(CNSNews.com) – Seizing on the outrage at President Donald Trump’s response to the violence in Charlottesville, Va., Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) announced Thursday that he is introducing articles of impeachment against the president, saying Trump “has failed the presidential test of moral leadership.”
Cohen had already expressed that he had no confidence in the president, when he introduced the “Resolution of No Confidence” last month.
“I have expressed great concerns about President Trump’s ability to lead our country in the Resolution of No Confidence (H.Res. 456) that I introduced in July with 29 of my colleagues; however, after the President’s comments on Saturday, August 12 and again on Tuesday, August 15 in response to the horrific events in Charlottesville, I believe the President should be impeached and removed from office,” the congressman said in a statement on his website.
“Instead of unequivocally condemning hateful actions by neo-Nazis, white nationalists and Klansmen following a national tragedy, the President said ‘there were very fine people on both sides.’ There are no good Nazis. There are no good Klansmen,” Cohen said.
“We fought a World War to defeat Nazis, and a Civil War to defeat the Confederacy. In reaction to the downfall of the Confederacy, and the subsequent passage of the Reconstruction Amendments to our constitution, the KKK embarked on a dastardly campaign to terrorize and intimidate African Americans from exercising their newly acquired civil rights,” he said.
“Subsequent incarnations of the Klan continued to terrorize African Americans with lynchings and civil rights murders such as the assassination of Medgar Evers and the killings of Schwerner, Chaney, Goodman and other civil rights workers,” Cohen added.
As CNSNews.com previously reported, Trump said Tuesday that both sides in Charlottesville were violent and that not all the people protesting were white supremacists – some were just there to protest the taking down of the Robert E. Lee statue.
“I will tell you something. I watched those very closely — much more closely than you people watched it, and you have — you had a group on one side that was bad, and you had a group on the other side that was also very violent, and nobody wants to say that, but I’ll say it right now,” he said.
When asked whether he thinks what he called the alt-left is the same as neo-Nazis, Trump said, “Those people — all of those people –excuse me, I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups, but not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue of Robert E. Lee.”
Cohen, who is Jewish, said the protests by neo-Nazis and white supremacists in last weekend reminded him of Ku Klux Klan rallies and of Kristallnacht, also referred to as “the Night of Broken Glass,” when Nazis torched synagogues, vandalized Jewish homes, schools, and businesses, and killed close to 100 Jews. In the aftermath of Kristallnacht, 30,000 Jewish men were arrested and sent to concentration camps.
“When I watched the videos from the protests in Charlottesville, it reminded me of the videos I’ve seen of Kristallnacht in 1938 in Nazi Germany. It appeared that the Charlottesville protesters were chanting ‘Jews will not replace us’ and ‘blood and soil,’ an infamous Nazi slogan, as they marched with torches that conjured up images of Klan rallies,” Cohen said.
“None of the marchers spewing such verbiage could be considered ‘very fine people’ as the President suggested. And it certainly appeared the participants were in lock-step,” he said. “Some of the white nationalist protesters were interviewed by the media, such as Sean Patrick Nielsen. He said one of his three reasons for being there was ‘killing Jews.’
“Another was Christopher Cantwell, one of the white nationalist leaders, who said he couldn’t watch ‘that Kushner bastard walk around with that beautiful girl’ and said he hoped ‘somebody like Donald Trump, but who does not give his daughter to a Jew,’ would lead this country,” Cohen said.
Cantwell was referring to the president’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, who converted to Judaism.
“As a Jew and as an American and as a representative of an African American district, I am revolted by the fact that the President of the United States couldn’t stand up and unequivocally condemn Nazis who want to kill Jews and whose predecessors murdered 6 million Jews during the Holocaust, and could not unequivocally condemn Klansmen whose organization is dedicated to terrorizing African Americans,” Cohen said.
“President Trump has failed the presidential test of moral leadership. No moral president would ever shy away from outright condemning hate, intolerance and bigotry. No moral president would ever question the values of Americans protesting in opposition of such actions, one of whom was murdered by one of the white nationalists,” he said.
“President Trump has shown time and time again that he lacks the ethical and moral rectitude to be President of the United States. Not only has he potentially obstructed justice and potentially violated the Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause, but he has also shown that he is incapable or unwilling to protect Americans from enemies, foreign and domestic,” Cohen said.
“Neo-Nazis and the KKK are domestic terrorists. If the President can’t recognize the difference between these domestic terrorists and the people who oppose their anti-American attitudes, then he cannot defend us,” he said.
Most of you know I am not a supporter of the current President. I believe he is a ‘populist’, not unlike Huey Long, who rode the Silent Majority into the White House, in part because there were so many questions of character surrounding his opposition.
