Tag Archives: gun rights

ACCIDENTALLY HONEST: Nancy Peolosi’s Addled Brain Makes Unintentional TRUE Statement About Gun Rights

Originally posted at CLASH Daily

For pro-choice Catholic Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) the extent of her confusion used to only be saying really dumb stuff about Obamacare, abortion, and American history.

Take, for instance, the time Nancy told an adopted woman — to her face — at a CNN town hall meeting that her birth mother deserved the choice to abort her.

Then, while out shilling for Obamacare, Nancy once said that besides 3,000 abortions a day that she heartily condones, Republicans stopping Obamacare abortion funding would result in “women dying on the floor.”

On behalf of her beloved ACA, Nancy also celebrated the notion that the Founders had the “entrepreneurialAffordable Care Act in mind for people who, in lieu of working full-time, would one day want to do other things like learn to play a musical instrument, or spend leisurely afternoons water coloring.

What’s scary is that this sub-standard level of American history expertise came from a woman who, despite confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence, spent four years sitting just two heartbeats from the Oval Office.

Over the years, it’s been easy to blame Ms. Pelosi’s deer-in-the-headlight faux pas’ on things like way too many face lifts, having San Francisco roots or too much hair dye seeping into her smaller-than-normal brain.

In fairness though, Nancy’s ill-fitting dentures could be what makes her upper lip curl under when she speaks, which would distract the former Speaker mid-sentence. If her upper level is not the culprit, it could be those $10,000 Tahitian pearls she wears cutting the oxygen supply to her brain.

But now, at 77-years-old, and based on some of the outlandish things the almost-octogenarian has been saying lately, one can’t help but wonder whether the aging liberal is suffering mini-strokes, may be stricken with dementia, or perhaps clunked herself in the head with that huge gavel she swung around when she was Speaker of the House.

In February, during an appearance before Families USA, an activist group fighting the repeal of Obamacare, a mumbling Pelosi kept repeating herself, she instructed the audience to clap at her “applause line”, and called Republican John Kasich, the former governor of Ohio, the governor of Illinois.

Okay, so, just like U.S. history, maybe stand up comedy and geography aren’t Nancy’s forte either.

After those embarrassing moments, Pelosi went on to confuse Medicare with Medicaid, Martin Luther King Jr. with his long lost Asian relative “Martin Luther Sing”, and congratulated Families USA for her work.

Also in February, at a press conference, the House Minority diva mistakenly referred to President Trump as President Bush. Nancy, the spokesperson for the Democrat Party said: “While it’s only been a couple of weeks since the inauguration, we’ve seen nothing that I can work with President Bush on.”

Fortunately, Nancy didn’t complicate matters by referring to G.W. as Trump’s open-mic accomplice “Billy Bush”.

Nonetheless, in April, on ABC’s This Week, while discussing Democrats working with the White House Nancy did it yet again. Not known for having a wry sense of humor or comedic timing, to correct her Bush/Trump mix up, Nancy quickly said: “I’m so sorry, President Bush. I never thought I would pray for the day that you were president again.”

Blame it on poor eyesight; just a few weeks after the second G.W. Bush gaffe, at a California Democrat Convention, Nancy got so caught up in the excitement of the moment, she plopped her derriere into a seat marked “Reserved” for a wheelchair.

Clearly, based on this conduct the aging politician has no handle on American history, founding principles, or the resolve and work ethic of our Founding Fathers. Moreover, Nana Pelosi also has limited knowledge of where our nation’s governors hail from, can’t tell the difference between our 43rd and 45th presidents, and judging from her choice of seating, may even have an issue with ableism.

Yet despite all those examples, the Pelosi-is-very-puzzled pièce de résistance took place during remarks she made at the Peter G. Peterson Foundation’s 2017 Fiscal Summit.

It was at the summit that the shining star of San Francisco politics confused the gun rights activist group, the National Rifle Association (NRA), with the Department of Defense’s National Security Agency (NSA). While being interviewed, Pelosi was straining to suggest that that the president she confused with Bush – twice – conspired with the Russians and then obstructed justice.

Pelosi told CNN’s, Dana Bash:

To have a president say, if he did, to the director of the FBI, or the DNI, the Director of National Intelligence, or the NRA person that—um, uh, that they should not go forward, it raises questions that need to be answered in a facts and law way, and not hearsay.

One would think that Nancy, who just last year suggested that a gun control vote could “save 90 lives”, would remember her suggestion to Congress to “protect and defend” the U.S. Constitution by enacting harsher gun control measures.

Instead, what is ironic, is that Nancy confused the group that advocates for the Constitutional right to “keep and bear Arms” with a government agency that Democrats like Pelosi typically think is all that is necessary to keep Americans safe.

The NRA would disagree, but, either way, what is clear is that something’s up with Nancy Pelosi.

And so, notwithstanding Nancy misplacing the simplest thoughts, when the current Minority Leader mistakenly connected those who safeguard national security with the protectors of the Second Amendment – she didn’t mean to — but she actually got something right.

