” to ask sources what they’d like to discuss during the interview. “Producers and reporters ask it all the time of Democrats, Republicans, everyone, to make sure we don’t miss out on news-making opportunities,” the anchor wrote.

The DNC also cultivated a close relationship with the viral news site BuzzFeed. In an April 26 email with the subject line “BuzzFeed and DNC Connection,” BuzzFeed’s communications director, Weesie Vieira, approached Miranda about “putting together some plans around the convention and some other cool stuff.”

The leaked emails led to resignation of DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who represents a Florida district in the House of Representatives. The FBI announced plans Monday to launch a probe into the source of the leak.

Democrats Embrace Taxpayer Funded Abortions : A History of Why

It's not about the law but about the perception of what's the progressive socialist liberals say they believe is right, and as we all know perception is, for the most part, reality.

Democrats have always skirted the law when they want to force an issue that when even a large majority of the population is against it. Still, the democrats are successful in more cases then not to get their agenda into action despite the law being in conflict.

Why is that? Where is the opposition to tyranny? Are we ready to be dominated and subjected to the will of the few? After more then 7 years of the Ogbjma administration's catastrophic history, it appears many are indeed ready to capitulate.

How Democrats Came to Embrace Taxpayer-Funded Abortions
Fred Lucas / @FredLucasWH / July 25, 2016    

President Barack Obama signed an executive order in 2010 applying the Hyde Amendment, which bans taxpayer funding of most abortions, to Obamacare. Five years later, the White House referred to the Hyde Amendment while defending taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood. Now, the Democrats’ party platform is calling for repeal of the measure. According to a new poll, Americans are solidly opposed to public funding of abortion, including nearly half of voters who support abortion rights, and at least four out of 10 Democrats.

The Hyde Amendment, in effect since 1976 and named for the late Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., prohibits the use of federal money for abortion, except in cases when the mother’s life is at stake, or in cases of rape or incest. The appropriations rule generally has been a consistent rider to funding bills with bipartisan support, including lawmakers who support abortion. But now Democrats are shifting their stance. The party’s 2016 platform states:

We believe unequivocally, like the majority of Americans, that every woman should have access to quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion—regardless of where she lives, how much money she makes, or how she is insured. We believe that reproductive health is core to women’s, men’s, and young people’s health and wellbeing. We will continue to stand up to Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood health centers, which provide critical health services to millions of people. We will continue to oppose—and seek to overturn—federal and state laws and policies that impede a woman’s access to abortion, including by repealing the Hyde Amendment.

That’s in the face of 62 percent of Americans who say they oppose taxpayer funding of abortion, according to a poll of 1,009 adults by the Marist Institute for Public Opinion, released Monday.
Further breakdown shows 45 percent of pro-choice Americans oppose taxpayer-funded abortion; 65 percent of African-Americans oppose it and so do 61 percent of Latinos. Fully 44 percent of Democrats oppose federal funding of abortion, the poll found.

“Without President Obama’s executive order expanding the Hyde language, we would not have been able to get the ACA [Affordable Care Act] passed in 2010,” Kristen Day, executive director for Democrats for Life of America, told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. Day, who is attending the Democratic National Convention this week in Philadelphia, added: “Most Americans don’t want public funding of abortion at home or abroad.” One-third of Democrats, or about 23 million, are pro-life, according to Democrats for Life. But Day is worried such a hardline platform will alienate too many voters. Obama’s executive order, which reassured moderate Democrats to vote for the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, states:

Following the recent enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act … , it is necessary to establish an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that federal funds are not used for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), consistent with a longstanding federal statutory restriction that is commonly known as the Hyde Amendment. … The [Affordable Care] Act maintains current Hyde Amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to the newly created health insurance exchanges.

During the debate over Obamacare, Obama said: “There are no plans under health reform to revoke the existing prohibition on using federal taxpayer dollars for abortions. Nobody is talking about changing that existing provision, the Hyde Amendment. Let’s be clear about that. It’s just not true.”
Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, told The Daily Signal that Obama chose to “hide behind the Hyde Amendment” with Obamacare, using a “phony executive order” that wasn’t fully enforced.