And, in a rough comparison, I do prefer him to her as the Chief Executive. (Hobson’s choice?)
Having said that, do the President’s actions (or inactions) rise to the level of Section 4 of Article Two of the United States Constitution, that is other High Crimes and misdemeanors?
He has consistently, and for years, disavowed the KKK and their fellow travelers. The fact he didn’t do it again quickly enough for the Left suggests ONLY a political votive for these articles of impeachment.
And, even though I am not a fan (and wish the President were more libertarian!) I wish they’d leave him alone to do his job of further draining the swamp.
(Perhaps those who attack him incessantly are swamp denizens? Who knows?)
I didn’t necessarily WANT to be, but thought I could!
I always appreciated silly – The Marx Brothers, W.C. Fields, Abbott and Costello,‘It’s A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World’, Warner Brothers cartoons, Steve Allen. Ernie Kovacs. Then, as I grew up, my tastes moved to The Firesign Theatre and Monty Python. George Carlin was a god!
I remember returning from a long high school choir trip, standing in the back of the bus and mimicking Carlin’s first album for anyone who would listen. Word for word, intonation for intonation. The man taught me timing.
And then there’s Dennis Miller. “I haven’t seen choreography like that since the Lee Harvey Oswald prison transfer!” In his own words, “Viva la referencia obscura!”
I began considering doing stand-up comedy in my mid-twenties. After all, my good friend Biff Jannuzzi (who authored the one-act play about the Lincoln assassination ‘A Booth in the Back’), did it! Then, I met a friend of his, Tom (a buddy of his in the local little theater group), who changed my mind. I was quick, clever with a comeback, witty, and thought I was all that.
Tom was quicker, faster with a comeback and wittier.
So, Tom was a stand-up comedian? (You ask)
He sold used cars at one of those buy-here, pay here joints. Jake the Snake’s Garden of Gears! Down in the sketchy part of town.
His talent and ability was ten times mine, and he was selling cars.
It’s all a matter of perspective.
“A man has to know his limitations.” – Inspector Harry Callahan
(from Tamara, via FB)
(AND, the comment posted below which takes the Internets!)
Sooo…exercising one right negates another???
“I was told that I couldn’t speak, I couldn’t express my concerns, and I couldn’t ask any questions because I’m White.”
McKenzie Kyger is a white Evergreen State College student who made news when she appeared at a public legislative hearing about the problems at Evergreen related to Prof. Bret Weinstein.
Kyger told the legislators about her experience with pervasive anti-white racism being taught as part of the integral model of social justice learning currently foregrounded in American universities.
We covered her testimony in the post Evergreen Student: ‘I’ve been told I’m not allowed to speak because I’m white’.
Kyger sat down for an interview with Benjamin Boyce (Patreon page here) and shared her thoughts on “social justice” and the distressing state of Evergreen. (h/t Badger Pundit)
Kyger is the type of student whom colleges embraced only a few years ago. She’s open-minded, has absorbed and speaks fluently the language of the regressive handbook on “diversity” and “social justice,” she’s not a conservative, and she’s definitely not a racist. That she is now experiencing what so many white college students across the country are should sound alarms on the left, particularly among white progressives.
Kyger talked about her experience at the college and how it affected her. For example, she discusses her experiences with the faculty and students who “overgeneralize” and state that “all white people” are the root of all problems, she explains how “social justice” has become a battering ram and weapon that is hurting higher education and students, and she describes her experience being shut out of a student event on campus explicitly because she is white. After walking down a hallway lined with other white students denied admittance, she agreed to the terms (that she not speak and stand in the back).
h/t truthrevolt.org, Legal Insurrection
I remember being on a college campus in the 70s. There were folding tables set up on the mall. Some for the Vietnam War; some against. Some about saving the planet.
Some about Greek Week!
ALL speech was welcomed!
And sometimes, there were confrontations…
“When Windows 10 has an update, if you are on a schedule, DON’T DO IT!” 😠
I was doing my morning routine, getting the PC ready for the next exciting installment of Guffaw in AZ, when a message appeared from Windows, offering me an update, or a post-ponement of said update.
It was early, I figured, “what the Hell…”
TWENTY MINUTES LATER it reads ‘Working on updates 17%, Don’ the turn off your PC. This will take a while.
With the added joy of ‘Your PC will restart several times’ at the bottom of the screen!
(But wait, there’s MORE!)
after about an hour…
FINALLY, it finished about an hour and a quarter after it began. It would be nice if Windows warned you in advance of the time sink involved in a requested procedure!