Are Liberals Liable for Americans Dying?

Glock-Constitution-998x666Originally posted at American Thinker

Recently, Bernie Sanders blamed Donald Trump for his #FeelTheBern/”Free College but no Free Speech” crew acting up at Trump rallies.  That sort of lack of accountability is par for the course, because liberals, who never take the time to evaluate themselves, usually expend tons of energy pointing the finger of accusation at those less guilty.

A perfect example of that practice involves a Democrat in Congress who wants to overturn the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a bill the 109th Congress passed in 2005 that was instituted to protect the gun industry from frivolous lawsuits.

In hopes of reversing gun industry protections, Congressman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) proposed H.R. 4399, the Equal Access to Justice for Victims of Gun Violence Act.  To build support on Capitol Hill for the legislation, Schiffteamed up with Connecticut Democrat Senator Richard Blumenthal, who proposed repealing the 2005 bill.

The bottom line is that, besides demonizing the gun industry, liberals want to make firearm manufacturers, sellers, and trade associations answerable to anyone and everyone considered a victim of gun-related violence.

Schiff, who supports immunity for illegals, argues that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is unfair because, when it was approved,  “Congress passed a unique form of immunity for only one industry – and that is the gun industry.”

Schiff rationalizes that line of thinking in the following way:

If you’re a carmaker and your airbags kill someone, you’re potentially liable. If you’re a pharmaceutical company and sell faulty drugs, you can be held liable. If you’re a liquor store and sell alcohol to minors, you can be held liable.

“Why should it be any different for gun manufacturers?” he asked.

Here’s why: if a madman purposely drives a car into a crowd and kills three people, should the car manufacturer be held liable?  If an individual accidently poisons himself or herself with a prescription drug cocktail, should the pharmaceutical company be held liable?  How about if a tanked-up drunk smacks a bottle of vodka over someone’s head in a bar brawl?  Should the liquor company be held liable?

Of course not!

But logic has little impact on liberals, who believe that both gun manufacturers and dealers should be prosecuted if a weapon they made or sold causes someone harm.  Why not hold liable the manufacturer of the belt Robin Williams used to hang himself?

According to Schiff, H.R. 4399 is needed because it targets gun dealers who sell firearms to “straw purchasers,” the middlemen who mediate between dealers and criminals.  Sharing his “who needs that many” liberal philosophy, Schiff explains, “There are straw purchasers who will buy dozens of the same gun. It’s quite clear they’re not buying those guns for personal use. Who needs that many of the same gun?”

“If [gun manufacturers and dealers] are no longer immune,” Schiff added, “they’ll be more careful who they sell to.”

Wow!  If  “straw purchases” are the concern, is Schiff also planning to pursue litigation against Eric Holder and Barack Obama, the kingpins of the “Fast and Furious” gun-walking scheme?  Will the Obama administration finally answerfor the hundreds of deaths, including that of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry and ICE agent Jaime Zapata, both killed with guns the president put into the hands of Mexican cartels?

This brings the discussion back around to liberals refusing to recognize how the reasoning they use to justify what they oppose is much more suitable if applied to things they support.

For example, to justify a weak argument, Schiff cited car manufacturers being liable for faulty airbags but didn’t mention the countless numbers of dead Americans who, besides being murdered, or infected with a third-world disease, have died in car crashes where illegal immigrants have been driving under the influence of alcohol or driving illegally.

In response to a congressional inquiry, Jessica M. Vaughan, the director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), recently submitted the following findings:

The criminal aliens released by ICE [since 2010] – who had already been convicted of thousands of crimes — are responsible for a significant crime spree in American communities, including 124 new homicides. Inexplicably, ICE is choosing to release some criminal aliens multiple times.

In their own defense, ICE claim that 75% of those illegal criminals were released because of a court order, or because their country of origin refused to accept them back.

So in other words, while the left was busy trying to rout the Second Amendment, illegal immigrant criminals, released from jail with the approval of the Obama administration, have been killing and injuring innocent people.

So here’s a question: why do denouncers of the gun industry mandate Equal Access to Justice for Victims of Gun Violence but not Equal Access to Justice for Victims of Illegal Immigrants?

The same politicians who aim and shoot irresponsible policy right through the heart of America have largely ignored the topic of  the five times deportedillegal felon who killed 32-year-old Kate Steinle in the liberal-approved sanctuary city of San Francisco.

Politicians like Schiff; Blumenthal; and, first and foremost, Barack Obama like to do battle over gun rights, but then, when an undocumented loose cannon like Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez murders an American with a stolen gun in broad daylight, they barely notice.

If Democrats want to punish the gun industry for making or selling a gun that causes injury or death, those same lawmakers should also be willing to accept responsibility when an undocumented immigrant they wanted set free takes a life.

That’s why zero weight should be given to Adam Schiff’s hypocritical bill. In its place, as recompense for each and every life destroyed by an illegal immigrant, Americans should demand a law that holds lax open-border politicians personally accountable.

%d bloggers like this: