Gun Prohibitionist Abrams Spares No Expense on Own Security

People who must pay for their own security are private citizens, the ones to whom the Second Amendment was supposed to assure an uninfringed right to keep and bear arms. Most — including Abrams’ supporters — can’t afford to. That she would also deny them the means to protect themselves speaks of a swindled constituency with views manipulated by a subversive public education system, and a media politically hostile to guns in private hands. [More]

Only two kinds of people would vote for this self-serving hypocrite: Ignorant and manipulated citizenship malpractitioners or evil apparatchiks who know exactly what they’re doing and why.

Scared Schiffless

“BREAKING: Schiff files amendment to NDAA that would conceal any info collected by the U.S. military for use in congressional investigations or court proceedings. Massive attempted coverup of enormous proportions and preemptive power grab to prevent GOP oversight next year… [More]

So much for being subordinate to civilian authority. With a blank check like that, what orders won’t the standing army obey?

What do authoritarians always ask us?

If you’re not doing anything wrong, what have you got to hide…?

[Via Michael G]

‘Investing’ in Astroturf

The Giffords PAC is using Congress’ bipartisan gun deal to fuel ads supporting Democrats and attacking Republicans who voted against it. [More]

They’ll pick races where they think it will be close, so gun owners who live in those states and districts are responsible for knowing what the score is with their reps and making sure good deeds don’t get punished.

Hey, I see they’re backing the guy who shot [pulled a gun on] an unarmed black jogger and the guy who obstructed a police investigation into child abuse! Nice to know the quality of the company they keep remains consistent.

‘Private Assurances’ for SCOTUS Nominees Deny Transparency, Betray Public Trust

If real principles – or lack thereof – are only shared behind closed doors with select politicians trying to advance an agenda, the whole purpose of public hearings is exposed as fraudulent theater, a dishonest performance with the sole intent to manipulate the voting public. [More]

It’s rare to hear a public figure admit the hearings are just predetermined performances for show and the real quid pro quo agreements happen out of earshot.

Gun Owners Can Make an Example Out of GOP Turncoats

To utterly reject Lisa Murkowski and send her packing will send shock waves through the Swamp and let the rats who betrayed us know that we’re coming for them when it’s their turn in the barrel. [More]

Kelly Tshibaka appears to be a viable alternative to the wretched Lisa Murkowski around which gun owners can provide an object lesson to the GOP. I encourage you to check her out.

Endorsements You Can Trust!

“Derek Schmidt is a staunch supporter of our Second Amendment freedoms and he will continue to fight to protect our fundamental right to self-defense,” said Jason Ouimet, chairman, NRA-PVF. “Kansans can trust Derek Schmidt to protect their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.” [More]

Unless they get placed on a secret government list with no due process…

Has Fletcher made an appearance here on the new site yet?

Tantrum by the Terrible Twos

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez calls for supreme court justices to be impeached – The congresswoman says Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch lied under oath to Congress about their views on Roe [More]

And:

Charlie Crist calls for impeaching Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh [More]

If anybody should be booted out, it’s these two oath-breaking totalitarian wannabes. Besides, I thought the protocol was they stuck to general terms and didn’t ask specific tough commitment questions in the job interview…?

“In recent decades a recurring Senate issue has been what kinds of questions are appropriate for Senators to pose to a Supreme Court nominee appearing at hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Particularly at issue has been whether, or to what extent, questions by committee members should seek out a nominee’s personal views on current legal or constitutional issues or on past Supreme Court decisions that have involved those issues. Usually, when Senators at confirmation hearings have asked Supreme Court nominees to comment on topical legal and constitutional issues, the nominees have firmly declined to do so. In those situations, the nominees typically have taken the position that answers to questions which convey their personal views would conflict with their obligation to avoid appearing to make commitments, or provide signals, as to how they would vote as a Justice on future cases.”

Which makes Susan Collins getting a private heads-up all the more objectionable.

[Via Jess]