“The Hyde Amendment is the most successful abortion reduction program,” Johnson said in a phone interview. “Conservatively, there are 1 million Americans walking around today because of the Hyde Amendment, possibly 2 million.”

Last year, after hidden-camera videos seemed to show officials at Planned Parenthood clinics talking about selling the body parts of aborted babies, the Obama administration stepped up to defend the nation’s largest abortion provider. In defending federal funding for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, White House press secretary Josh Earnest stressed that current law prevents tax dollars from funding abortions. At an October press briefing, Earnest said:

The president would strongly oppose and would even veto a piece of legislation that would result in the wholesale defunding of Planned Parenthood and it warrants mentioning at this point, that there is a provision of federal law that prevents federal funds from being used to perform abortions. That is a law that’s been on the books for quite some time. And it’s a law that’s been enforced by the Obama administration. And it’s why this rhetoric emanating from Republicans about wanting to defund Planned Parenthood because Planned Parenthood carries out abortions is fundamentally dishonest.

Several Democrat lawmakers expressed opposition to calling for repeal of the Hyde Amendment in the party platform. Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., wrote a letter to the platform committee saying, “This is a consensus-based policy that has, for many years, prohibited the use of federal funds to pay for abortion.” In addition to calling for federal funding, the Democrats’ 2016 platform has an abortion-related litmus test for judicial nominees, stating: “We will appoint judges who defend the constitutional principles of liberty and equality for all, and will protect a woman’s right to safe and legal abortion … ”

The party’s platform has moved significantly toward the pro-choice position since candidate Bill Clinton called for abortion to be “safe, legal, and rare” in his acceptance speech at the 1992 Democratic National Convention. In 1996, 2000, and 2004, the term “rare” was part of the platform in describing abortion. While the Marist poll finds 51 percent identify themselves as pro-choice, it also finds that 78 percent support some restrictions on abortion.

“The American people have spoken clearly on their desire for abortion restrictions, less taxpayer funding of it, and commonsense regulations on this industry to protect women’s health,” said Carl Anderson, chief executive officer of Knights of Columbus, the Catholic fraternal organization that sponsored the poll. “Our courts, politicians, candidates, and parties should heed this consensus.”
The Hyde Amendment has been long-standing consensus, said Mallory Quigley, communications director for the Susan B. Anthony List, a pro-life group. She added: “The Republican platform is more pro-life than it has ever been.” The Republican Party platform says:

 We oppose the use of public funds to perform or promote abortion or to fund organizations, like Planned Parenthood, so long as they provide or refer for elective abortions or sell fetal body parts rather than provide health care. We urge all states and Congress to make it a crime to acquire, transfer, or sell fetal tissues from elective abortions for research, and we call on Congress to enact a ban on any sale of fetal body parts. In the meantime, we call on Congress to ban the practice of misleading women on so-called fetal harvesting consent forms, a fact revealed by a 2015 investigation. … We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life. …

Here’s a look at abortion language in Democratic Party platforms adopted from the time Bill Clinton was nominated for president until now, when his wife Hillary Clinton is about to be nominated.

1992 platform:

Democrats stand behind the right of every woman to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, regardless of ability to pay, and support a national law to protect that right. It is a fundamental constitutional liberty that individual Americans—not government—can best take responsibility for making the most difficult and intensely personal decisions regarding reproduction. The goal of our nation must be to make abortion less necessary, not more difficult or more dangerous.

1996 platform:

Our goal is to make abortion less necessary and more rare, not more difficult and more dangerous. We support contraceptive research, family planning, comprehensive family life education, and policies that support healthy childbearing. For four years in a row, we have increased support for family planning. The abortion rate is dropping. Now we must continue to support efforts to reduce unintended pregnancies, and we call on all Americans to take personal responsibility to meet this important goal.

