I’ve been confused about calls on the Left for Joe Biden to apologize to Anita Hill. I remember the Clarence Thomas Supreme Court confirmation hearings and thought that if Biden should apologize to anyone it was to the Supreme Court Justice. However, after reading this piece in The Federalist by Mollie Hemingway I’m reassessing. I’m not so sure he doesn’t owe her one.
Here’s what I mean: Last week on “The View,” the cast of magpies known as the hosts had the former Vice President on the ropes ‘hummana-hummana-ing’ over why he should apologize to Hill and for groping women and girls. This would be his proving ground for being taken seriously as a 2020 presidential candidate. Biden said he had spoken with Hill and offered an apology, his penance, in hopes it would mollify the hosts. He assured the women that, “I did everything in my power to defeat Clarence Thomas.” Remember now that Anita Hill’s dubious testimony of pubic hairs on Coke cans, x-rated videos and the like was such an obvious put-up job, so clearly and obviously orchestrated for maximum impact by Democrats that even a young, wet-behind-the-ears, liberal dummy like me could see it.
Hemingway cites Arlen Specter’s memoir for his recollections of Hill’s testimony at the hearing. Biden told Specter that it was obvious Hill was lying. Specter, at the time a Republican who later switched teams, was a former prosecutor and member of the Judiciary Committee: “[I]n 1998, Biden admitted to Specter that ‘It was clear to me from the way she was answering the questions, [Hill] was lying’ about a key part of her testimony. The exchange was published in Specter’s 2000 memoir, ‘Passion for Truth: From Finding JFK’s Single Bullet to Questioning Anita Hill to Impeaching Clinton.’” READ THE REST AT POLITICAL VANGUARD HERE:
Eugene area Democrat Senator Floyd Prozanski continued his contemptible way in dealing with the public on his “incoherent,” “incomprehensible,” “vindictive” bill stealing Oregonians’ Second Amendment rights by pulling another legislative-sleight-of-hand in the wee hours of this morning.
Of course he did.
As I previously pointed out,the phalanx of new guns regulations contained in Senate Bill 978 started out as a brief four paragraph ‘bill.’ Three amendments to it have ballooned the skimpy bill into a multi-thousand word sweeping change of the Oregon gun laws.
Oregon Firearms Federation chief Kevin Starrett reports that Prozanski pulled another fast-one last night, hours before a scheduled vote on the bill. Prozanski waited until after midnight and added a fourth 44 page amendment to the bill.
Starrett sent out this email blast called, “While You Were Sleeping”:
“In the still of the night, (12 .16 am this morning to be exact) Floyd Prozanski introduced yet another 44 page amendment to SB 978. This would be the “dash 4″ amendment.
It makes changes to several provisions of previous amendments including definitions of “untraceable” and “undetectable” firearms and the new prohibitions on being near a public building or airport with a firearm. Although the bill was scheduled to be voted on in the Senate Judiciary Committee today, it was moved to tomorrow’s schedule. They may very well sneak in more proposed amendments in the middle of the night before then.SB 1040 was also moved to tomorrow’s schedule. So far one amendment has been introduced to that bill. More could be coming. The Senate Judiciary Committee will meet tomorrow to move these bills at 8.15 am .HB 2013 was scheduled to be heard today in the House Judiciary Committee. That bill was also postponed until tomorrow awaiting amendments which have not been posted as of the time of this alert.Stay tuned. The fight goes on.” [emphasis added]
Oregon Democrats will hold a work session on “a bill” that, if passed, would result in worse gun laws than in New Jersey and California. SB 978 is about four paragraphs long, but has ‘amendments’ that expand the bill to well over 100 pages. It’s nothing short of a “pass the bill to find out what’s in it” nightmare.
See what real Oregon gun owners said about the proposed gun law changes at a hearing on the “bill” here.
Aside from shoe-horning these confiscatory gun bills into the books through their legislative super-majorities, Eugene Democrat and Senate Judiciary Committee Chair, Floyd Prozanski, moved this ‘bill’ along in a ‘gut and stuff’ fashion. There’s a reason there’s a cliche about “sausage making” in politics.
But we found out in a series of surprise “amendments” to the proposed “bill” revealed literally minutes before the hearing, that the four paragraph skeleton bill was a place-holder for every Michael Bloomberg, Everytown USA-Moms-Demand-Action wet dream ever conceived.
Worse, the Democrats use the oldest trick in the book and declared the bill an ’emergency’ thereby requiring it be implemented within 90 days and prohibited it being referred to the voters as allowed by Oregon law.
“This vindictive, incoherent bill … makes it virtually impossible to leave the home with a firearm.”
As I said in my previous post on this:
The bill … is a power grab that is so massive, so breathtaking, that it would arguably prevent people from using their legal concealed carry permits because so many new places could be defined as no-go-zones for legal gun carriers. It would turn “hundreds of thousands” of legal gun owners into felons overnight. It would require that guns be locked up, an issue that animated many of those testifying against the bill.
It would also impose an age limit on gun use, making even military veterans unable to use a civilian firearm. Ridiculous.
Starrett told Dana Loesch of NRA TV that this is an all-hands-on-deck situation. See the video here.
The NRA is holding two work shops along the Oregon coast to educate and motivate gun owners to fight back.
RSVP for Coos Bay workshop at Public Library on MONDAY NIGHT at 6:30pm is HERE.
RSVP for Newport workshop on TUESDAY NIGHT at 6:30pm at Holiday Inn is HERE.
Here’s what NRA-ILA said about the bigger issues in these “amendments”:
Imposing one-size-fits-all, government mandated firearm storage methods that require firearms be unavailable for self-defense and does not consider personal circumstances.
Discriminating against young adults under the age of 21 by denying them their Second Amendment rights
Expanding so called “gun-free zones” where law-abiding citizens are left defenseless against criminals who simply ignore such arbitrary boundaries.
Imposing additional government red tape in order to obtain a Concealed Handgun License.
In addition, the “bill” makes a gun owner responsible for ANY SUBSEQUENT CRIME that occurs with that weapon after a criminal steals it.
Folks, if your car is stolen prosecutors don’t hold you accountable if the car thief hits or kills someone with the vehicle.
I’ll be spending some hours going through the “bill” (amendments) to determine more surprises contained therein. I suggest you do the same. Send me your feedback at Victoria@VictoriaTaft.com.
It’s no secret that since Oregon Democrats took over they’ve sought to be the most ‘progressive’ of all the far Left states. No tax is high enough, no baby is dead enough, no salmon worshiped enough, no forest burned enough, no foster child imprisoned enough, no baker sued enough. And no gun right endangered enough.
On Tuesday morning in Salem, the State Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony from a few dozen Oregonians on Senate Bill 978.
The bill and its 40-page amendment is a power grab that is so massive, so breathtaking, that it would arguably prevent people from using their legal concealed carry permits because so many new places could be defined as no-go-zones for legal gun carriers. It would turn “hundreds of thousands” of legal gun owners into felons overnight. It would require that guns be locked up, an issue that animated many of those testifying against the bill.
As Oregon Firearms Federation leader, Kevin Starrett, testified, “This vindictive, incoherent bill … makes it virtually impossible to leave the home with a firearm.”
Which, of course, is the point of the bill, naturally.
Attorney and retired State Trooper, Douglas Brown predicted that “this will end up in the US Supreme Court” and testified that there “is a multitude of problems with [the bill],” including that it is “incomprehensible” making it “impossible to know if you’re breaking the law.” He warned that the incomprehensibility would leave citizens vulnerable to political prosecutions.
Phil Watson of the Firearms Policy Coalition warned that the bill is “aggressive against carrying for self defense.”
The head of the Yamhill County Sportsman’s Association, Jim Mitschel, labeled the bill “too broad.” He claimed that the language of the bill was so flabby that it appeared he couldn’t have a firearm in his home because it is, in the words of the bill, “adjacent” to a school where there’s a no-gun policy.
“I am adamantly against this bill,” the retired police officer and gun rangemaster added.