Of course, I have additional commitments, so the planned blog post will have to wait…
(from Judicial Watch, in part)
Phoenix Delays Sanctuary Policy Amid Mounting Pressure After JW Report
Days after Judicial Watch exposed a new policy banning Phoenix police from contacting the feds after arresting illegal aliens, alarming pressure on the city council and chief of police has forced officials in Arizona’s largest city to postpone the order. Crafted at a Hispanic advisory committee that promotes open borders, the policy also prohibits officers from asking about suspects’ immigration status. The new policy’s two principle measures violate key provisions of a state law upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court and leave the city vulnerable to costly lawsuits.
In the aftermath of Judicial Watch’s story, which included a copy of the Phoenix sanctuary Immigration Procedures, police management is backing off and reconsidering the ramifications. Sources with direct knowledge of the matter told Judicial Watch that Phoenix Police Department brass is worried about getting sued under an Arizona law that states the following: “No official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may limit or restrict the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.” The measure also states this: “If an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States is convicted of a violation of state or local law, on discharge from imprisonment or on the assessment of any monetary obligation that is imposed, the United States immigration and customs enforcement or the United States customs and border protection shall be immediately notified.”
Following Judicial Watch’s initial report, the chief of the Phoenix Police Department, Jeri Williams, issued an unusual and unprecedented Employee Notification System (ENS) delaying the new sanctuary order. The ENS was titled “Operations Order 4.48 Revision” and states the following: “Operations Order 4.48, which provides direction regarding immigration related issues, is still being reviewed and revised. The anticipated effective date, July 10th, 2017, is no longer achievable. The final revisions should be completed within the coming weeks. A new effective date will be shared once the policy has been finalized.” Williams is Phoenix’s first female police chief and agency sources tell Judicial Watch she tried to quietly implement the sanctuary measures, perhaps hoping they’d go unnoticed. Earlier this year the chief, who was hired last summer, alluded to her stance on immigration enforcement in a local newspaper article questioning whether Arizona’s 325,000 illegal aliens trust the police. Chief Williams is quoted saying this: “We maintain open communication with our diverse residents and want to ensure that our crime victims and witnesses feel comfortable and confident when reporting crimes to our officers. As your chief, I commit to you that racial profiling will not be tolerated.”
The Phoenix Police Department has about 3,000 officers that were permitted to use “sound judgement” at any time under the agency’s longtime immigration enforcement policy. That allowed front-line officers to directly contact federal immigration officials involving criminal illegal immigrants. Under the revised policy, all contact with federal immigration partners must be funneled through a single Violent Crimes Bureau (VCB) desk sergeant who will document all immigration related data and give authority to call ICE. “This will bottle-neck the process,” according to a veteran Phoenix law enforcement official who added that the new policy was generated without any input from rank-and-file. Arizona law enforcement sources also told Judicial Watch that no other restrictions of this kind and magnitude regarding a federal crime are found in Phoenix Police Department policy. Officers continue to have the discretion to contact the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Secret Service, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), Postal Inspectors, U.S. Marshalls and Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) without fear of violating department policy.
If an illegal alien is arrested for a state crime, officers in Phoenix would no longer be allowed to take them directly to ICE for deportation and document the crime in a report if the sanctuary measures get adopted. Taxpayers must fund a mandated booking into county jail under the new rules, which state; “if there is a federal criminal charge and the person is under arrest for a state and/or local charge/s…the person will be booked into the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office…” Keep in mind that Maricopa Sheriff Paul Penzone doesn’t like honoring ICE holds on jailed aliens and considers illegal immigrants “guests.” The new Phoenix Police Department rules also eliminate a table showing state immigration enforcement laws as well as documentation of police contacts with verified and/or suspected illegal aliens, a troublesome change that omits valuable city crime statistics.
Besides forbidding questioning suspects regarding place of birth, country of citizenship and legal status in the United States, the postponed Phoenix policy says that transportation of illegal aliens to ICE by officers has been eliminated for civil immigration violations unless the illegal alien “consents to a transport.” Both restrictions violate key provisions of a 2010 Arizona law known as Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (SB1070). Open borders and civil rights groups fought the law in federal court and succeeded in getting rid of many of its mandates but the U.S. Supreme Court upheld two key clauses in Section 2 of the measure. The first, requires law enforcement officers to determine a suspects’ immigration status if “reasonable suspicion” exists that the person is in the U.S. illegally. This grants officers the discretion that has just been stripped in Phoenix. The other clause in Section 2 allows state law enforcement officers to transport illegal immigrants directly to federal custody. The new Phoenix sanctuary measure, also replace the term “illegal alien” with “a person unlawfully present.”
