News broke last week that the Democratic frontrunner, you know her as Hillary, has decided that a program of gun confiscation would be “worth considering on a national level,” specifically one that looks like the Australian manadatory gun confiscation program that President Obama likes to throw out when discussing the nexus of school shootings and the 2nd Amendment.
You may be one of millions who have enjoyed fantasy sports leagues online such as FanDuel and DraftKings. But your right to participate in these sites online might be in danger soon if opposition to them gets their way. There is a growing chorus, in the media and among some politicians close to established gambling interests, for the federal government to regulate, or even put these sites out of business. Such a move would violate federalism, open the door to more regulation of the Internet and be a glaring example of cronyism.
Major newspapers such as The New York Times and The Boston Globe have been trumpeting the call for federal regulation. The notion that FanDuel and DraftKings are a variation of gambling is echoed by other media outlets as well as some in the brick and mortar gambling industry, who see participation in such fantasy sports leagues online as a threat to their business.
The news out of the Perpetual War on Terror is pretty grim these days. The US military knowingly but “accidentally” bombed a hospital in Afghanistan, killing 22 doctors and patients. Just days later, the president decided not to draw down troops in the country as previously planned, but will instead keep nearly 6,000 of our sons and daughters in the country until at least 2017 when his term ends. At the same time, the inner workings of the president’s drone war, including questionable intel, lax target timeframes, and horrifying collateral damage ratios, have been brought to light by a whistleblower.
But you’d be forgiven for not noticing any of this. While it has been reported in the news media, there has been almost no secondary public reaction. I think that’s entirely because of one factor: Barack Obama won the last election, not Mitt Romney. If Romney had been elected in 2012 and in the year before his reelection campaign had bombed a hospital, decided to keep troops in Afghanistan, and had details of his robot assassin program leaked, things would probably look a little different today.
The bodies of the Roseburg, Oregon mass shooting victims were not even cold (quite literally) before Obama raced to the cameras demanding more gun control laws, and even suggesting it was time for the U.S. government to confiscate all private firearms. Soon media outlets were flooded talking heads aping Obama’s appeal to ignorance.
Leftist sycophant Linda Valdez, writing in the Arizona Republic, declared it is time to get rid of the 2nd Amendment because it is not working, claiming “It’s killing us. It’s turning grade schools and college campuses into slaughter houses.” She further asserts that “Other rights have reasonable limits that can be discussed and accommodated. The Second Amendment has been turned into the supreme law of the land.”
Liberals condescendingly tell us if we don’t like abortions not to have them, but no such standard applies to gun ownership. They tell us Republicans should stop trying to repeal ObamaCare because is “settled law”, yet they have no such respect for the “settled law” of the 2nd Amendment, enshrined in the Bill of Rights for more than two centuries.
Contrary to the Left’s subtle revisionism, the 2nd Amendment was not included in the Bill of Rights in order to protect the rights of hunters or sports shooters, or even to protect us from the criminal elements of society. It was enshrined in that sacred document to protect us from a far more dangerous entity…our own government.
Democrats have been complaining for years that Republicans have moved so far right that they’re not compatible with American democracy anymore. Republicans were fine before, they say, but not anymore! Weak-kneed Republicans who lose primary elections then decide to become media stars by switching to Independents (and eventually Democrats) and claiming “I didn’t leave the party, the party left me”.
[cue thunderous lemming applause]
But no one ever asks how far the Democrats have moved left. In their first primary debate of the 2016 contest Tuesday night, we may finally have gotten the answer. They’re all Democratic Socialists now, and proud of it (with the possible exception of Jim Webb).
Originally published at International Liberty - Ed.
While his policy ideas are horrifying, Bernie Sanders’ campaign is the source of some amusement.
He claims to represent a different vision, but his voting record according to the National Taxpayers Union is virtually identical to the ratings received by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton when they were in the Senate.
He’s not even a real socialist, at least if we use the technical definition of this poisonous ideology, which is based on government ownership of the means of production. That being said, Democratic operatives such as Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz sound like fools on TV because they don’t even know the difference between genuine socialism and big-government redistributionism.
Silly season is heating up, what with the first Democrat debate tomorrow in Las Vegas (could the party of flash-without-substance have chosen a better city? I mean, really), and with Donald Trump still somehow appealing to people who self-identify as conservative. With respect, you people need to wrest control of that anger for a minute — do whatever you have to do — and do some reading on the principled “conservative” you scream is the only man for the job. Because, and again, I’m not trying to turn anyone off or be harsh, you are starting to look a bit foolish.
As Trump knows, money talks — and Trump has given more than $100,000 to the Democratic House and Senate campaign committees. In 2006 — the year Democrats took back Congress — he gave $25,000 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (while his son Donald Trump Jr. gave $22,500). They gave Republican committees just $1,000 that year.
In other words, Trump wanted Nancy Pelosi to be speaker of the House and Harry Reid the Senate majority leader.
Which is not surprising. At the time he made those contributions, from August 2001 to September 2009, Trump was a registered Democrat. (He had been registered in New York first as a Republican, then a member of the Independence Party, then a Democrat, then a Republican again, and then became unaffiliated.)
A federal government agency is set soon to decide that it will protect consumers of short-term loans by regulating out of business many of the credit products that low-income and middle class Americans commonly use. Many American use payday loans and title loans offered by small-dollar lenders to meet short-term financial needs, and new regulations proposed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) threaten to put these providers out of business.
The CFPB is an out-of-control federal agency, created under the Dodd-Frank Act, that has authority to regulate a wide variety of financial services. The new regulations it proposes will apply to payday loans, vehicle title loans, deposit advance products, and other credit products typically offered by small-dollar lenders.
On March 26, 2015, the Richard Cordray, the Director of the CFPB announced “today the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced it is considering proposing rules that would end payday debt traps by requiring lenders to take steps to make sure consumers can repay their loans. The proposals under consideration would also restrict lenders from attempting to collect payment from consumers’ bank accounts in ways that tend to rack up excessive fees.”
Though the talking heads in the media are focused on the intra-party leadership fight following the unexpected and sudden resignation announcement of House Speaker John Boehner, Democrats have an internal battle of their own going on.
On Monday, the United States and Japan, along with ten other North American and Pacific Rim nations (Canada, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia, Peru, Chile, and Vietnam - which together comprise 36% of the Earth’s global domestic product), concluded negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a massive trade agreement that seeks to facilitate greater trade among these nations by reducing tariffs and other barriers to trade.
The negotiations, ongoing for the last decade, produced an agreement with mixed results for American interests. For example, U.S. negotiators claim the pact will strengthen intellectual property rights (which will benefit American pharmaceutical and technology companies) and open up foreign markets to American agricultural and dairy products. However, it would also reduce the duration that companies have market exclusivity for their products before they compete with generics.
Few industry analysts seemed surprised when Sprint’s new CEO announced “after thorough analysis” that the company won’t participate in next year’s auction of TV broadcast spectrum (known as the “incentive auction”). Analysts already knew that Sprint “has the spectrum it needs to deploy its network architecture of the future.” As a senior telecommunications analyst for Bloomberg Intelligence said in response to the news, “Sprint really has a lot more spectrum than its rivals, so they don’t have that pressing need to get more.”