Make no mistake, there were many compelling speeches by people who want to end gun violence. Everyone in that hearing room was opposed to “gun violence,” of course.
Dr. Ben Hoffman from Doernbecher Children’s Hospital told stories of dealing with children shot with unsecured guns. He said, “It’s impossible to gun proof a kid, therefore we need to kid proof guns.”
Pastor Mark Knutsen testified about how he leads a gun-free church. I’m not sure I’d be shouting that one from the rafters, Mark.
Elizabeth McKenna, a retired attorney and member of the anti gun group “Ceasefire Oregon” testified that the fuzzy bill was “wise” and “will make us much safer in Oregon.”
Cole Rainey, sporting a Joey Nations for Congress t-shirt, ticked off a list of all the tyrannical leaders through history who have disarmed citizens and murdered their citizens. He said ‘you are putting the safety of Oregonians last and your political special interests first.’
Frank Martin, an Air Force Veteran, former law enforcement officer and gun enthusiast, told the committee that he was tired of being “… told that I’m the problem with gun violence.”
One man asked the Committee if the state would be going after Home Depot and Lowe’s for carrying nail guns.
Kim Rowlands noted that he believed the law even outlawed pepper spray, “You’ll make us less safe. You’ve made self defense free zones.”
Tammy McKenzie told Committee Members that “Guns rights are women’s rights. Guns rights are men’s rights. Guns rights are American rights.”
And in her commanding, yet matter-of-fact way, made possibly the most bracing comment of the morning, “The Second Amendment makes me equal to anyone. Anyone.”
Oregonian Dennis Powers said that “Oregon has more criminals than we need right now. This bill is designed to make gun owners criminals.”
Greg Terhune, visibly angry over the breadth of the bill, told the gathering “We will not comply. We are citizens, not subjects.”
On Tuesday morning I watched testimony before the Oregon State Senate Judiciary Committee (see post nearby) on a bill (SB 978-Amendment 1) that gun rights advocates labeled “vindictive,” “incoherent” and who warned that, if passed, would make Oregon more dangerous, not less.
Seriously, this is one hot mess of a bill and amendment. Lawd. See my nearby post.
A handful of women in the audience wore red Moms Demand Action t-shirts.
Moms Demand Action is the Michael Bloomberg-backed anti-gun rights group filled with women doing their best to smother gun rights for all Americans the way their sisters in the abortion movement smother babies in the womb. Or, if you’re in Virginia and New York, in the crib.
Similarly, they claim to be doing it ‘for the children,’ a noble cause, but, oddly, don’t support trainedand armed teachers in the classroom in Parkland, Florida. In short, they don’t want good guys to have guns, either.
The group was started by Shannon Watts. I don’t even know her but I guess she knows me.
Oh, heeeeey Shannon.
The group has the ear of Oregon state lawmakers. It opposes the Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. It’s a radical group with values antithetical to the basic American precepts of individual freedom and freedom from governmental tyranny.
But something struck me as I watched the group’s testimony.
What was it?
Pearls? Who wears pearls to adorn a t-shirt?
Moms Demand Action, that’s who.
It’s a ‘thing’:
No, it’s really a thing.
Let’s see, what’s on my list to go testify in Salem today? Ah, yes, bring:
But you can leave the Constitution at home. You won’t be needing that.
Pearl clutching is so much a part of the group’s identity that a New Hampshire women’s pro-gun group handed out their own long strings of pearls to lawmakers to remind them that guns are equalizers and allow women to defend themselves.
And the men in the legislature wore them.
Moms Demand Action’s pearls are meant to wrong-foot their political opponents.
Male lawmaker to himself, ‘How can I publicly disagree with this woman when she looks like my mom when I was a kid? Those … pearls. Peaaaarls?! My grandma had pearls like that. Barbara Bush wore pearls. Hell, Beaver’s mom wore pearls like that.’
Cue June Cleaver:
So, what to do when you want radical change but want to keep it Lo Pro? Put “mom” in the title of your group and encourage your members to wear pearls.
The trick is to look as benign, doe-eyed and disarming as June Cleaver, while disarming America.