Judicial Watch will continue investigating Phoenix’s efforts to provide illegal immigrants sanctuary and has filed public records requests for the police department’s communications with third-party groups pushing for the now-paused policy change.
What if metropolitan areas decided to create ‘free zones’ for other criminals? Burglars, armed robbers? Something less violent? Forgers, counterfeiters?
(I know, reductio ad absurdum much, Guffaw?)
Especially, if it impacted national security and sovereignty?
How should the federal government react?
I only bring this up as Phoenix is in my back yard (or I theirs…)
(I know, only questions today…)
Apologies for the poor copy/paste – it was the only way I could get it all in.
German Firm Heckler & Koch Reportedly €170 MILLION in the Red
Via a press release published earlier this month, German gunmaker Hecker & Koch announced it had reduced its financial debt to a mere €170 million (~$194 million US), thanks to an equity increase of €50 million via a capital shares increase. With this, the company will issue approximately 6.6 million new shares, backed up by a capital injection of €50 million, and assistance in refinancing its 9.5% Senior Secured Notes at significantly lower debt. According to the release:
These funds will be provided initially in the form of a shareholder loan to be converted into share capital during the share capital increase to meet the time line of the refinancing of the 2011 9.50% Senior Secured Notes. Minority shareholders of H&K will have the possibility to subscribe for new shares on a pro-rata-basis and on the same economic terms against payment in cash.
Being almost two hundred million dollars in debt does not necessarily mean the German firm is in dire trouble, however, as they have recently gained significant contracts that will help offset this burden. Chief among those is the French AIF contract, estimated to be worth over €300 million ($342 million US). The revenue from this contract alone could offset the debt of the company, which as of 2013 was pegged at slightly higher than the company’s net worth. How the company’s finances will shake out, though, isn’t easy to predict, especially given the outstanding $27 million lawsuit from Orbital ATK over the failure of H&K to deliver XM25 CDTE grenade launchers. Still, the company being in debt to the tune of the entirety of or higher than their net worth does raise cause for concern, if they cannot significantly offset or restructure that debt.
Now, I know there are those among you who will cry “GOOD!”, having suffered the slings-and-arrows of their notoriously poor customer service, especially in the civilian market.
Obviously, the civilians aren’t the only one’s who have suffered…
I have no skin in this game. The closest I was to owning an H & K was a Century Arms H & K 91 knock-off, with original internals and furniture. She worked and shot well (when properly lubed). I liked her.
But, she went the way of the missing vault along with the rest of the collection.
I’m a capitalist. If a company cannot provide proper delivery or customer service, they deserve to fail!
Perhaps, if there is another incarnation, they will have learned that?
A lesson from Colt?
(NEWSER) – A civilian review panel tasked with investigating complaints against New York City cops has spotted a trend: NYPD officers knocking cellphones and other video recording devices out of the hands of concerned citizens. In a three-year analysis of complaints against city officers starting in 2014, the Civilian Complaint Review Board discovered 257 complaints that contained 346 allegations of officer interference with civilian recordings of police actions, LawNewz reports, citing a CCRB report. In addition to knocking devices out of civilians’ hands, those acts of interference included verbal directions to stop recording, obstructing sightlines, and threatening to arrest or detain civilians for recording police actions. All told, 46% of the complaints alleged physical interference.
It’s New York, so I cannot carry a weapon.
And the police can do as they please and interfere with lawful recording in public of questionable events.
Hardly the NYC police department as portrayed in Tom Selleck’s TV series Blue Bloods!
(Of course, Selleck is NOT the real police commissioner of NYC, either!)
Reminiscent of watching Air Force One, and seeing a President fight terrorists. Then leaving the theater feeling great, then remembering that the real President (at the time) was Bill Clinton!
I usually fall asleep between 1120 and midnight. And arise between 0600 and 0700.
(NO, this is not an invitation to call! I’ve my morning shower-dress-meditation ritual)
Rarely am I disturbed. (Insert joke here) Except, of course, the battle sometime between 0130 and 0400 between my bladder and I. Who IS Master of my bladder? (It’s apparent, not me!) 😛
ANYWAY, my roomie and I share a ‘Jack and Jill’ bathroom. And, with her sleep schedule, sometimes I hear her in the loo. Sometimes I hear her TV.
This is not usually any big deal.
BUT, last night, after my traditional loss of the battle of wills with my bladder, I returned to bed, anticipating a return to sleep in a minute-or-so. When BOOM! Followed by yet another BOOM! And another!
It was a bit after 0400.
I thought ‘great – I awakened my roomie’ and she turned on her television. And was watching The Battle of Britain, or The Guns of Navarone!
But I was in error.