2000 platform:

The Democratic Party stands behind the right of every woman to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of ability to pay. … Our goal is to make abortion less necessary and more rare, not more difficult and more dangerous. We support contraceptive research, family planning, comprehensive family life education, and policies that support healthy childbearing. The abortion rate is dropping. Now we must continue to support efforts to reduce unintended pregnancies, and we call on all Americans to take personal responsibility to meet this important goal.

2004 platform:

Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman’s right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.

2008 platform:

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

2012 platform:

Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. We strongly and unequivocally support a woman’s decision to have a child by providing affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including caring adoption programs.

2016 platform:

We will appoint judges who defend the constitutional principles of liberty and equality for all, and will protect a woman’s right to safe and legal abortion. … We believe unequivocally, like the majority of Americans, that every woman should have access to quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion—regardless of where she lives, how much money she makes, or how she is insured. We believe that reproductive health is core to women’s, men’s, and young people’s health and wellbeing. We will continue to stand up to Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood health centers, which provide critical health services to millions of people. We will continue to oppose—and seek to overturn—federal and state laws and policies that impede a woman’s access to abortion, including by repealing the Hyde Amendment.

Restoring American to Greatness : Heritage Foundation Reforms

The Heritage has always been at the forefront of making sound and realistic suggestions for resolving our local and national problems. But the question that remains is will any politician, from either side of he aisle have the spine to stand and deliver.

If history is any indication for future results, we will be sadly disappointed.

After Obama: Restoring Freedom, Opportunity, and Security With a ‘Blueprint for Reform’
Matthew Hoke / Paul Winfree / @paulwinfree / July 19, 2016

An upstart businessman wants to get ahead in society but can’t because of bureaucratic regulations. A talented college graduate can’t find a job as a result of a stagnant economy. A nation’s citizens feel threatened by terrorist attacks at home and abroad as elected officials reduce military spending. A government continues to burden the next generation of citizens with insurmountable debt. Sadly, all of these statements are true of the United States in 2016. However, we can improve the state of the nation.

The Heritage Foundation released its “Blueprint for Reform: A Comprehensive Policy Agenda” last week with the goal of allowing Americans to build themselves a stronger economy, a stronger society, and a stronger defense.

By doing this, “Blueprint for Reform” seeks to solve harmful conditions resulting from many years of failed presidential policies. It offers recommendations for the next presidential administration and Congress, with the view that real restoration of opportunity, freedom, and security to the United States will happen only with presidential leadership and congressional action. Here are some of the plan’s policy recommendations:

Reform the tax code. The current tax code restricts economic freedom and, as a result, the ability of Americans to advance themselves. The goal of tax reform is to relieve the burden of the current system and promote economic growth. The way to accomplish this goal is for Congress to establish a flat tax that eliminates penalties on saving and investment.

Balance the federal budget. Citizens and companies must balance their budgets to avoid bankruptcy. The federal government shouldn’t be any different. To pay for spending with continued borrowing is immoral; it disregards future generations of Americans who will have to shoulder the burden but don’t have a say in what the government spends money on today. This plan will balance the budget by 2024 by reducing spending without raising taxes, and while rebuilding our national defense.

Reduce the regulatory burden. In the past seven years, the Obama administration has placed over 20,000 new regulations on the American people, with an annual cost of $108 billion. We can stop the runaway regulatory power of federal agencies by requiring that new legislation undergo an impact analysis before a vote; that every major regulations receive congressional approval and be subject to sunset provisions; and that independent agencies be subjected to White House review.

Repeal harmful laws. Chief among them are Obamacare, which expanded federal control over health care, and the Dodd-Frank Act, which expanded federal control over financial sectors.

Rebuild the U.S. military. Under the Obama administration, the military’s capabilities have been severely reduced. This comes at a time of great danger and hostility at home and abroad. Russia, North Korea, Iran, and the Islamic State each pose a threat to the United States and its interests around the world.

To lead as a nation, protect our interests, support our allies, and respond to crises, our military must be strong. This requires a commitment to rebuilding national defense. The policy recommendations found in “Blueprint for Reform” will help America secure a better and brighter future.  Read the complete document here.