Usually, when she does that (a rarity) she hears the error of her way and turns it down in a few minutes. The noises continued, unabated for at least twenty!
And, I knew it wasn’t yet Independence Day!
So, I bailed out of bed, listening to the ongoing explosions, crossed the no-man’s land of the bathroom, and rapped on her door.
Yes? She replied.
I opened the door slightly and asked, “Is it you making all this noise, or is it the neighbors?”
She answered, “It’s the neighbors. And I’ve already called the police on them!”
About ten minutes later, the booming stopped.
Video gaming?! The neighbor is a young woman who seems to have a revolving door of male roommates. Perhaps this was one of them?
ANYWAY, back to sleep I went (at around 0500) and rolled out a bit after 6.
I hope to get an afternoon nap later today.
(from NRA-ILA GRASSROOTS VOLUME 24, NUMBER 26, in part)
Supreme Court Declines to Take Carry Case, but Gorsuch Casts a Solidly Pro-Gun Vote
Gun owners received disappointing news on Monday when the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that effectively let stand California’s “may-issue” permitting regime. The upshot of this decision is that law-abiding Californians in many areas of the state will be effectively denied the right to “bear” arms in public for self-defense.
But there was a silver lining to this development as Justice Neil M. Gorsuch – President Trump’s pick to replace the late, great Antonin Scalia – came out strongly in favor of the Second Amendment by joining a dissent from the court’s decision penned by Second Amendment stalwart Justice Clarence Thomas. Gorsuch’s participation in the dissent confirmed that he, unlike so many of his colleagues in the federal judiciary, is indeed prepared to take the Second Amendment seriously.
The underlying case was Peruta v. San Diego. The plaintiffs had complained of being arbitrarily denied concealed carry permits, the only way for law-abiding persons in California to exercise the right to carry loaded, operable firearms in public for self-defense. Each plaintiff met all the qualifications for a permit but one: they could not show an extraordinary need for self-protection that distinguished them from the general population, as required by licensing officials in their counties of residence.
The case therefore presented the court with an opportunity to clearly state whether or not the Second Amendment extends its protections beyond the home. Indeed, the three-judge panel that originally heard the case in the Ninth Circuit recognized that its defining issue was “whether a responsible, law-abiding citizen has a right under the Second Amendment to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.”
The panel answered that question affirmatively, stating: “the Second Amendment does require that the states permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home.” The panel also noted that it was California’s own decision to make concealed carry permits the only lawful path to do so. It therefore held the plaintiffs could prevail with “a narrow challenge to the San Diego County regulations on concealed carry, rather than a broad challenge to the state-wide ban on open carry ….”
After the panel’s opinion was published, the full Ninth Circuit voted for a larger en banc panel to rehear the case. The en banc decision, however, avoided the real issue presented by the case and held that “the Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.” It therefore summarily disposed of the plaintiffs’ claims without confronting the question of whether the Second Amendment applies beyond the home at all.
The Supreme Court majority, as is typical, did not issue an opinion explaining why it refused to review the en banc decision. Its refusal to do so does not, however, represent an endorsement of the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning or holding. As commentators have mentioned, federal appellate and state courts of last resort have come out different ways on the scope of the Second Amendment’s protection for carrying outside the home, and these disparate outcomes are not affected by the Supreme Court’s decision this week. The court may simply have decided, for example, that it did not want the differences between the panel and en banc approaches to the case to cloud the issue presented for its own resolution.
Whatever the majority’s thinking, the opinions of Justices Thomas and Gorsuch came through with vivid clarity in a sharply worded dissent from the decision to pass over the case. “At issue in this case,” Thomas wrote, “is whether [the Second Amendment] protects the right to carry firearms in public for self-defense.” They called the en banc court’s resolution of this issue “indefensible” and “untenable” and asserted it was “not justified by the terms of the complaint, which called into question the State’s regulatory scheme as a whole.” They also opined that that “[h]ad the en banc Ninth Circuit answered the question actually at issue in this case, it likely would have been compelled to reach the opposite result.”
Thomas and Gorsuch additionally chided their judicial colleagues for treating the Second Amendment as a “disfavored right.” Thomas explained:
The Court has not heard argument in a Second Amendment case in over seven years—since March 2, 2010, in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742. Since that time, we have heard argument in, for example, roughly 35 cases where the question presented turned on the meaning of the First Amendment and 25 cases that turned on the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. This discrepancy is inexcusable, especially given how much less developed our jurisprudence is with respect to the Second Amendment as compared to the First and Fourth Amendments.
The dissent also contrasted the plight of the average citizen who must largely provide for his or her own security with that of government elites “who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force.” The Framers, Thomas wrote, “reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it.”